2015.02.17 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 2015
5:00 P.M.
NOTE: Live streaming of this meeting will not be available.
5:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.Roll Call
2.(2 Hours)
AM-7480
Interview of applicants for Council Position #2 Vacancy
3.Approval of Agenda
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7492 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2015.
B.AM-7487 Approval of claim check #212837 through #212945 dated February 12, 2015
for $295,349.33.
Approval of payroll check #61501 dated February 6, 2015 for $2,126.51.
C.AM-7481 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Burt Hopkins (amount
undetermined), Jay and Allison Brewer ($2,490.00), and Stacie Trykar
($59.99).
D.AM-7484 Approval of Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka EDBID) Grants Program
E.AM-7486 Authorization for Mayor to Sign Agreement with the YMCA to Operate Yost
Pool for the 2015 Season.
F.AM-7491 Discussion of an ordinance amending the 2015 Budget for Carryforward
F.AM-7491 Discussion of an ordinance amending the 2015 Budget for Carryforward
items previously discussed and approved by Council during the 2014 Budget
Year.
G.AM-7483 Police Uniform Vendor Contract Renewal
H.AM-7493 Authorization to Purchase Freightliner Vactor 2100 CB Vacuum Truck
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as
Public Hearings
6.AM-7489 Public Hearing on Draft Economic Development Element for 2015
Comprehensive Plan Update
(15 Minutes)Break
7.(3 Hours)Continuation of Interviews for Council Position #2 Vacancy
ADJOURN
AM-7480 2.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:2 Hours
Submitted For:Council President Fraley-Monillas Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Interview of applicants for Council Position #2 Vacancy
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Council will interview the following 10 applicants for Council Vacancy Position #6. Interviews will
start at 5:00 p.m. Interview times were picked at random as follows and are scheduled for 30 minutes
each.
Applicant
1. David Preston 5 – 5:30
2. Michael Jay Nelson 5:30 – 6
3. Debbie Matteson 6 to 6:30
4. Jeff Scherrer 6:30 to 7
Full Council Meeting and Break
5. Stephen Clifton 8 to 8:30
6. Neil Tibbott 8:30 to 9
7. Mario Brown 9 to 9:30
8. David Teitzel 9:30 to 10
9. Adam Cornell 10 to 10:30
10. Alvin Rutledge 10:30 to 11
Attached are the interviewees' applications. Please note they are in alphabetical order.
Attachments
Council Position #2 applications
Form Review
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/11/2015 11:15 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/11/2015 11:31 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/11/2015 11:34 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/09/2015 10:09 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2015
AM-7492 4. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - 2-10-2015 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Attachments
02-10-15 Draft Council Meeting minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 02/13/2015 07:15 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/13/2015
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 10, 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
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv./Human
Resources Reporting Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
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 REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW
42.30.140(1)(b)
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Sharon Cates, City
Attorney’s Office, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie
Hite, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie, and City Clerk
Scott Passey. At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that
an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:12
p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:13 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 Mesaros.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1),
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINED.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 1
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
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT 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 FEBRUARY 3, 2015
B. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MIALISA
ANDERSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND FROM JOHN NESMITH ($332.80)
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mike Lantz, Edmonds, asked the Council whether they would like to obtain approximately $2 million in
additional revenue to the City without doing much of anything. He explained in 2008 destination sales tax
went into effect; when an item is delivered, the sales tax is collected by the county/city where the item is
delivered. If a purchaser takes the merchandise with them at the point of sale, the sales tax is collected by
the county/city where the purchase is made. Changing the State’s current tax structure could dramatically
benefit small cities. He suggested the Mayor and Council discuss this with other cities and he offered to
speak to them. He provided written information.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, reported on Seahawks Sunday he waited in line at Dick’s Drive-In for 1 hour
45 minutes along with 412 other people for 12 cent Cokes and $1 deluxe burgers. He reported a Shoreline
City Council meeting included discussion regarding apartments that King County is constructing near
Northgate and wants to add 10,000 more in Shoreline. Shoreline’s City Council will vote on this on
February 23. He recalled the tax proposal described above was previously proposed by former Mayor
Haakenson.
Mary Kay Sneeringer, Edmonds, Owner, Edmonds Book Shop, read into the record a letter from Chris
Fleck, Puget Sound Tax Service, a service business owner in the BID area and a dues-paying member of
the BID. He expressed his appreciation to the Council for authorizing the BID, finding it a very beneficial
endeavor which will do nothing but help businesses, residents and the City as a whole. Through the
efforts of the committee progress is being made; the board members, who are all volunteers, should be
thanked by the Council. Board members have spent numerous number hours doing a great job and
branding is underway. The Christmas trolley was very successful and provided a great deal of exposure.
He concluded things were moving along and he looked forward to what is next.
Ms. Sneeringer said in addition to the tangible benefits that are expected to enrich the downtown business
community, the increased communication, cooperation and collaboration is an intangible, important and
unforeseen benefit that Ed! has fostered. She pointed out parking or a lack of parking is a big issue for
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 2
Ed! members and she requested the City Parking Committee be reestablished which has not met since the
fall when Karen Wiggins, the longtime chair, retired.
Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds, Board Member, Edmonds Downtown BID Advisory Board and
managing principal of HDR Engineering, said HDR has over 30 employees most of whom live and work
in the community. HDR is a by-appointment business and currently pays the highest tier assessment for
that category. The BID assessment is a commitment their office makes; HDR is a huge proponent of the
Edmonds Downtown Alliance for three reasons, 1) Ed! positively impacts the overall community that
HDR has chosen to be a part of, 2) it encourages retention and attracts new and potential employees, and
3) it provides the opportunity for the company to be involved and give back to the community where they
do business. She urged the Council to avoid any change to the Alliance’s fee structure at this time. Based
on her research, BIDs across the state have many different ways of assessing fees and the Edmonds BID
is one such example with nothing inherently wrong or unfair about the system. The time required to
review the structure of the assessment is better spent by City staff and Alliance volunteers laying a
foundation of a successful BID and promoting programs that continue to improve the downtown
community, making it vibrant, inviting, and successful for residents, businesses and visitors.
Andy Cline, Edmonds, Cline Jewelers and President, Merchants Association, said the BID’s fee
structure is fair and the better that retail does, it carries over to the service sector. The more money that is
spent in town, the more stays in town.
Pam Stuller, Edmonds, Walnut Street Coffee, and President, Downtown Edmonds Alliance Members
Advisory Board, recalled when she first heard about the BID she was skeptical about how much her
business would have to pay. She was pleased to see that the fee structure was very affordable and
reasonable. Her business currently pays $420/year; a by-appointment business the same size would pay
$180/year. She got involved with the BID due to her concern that the focus would be the area near the
fountain and her business is on the edge of the boundary. As a board member she has had the opportunity
to hear unhappy, neutral and happy members and often finds the best advice comes from critics. Members
are encouraged to attend board meetings and there has been a good turnout of members and some
community members at meetings. She encouraged Councilmember Bloom, a member of the BID, to
attend, anticipating there was opportunity for constructive dialogue to make the organization a success.
To the comment that the Board can be intimidating to talk to, she anticipated someone would be
comfortable talking to at least 1 of the 11 members. She summarized it was premature to make changes to
the assessment structure. Over time it will be possible to evaluate whether the assessment is fair and
reasonable and members are finding value and benefit. There needs to be time to implement the programs.
Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, Housewares, Board Member, Edmonds Downtown Alliance, spoke in favor
of keeping the rate structure as is. He has been involved since nearly the beginning when existing BIDs
were researched and programs developed. The Board is very conscious of the responsibility to develop a
program that is fair, very affordable and has value for all businesses in the BID. Volunteer board
members spend many hours using the current rate structure as guide when garnering support for the initial
formation of the BID. Any proposal to change the rates should come from the membership and be
presented to the Council as this is a member -drive group. Changing the existing structure before any of
the benefits have been fully established could undermine the effectiveness of the BID.
Sally Merck, Edmonds, Board Member, Edmonds Downtown BID, explained the original 11 member
group that Mayor Earling formed included 3 members who were dissenting including herself. She was
critical of the original assessment and uncertain how it had been determined. As the BID has progressed
over the past 1½ years, she recognized the professionalism of the board and has been impressed with the
vetting structure and the thorough research of BIDS inside and outside Washington by Stephen Clifton
and Patrick Doherty and many of the board members. She was in favor of keeping the fee structure as it
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 3
currently exists. She anticipated board members would be open to evaluating the fee structure in the
future but it was not appropriate at this point when the BID has not gotten its momentum going.
Dave Page, Edmonds, said if his business was operating, he would join the BID, noting benefits accrue
over time. With regard to naming of Fire Station #16 after Betty Mueller, he thanked Councilmember
Bloom, Jim Stevens and others who helped move this process forward. He recalled several memories
about Betty Mueller, summarizing she was a very strong woman. He recalled in the old police station
female officers had to change behind the men’s lockers, the building was very dilapidated, could not pass
code inspections and firefighters were living in poor conditions. When the Council first voted against a
new building, Ms. Mueller assured the effort was just getting started. He also thanked Paul Mar for his
efforts including leading tours. He concluded Ms. Mueller had an iron will, she wasn’t warm and fuzzy
but she was a good friend who got things done.
Paul Rucker, Edmonds, Owner, Saetia Women’s Clothing, and Board Member, Edmonds BID Board,
echoed the comments regarding maintaining the current rate structure based on the research and diligence
put into its construction. He commented on the spirit of collaboration and member engagement with the
BID Board related to rates, fees, and communication with members. He pointed out there is a 9 month
grace period with repeated check-ins for members. The City has been very cooperative, under Scott
James’ leadership, to develop a payment plan and charge minimal delinquency rates. For a membership
organization in its early stages, the spirit of collaboration and member engagement is a hallmark. He
summarized an assessment is a responsibility, and the Board is obligated to use the resources to the
greatest possible benefit for the community.
Rich Demeroutis, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Page’s comments. He had the pleasure of knowing Betty
Mueller for 20 years and recalled fond memories of her including her taking in a foster child and a
neighbor child along with her own 4 children. When the City hired Police Chief Miller, he stayed at her
house for free for several months and Officer Kenny and his wife also stayed at her house for a time. She
was that type of person. Firefighters and police officers often come to see her and sought career and
family advice. She was a mentor to candidates running for office, a tireless doorbeller, she formed many
committees, and supported numerous initiatives. She had amazing vitality and naming Fire Station 16
after Ms. Mueller would be a fine tribute to her and her family.
6. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BID ASSESSMENT RATE STRUCTURE DISCUSSION
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty provided the history of the
EDBID assessment rate structure:
• During the years before Council approval on January 15, 2013 much research was conducted
o Statewide BIDs were reviewed
o Legal provisions were analyzed
• BID assessment rate structures statewide vary greatly
o Sales, business income, floor area, parcel are, property value, parking spaces, hotel rooms,
flat fees, etc.
• BID proponents also discussed/researched potential programs and activities and corresponding
estimated budget
• $80-90,000 was deemed appropriate per consultant advice and comparison with other BIDs in
similar communities
• Simplicity in administration and understandability were key considerations in establishing a rate
structure
• The following conclusions were reach by BID proponents:
o Rates should be structured in two tiers; open door and by-appointment
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 4
o Square footage basis, especially in ranges, would be directly related to business activity and
easier to administer
o Assess businesses only – not property owners, who may or may not be active members of the
downtown business community and would likely pass along assessments anyway.
o Hold rates to minimum necessary to achieve reasonable budget. Rates were compared and
seen to be in lower range
o The fee for each square footage ranges (in both tiers) would be only $5/month higher to keep
relative assessments low
o Open door business range from $360/year to $600/year
o By-appointment businesses range from $120/year to $360/year
o Provisions were added to exempt initial year of new businesses
Mr. Doherty explained City Attorney Taraday produced a detailed memo that is included in the packet.
He provided a brief summary of salient points:
• Relevant case law derives from Rogers Clothing. Inc. v. City of Seattle
o Court upheld Seattle BID assessment rate structure stating that the City Council had
appropriately determined the relative levels of benefits to accrue to different businesses types
and had fixed the corresponding assessment rates. It is solely within their purview to exercise
this judgment.
o While different kinds of business should be recognized and rates set in response, no specific
guidance is given to inform or direct this judgment. It is up to the City Council to determine
after a reasonable public process.
o Courts give substantial deference to this authority and process
• Recent Los Angeles County Superior Court case regarding the LA Downtown Arts District BID
was raised by a concerned citizen
o Given that California and Washington enabling statues and criteria are entirely different, and
o Los Angeles County Superior Court decisions are not precedential to Washington matters
o This case is not relevant or applicable to the EDBID or Washington
• In summary given that the City Council identified a distinction in potential benefits between open
door and by-appointment businesses and formulated the assessment rate structure
correspondingly, these City Council actions comport with both State statutory and the relevant
case law
Mr. Doherty discussed benefits:
• Creation of two tiers of businesses and rates (open door and by-appointment) recognizes variable
levels of benefit: direct and indirect
• While retail establishments may experience more direct benefits resulting from promotion,
events, street-amenities and enhancements, by-appointment businesses also receive substantial
indirect benefits
• Downtown Edmonds offers three key elements that draw and support all business
o Attractions
o Amenities
o Ambience
• Walkable environment, ready access to goods and services, eating/drinking establishment, charm
and historic character and proximity to the waterfront provide amenities to employees and visitors
of all businesses, retail or otherwise.
• Recent NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association study determined that office-
based employers prefer amenity-rich “live, work play” locations over single use office parks by a
margin of 835 to 17%, quoting:
o “…any company wanting to attract and retain young, educated workers who prefer to live,
work, play locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed use, walkable place…”
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 5
o Downtown Edmonds provides precisely this type of environment
• In fact – and likely as a result – Downtown Edmonds office rates are higher than nearby locations
(such as in Highway 99 corridor) that lack the walkable, amenity-rich environment
• Survey of current available nonmedical office space in both locations – downtown Edmonds 20%
higher
• This suggests office tenants choose to pay the premium for downtown Edmonds in exchange for
the “compact, mixed use, walkable place” cited in the NAIOP study
• Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that maintaining, promotion and/or enhancing
downtown Edmonds attractions, amenities and ambience will result in both direct and indirect
benefits to all businesses that rely or are support by shoppers, diners, culture-goers, office
workers or visitors.
• The Edmonds Downtown BID was expressly established to achieve these objectives
After a thorough analysis, the following conclusions can be made:
• The 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 legal manner
• Rate difference between tiers is not substantial, with a significantly lower rate for by-appointment
businesses
• Rates are relatively low compared with other BIDs and the increment between ranges is only
$5/month
• EDBID was created only two years ago
• Implementation of a full range of programs and activities has only just recently been felt and is
ramping up, per Council-approved 2015 Work Plan
• Mayor and staff believe that the EDBID assessment rate structure is fair and reasonable
• At this early point in EDBID’s existence, it would not be prudent to dismantle the rate structure
and attempt to formulate a different rate structure format
Councilmember Petso accepted Mr. Fleck’s suggestion and thanked everyone who has commit their time,
energy and resources to the efforts of the EDBID. She had anticipated there would be a requirement that
the revenues of the EDBID match expenditures of BID and asked whether that was part of determining
whether the rate structure was fair. For example, if most of the money collected during the year was from
by-appointment businesses but most of the expenditures were for advertising directed primarily toward
retail businesses. Mr. Doherty responded there is not a bright line between who benefits by any particular
action. For example, it could be said advertising for holiday shopping or summer activities sounds
directly beneficial only to retail. In fact, the strength of the retail community is part of the overall amenity
of being part of downtown and why a business owner may choose to locate, stay or grow in downtown
Edmonds. The premise that spending money on something that sounds overly beneficial to retail and does
not benefit other businesses is not well founded because benefits flows to all businesses. This issue was
raised in the case law.
Mr. Taraday explained the way the statute has been interpreted by the Rogers Clothing case, the only case
that interprets the statute, does not to appear to require the precision that Councilmember Petso is asking
about. The court has basically said there is substantial legislative discretion given to determine what the
benefits should be. On an annual basis, the City Council exercises that discretion via approval of BID’s
Work Program. If the Council feels there is an imbalance, it is within the City Council’s discretion to
make an adjustment. The court would not use the statute or existing case law to overturn the EDBID’s
current system even if it could be proved there was a slight disparity between how the benefits are
characterized for a by-appointment or open door business. He summarized that would be extremely
difficult to prove and the business owner challenging it would have the burden of proof. Rather than a
legal determination, the courts are telling City Councils to use their best judgment to determine if it is
being done right.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 6
Mr. Doherty added the fact that there may be variable levels of benefit is recognized in the rate structure;
rates for by-appointment businesses are approximately half of open door businesses. Mr. Taraday pointed
out in the Rogers Clothing case, the court referenced benefit versus opportunity to benefit. The Rogers
Clothing plaintiffs criticized the trial court for using the phrase “opportunity to benefit,” but the Court of
Appeals did not take issue with that phrase and said a business cannot avoid an assessment simply
because the owner has seen fit to devote the property to a use which presently may not be specifically
benefited. That language suggests a significant hands-off attitude by the courts with respect to whether
only open door or retail establishments receive a benefit.
Councilmember Buckshnis complimented staff on the packet, stating it was very well done and Mr.
Taraday for his memo. She said her questions have been answered and she has no issues.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Mr. Doherty and all the members of the EDBID Board who spoke
tonight. She also gave a long-standing thank you to Karen Wiggins who chaired the Parking Committee
for many years. She agreed to discuss BID rate structure after Councilmember Petso raised some legal
concerns and she staff has responds to those to her satisfaction. There were also concerns raise by Mr.
Malgarin who represents a faction of the community that is not satisfied; however, the majority of people
are satisfied with the existing BID rate structure. She spoke in support of the current rate structure and
suggested the Council take a hands-off attitude until there is time to reassess the basis for the rate
structure or any problems arise that need to be addressed.
No further action was taken with regard to this item.
7. DISCUSSION OF 2015 YOST POOL OPERATIONS
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite recalled the City partnered with the YMCA as
a pilot program. The program was very successful, there was good participation, good revenues, positive
feedback from the community and the City did not receive any complaints over summer except one
regarding the City’s own staff. The Y hired lifeguards and swim instructor staff; the City provided
cashiers and maintenance staff. The City also programmed the pool, received all revenues, did registration
and offered the 3rd grade swim lesson program with the Y. Following a thorough analysis and debrief with
the Y, the Y expressed interest in operating the full pool and in exchange essentially give the City a lease
rate on the pool.
The proposal before the Council is a concession agreement for the Y to provide operations of Yost Pool
for the summer and in exchange the Y will pay the City $40,000. She advised the payment started at a
lower amount but was negotiated to ensure it would be of interest to the City and citizens. She referred to
a spreadsheet of revenues and expenditures 2010-2014 and projected revenues and expenditures for 2015
with the City operating the pool and with the Y operating the pool. If the City hired staff and operated and
programmed the pool, the estimated net result would be a $21,641 loss. If the City enters into an
agreement with the Y with the same revenues and expenditures, the net result will be positive cash flow
of approximately $12,000, a net difference in the bottom line of $32,000. She concluded the Y operating
the pool it is a good financial arrangement as well as a good operational arrangement. Staff was very
impressed with the customer service, swim instruction, and lifeguarding provided by the Y and the
relationship and service have been very positive.
Courtney Whitaker, Branch Executive, Dale Turner Family YMCA, said they were thrilled with the
outcome of the pilot program. The Y was hopeful about expanding services into the Edmonds community
and to ensure quality swim lessons would also benefit Edmonds residents. There were no safety or serious
complaints during the summer, they were able to accommodate a later closing date following a later start
date due to mechanical issues, and the Yost Penguin Swim Team members joined the Orca Swim Team
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 7
which allows them to swim year round. She recalled concern that the Y would not hire Edmonds residents
as staff; the Y retained five staff members who are Edmonds residents in a year round capacity versus
their only having seasonal employment. The City Council’s confidence, the communication and support
from the community and the partnership has been phenomenal and is unprecedented in a partnership with
the Y. Efficiencies with the Y operating the pool in its entirety include staffing, chemicals, maintenance
staff etc. They do not plan to make large changes to programing other than possibly adding or expanding
some offerings. Pricing will remain at the same level rate increase the City may have considered. They
will keep benefits for residents the same as Y members.
Ms. Hite reminded that effective operations of Yost Pool and the emphasis on partnerships are in the
Strategic Plan, Item 3A6, as well as in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. This proposal is very
consistent with the City’s goals.
Mayor Earling advised last year’s agreement was for one year; the proposed agreement is also for one
year. Ms. Hite agreed. The agreement in the Council packet will be revised to add sections regarding
insurance consistent with WCIA, adding a hold harmless section and termination language which were
inadvertently omitted. A redline version of the agreement will be provide for next week’s Consent
Agenda.
Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled several years ago the community faced the potential closing of
Yost Pool due to funding issues. To go from there to operating in this capacity is terrific. Yost Pool is a
benefit to citizens, particularly as it provides children something to do.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Verdant’s Teach Your Kid to Swim for Free Program would
continue. Ms. Hite said it will. Councilmember Buckshnis asked without a hold harmless agreement, what
happens if something happens. Ms. Hite answered the agreement in next week’s packet will include a
hold harmless agreement. She offered to email Councilmembers the agreement tomorrow.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the proposal, commenting she was a Y member for
many years.
Councilmember Johnson said she loves Yost Pool and it is sort of in her neighborhood. She recalled last
year the Pool Manager left mid-season and City staff filled in. Ms. Hite clarified that was in 2013.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda.
8. NAMING OF FIRE STATION #16
Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled early last year the City received a request from citizens to
name Fire Station #16 after Betty Mueller. This is an opportunity for the Council to discuss and schedule
it on next week’s Consent Agenda. Further information is provided in the Council packet including
reasons for naming the fire station after Ms. Mueller. When the request was received, it was realized the
City did not have a policy to name the first statement. A policy was subsequently developed and adopted
by the Council last year. The request follows the directions in the policy.
He reviewed three option should the Council decide to pursue naming Fire Station #16; the costs will be
raised privately:
1. Change the existing monument sign ($1000)
2. Place lettering on the side of the building ($1800 - $2750)
3. Replace, append or modify the current brass plaque on the building ($1000 - $3000)
Council President Fraley-Monillas said there is no question the Council wants to proceed; most
Councilmembers worked with Ms. Mueller throughout the years. She asked how the option would be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 8
selected, whether it would be based on the amount of money raised. Mr. Williams suggested unless the
Council has a strong preference, give staff the latitude to work with the sponsors, see how their
fundraising goes, and find an option that is affordable and follows the policy.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for this proposal. She thanked Councilmember Bloom and
Mr. Page for spearheading this. She liked the plaque with Hazel Miller’s picture at the Hazel Miller Plaza.
She also wanted to keep the original plaque in place. Mr. Williams clarified it would not be removed but
another plaque added or a new plaque could be fabricated that includes the existing and new information.
Councilmember Petso observed the naming policy states the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
will provide a recommendation. As committees have been abolished, she suggested the policy be updated.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next available Council agenda for public
comment. Staff will work with the citizen committee to identify an appropriate recognition.
9. DISCUSSION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 BUDGET FOR CARRYFORWARD
ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL DURING THE 2014
BUDGET YEAR
Finance Director Scott James recalled last week he stated the amount was $194,000; the difference
between last week’s presentation and this is a transfer from the General Fund of $120,000 to the Street
Construction Fund 112 which expends the money on street projects. There was $904,000 in the 2014
budget of which staff did not spend $194,000. When the 2015 budget was adopted, $260,000 for projects
was not approved. To keep street funding at a sufficient level to meet Public Works projects, the request
is for $194,000.
Public Works Director Phil Williams clarified staff tried to spend the entire amount, there were numerous
projects, a mixture of overlays and chip seal. Snohomish County estimated the construction costs of
paving; the invoice for the work was lower than expected. In addition County crews were unable to
complete the ramps on 100th and will be completing those in January/February 2015, a cost of
approximately $100,000. The remainder is savings due to Snohomish County’s pricing. It is important to
carry those funds forward into 2015. The 2014 budget included $1.2 million for pavement preservation.
When that budget was developed in August/September 2013, the intent was to carry $260,000 of the $1.2
million into 2015 to serve as a match for the federal grant on 220th. That is still the intent. The plan was
for $260,000 to come from REET 1 which the Council ultimately decided not to include in the 2015
budget which is why the number is only $940,000. The action will carry over funds into 2015 funds that
were approved in 2014 but were not spent.
Councilmember Petso asked why $120,000 was proposed to come from the General Fund. Mr. Williams
answered for the amount approved in 2014, there was a percentage split between the General Fund, REET
1 and REET 2. The same percentage was applied to the amount being carried over.
Councilmember Petso recalled the adopted 2015 budget already had a $1.7 million in deficit in the
General Fund. Last week the Council approved another $100,000 of carryover. Now this request is being
made for another $100,000 from the General Fund. Mr. Williams clarified it was $120,000 from the
General Fund, $62,000 from REET 2 and $12,000 from REET 1.
If the Council did not approve this carryforward, Councilmember Petso asked whether the project would
need to be completed from the $2.3 million approved for 2015 road work. Mr. Williams explained there is
some pavement being done in Edmonds paid for by utilities, patching the streets they damaged last year.
Councilmember Petso referred to the annual street preservation program of $1.3 million and over $1
million for 220th. Mr. Williams clarified 220th is a federal grant funded project; only a match is required
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 9
for that project. If the Council did not approve this carryforward amendment, Councilmember Petso asked
whether use of the 2015 $1.3 million annual street preservation would be required to complete the paving
and ramps on 100th. Mr. Williams agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for staff’s recommendation. She supported continuing to
pave streets, noting it is embarrassing to drive around and look at the patchwork.
Mr. James reminded Mayor Earling’s budget message pointed out the City’s streets had been ignored for
a number of years. Paving streets is beneficial for citizens, raising property taxes as well as the City’s
bond rating. When the City’s bond rating is considered, the unpaved streets are a liability. He spoke in
favor of maintaining what the City has; the streets are an asset.
Mayor Earling said his only disappointment in the 2015 budget was when $260,000 was pulled out of that
fund and put into the General Fund. He spoke in favor of bringing that money back so more paving can be
accomplished. Mr. Williams assured every effort is being made to be cost effective. Chip seal was used in
some locations where a lower cost approach could be used to preserve pavement. Staff was in Kirkland
this morning looking at their slurry seal program, another cost effective technique for some streets. Many
cities have roads that need repair; it is the cities’ problem to solve as the State is not interested in solving
that. Cities will need to use existing revenues or implement a local revenue source to augment the paving
program. Taking money away from the paving program is moving in the wrong direction.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Petso advised she may pull this from the Consent Agenda.
10. DISCUSSION ON DRAFT UTILITIES ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council held a public hearing on the draft
Utilities Element at the February 3 meeting. The Utilities Element is one of the few elements proposed to
be lengthened rather than shorten. The existing Utilities Element is very short because there are other
ways of addressing some of the utilities. She is proposing with this update to provide more description
and recognize and specifically refer to functional plans that have been adopted such as the Water, Sewer
and Stormwater Plans. There is more description proposed in the Utilities Element regarding solid waste
as the City works with Snohomish County and others on solid waste so there is not a separately adopted
City plan.
The draft Utilities Element in the packet contains revisions to reflect the February 3 discussion,
specifically Solid Goals C.1 and D.3 as well as a few other cleanups in the narrative and policies to be
more consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.
Mr. Williams advised additional details were added regarding rate adjustments such as the year when the
3-year package of rate adjustments was approved by Council and when the rates adjustments will occur.
Councilmember Johnson referred to Solid Waste Goal D, Investigate policies and activities that will lead
to development of a Zero Waste Strategy. She was interested in developing a Zero Waste Strategy for the
City and hoped to bring something forward by the time the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Mayor
Earling suggested the quicker staff finds out about that, the happier they will be.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Utilities Element reads very well.
Mayor Earling advised no action was required. The Utilities Element will be included in the
Comprehensive Plan review/adoption.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 10
11. POLICE UNIFORM VENDOR CONTRACT RENEWAL
Assistant Police of Chief Jim Lawless advised this is primarily a housekeeping issue. The packet includes
three uniform and equipment contracts and corresponding pricing; the proposal is to maintain contracts
with Blumenthal and Kroesen and add a third vendor, Bratwear. The goal of three vendors is to have
several options for pricing and availability. He recalled a situation where a new hire started at the
academy earlier than anticipated and the difficulty staff had obtaining a uniform and equipment quickly.
All three contracts have been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and approved as to form. There are
no concerns with pricing; staff tries to find the best deal at the time.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
12. PRESENTATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR
THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English explained this 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 SR 99 to restrict left
turns and improve safety. The bid for this project will be tied to the SR 99 Illumination Phase 3 project,
new lighting between 220th and 212th Street. Combining the bids is done in an effort to get a more cost
effective bid for both projects.
This Interlocal Agreement (ILA) covers work on 228th St/Lakeview Drive in the City of Mountlake
Terrace. Initial discussion with Mountlake Terrace about project recognized there will be additional
traffic volumes on 228th and Lakeview Drive because the new roadway will provide a connection to I-5,
the Park & Ride and the future freeway station. When the City applied for the federal grant, it included 2-
inch overlay of a section of 228th and Lakeview Dive within Mountlake Terrace. He identified the portion
to be overlaid on a map. During final design and material estimation, Mountlake Terrace determined they
wanted to reconstruct the road instead of an overlay due to sub-base problems and the condition of the
existing pavement surface. The City and Mountlake Terrace agreed to make that design change and any
costs associated with the additional work would be paid by Mountlake Terrace.
Mountlake Terrace also requested the addition of a 2-inch conduit within that stretch of the project and
connection to the City’s traffic signal at 76th and 228th which will also allow connection of Mountlake
Terrace’s new signal further east on Lakeview Drive to Edmonds ITS that is shared with Lynnwood.
Mr. English reviewed Exhibit A, Preliminary Summary of Construction Costs, identifying the description,
design fees, opinion of construction costs, construction management costs (12%), Total, Edmonds share,
% share, Mountlake Terrace and % share.
Mr. English advised there was one term staff and Mountlake Terrace was continuing to discuss that was
not reflected in the ILA regarding who has the ability to terminate the contract at the time of bid. The ILA
currently states 20% over bid items within their schedule of work; that will be changed to 20% of overall
bid schedule. This change will be reflected in the final draft. Both City Attorneys have reviewed the
initial draft ILA.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the 13.5% match was determined. Mr. English answered that is the
standard federal match.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 11
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for moving this forward, relaying she recently
saw an accident in this location. This will be a good safety feature for the neighborhoods on the Highway
99 corridor.
Mayor Earling observed staff’s recommendation was to schedule this for the February 24 study session.
Mr. Williams advised the intent is get this done quickly but Mountlake Terrace has had some scheduling
issues. Mr. English said Mountlake Terrace City Council is scheduled to review the ILA on February 26
and take action on March 3. Mayor Earling suggested scheduling it on March 3 for discussion and
possible action. Mr. Williams said the Council has the option of approving the ILA and hope the
Mountlake Terrace Council approves it without any revisions. Three has not been indication that
Mountlake Terrace has issue with the ILA other than they want an out if the bids come in really high.
Councilmember Petso understood staff wants to get this through quickly. She suggested scheduling it on
the Consent Agenda unless there were major changes. That was agreeable to the remainder of the
Council.
13. PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT
City Engineer Rob English highlighted the following projects:
• City Park Spray Park
o Anticipate project will be bid late February/early March.
o Present construction bids to Council in March for possible award
• 15th Street walkway project
o Sidewalk and stormwater improvements have been constructed, still some stripping to do
o Have received several positive comments about walkway
• 3rd Avenue ADA curb ramp upgrades,
o Will be completed in 1-2 weeks.
• Plan to have a public meeting on the 236th Street and 238th Street walkway in early March/late
February
o Follow up to meetings last year
o 30% design and opportunity for public to comment on designs
• Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
o Plan to issue a press release this week seeking comment from the public on residential traffic
calming requests that will be processed according to the policy
Councilmember Bloom thanked staff for posting the traffic calming program on the City’s website. She
asked staff to describe how to reach the information about the traffic calming program on the City’s
website. Mr. Williams answered there the press release and postings on the City’s website and Facebook
page all contain a link to the 2009 Transportation Plan which includes the petition. A petition with 8
citizen signatures is required by March 13. After that date, staff will review the petitions, screen to
determine which qualify under the program, rank the projects that qualify and place them on the list with
existing projects.
Councilmember Bloom recalled on the City’s website, she clicked on Public Works, Transportation and
then the traffic calming program where all the information was available including a description of the
program and the two forms (neighborhood and individual citizen). She asked whether the press release
will contain a link to that information. Mr. Williams answered the press release had a link to the 2009
Plan which included the form. Councilmember Bloom said clicking on Transportation on the City’s home
page goes to the new website, VisitEdmonds.com. Mr. Williams offered to check the links, explaining the
City’s website is transitioning from the old webpage to the new website this week. Staff is in the process
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 12
of updating the data on the City’s website and there may be some broken links. Councilmember Bloom
asked whether the press release would be on the City’s homepage. Mr. Williams assumed it would be.
Councilmember Johnson advised she has participated in the technical advisory committee (TAC) for the
SR 104 study. She asked staff to summarize that work and to highlight the February 25 meeting that is
intended to gather community input. Mr. English advised that study started in October. A TAC was
established with representatives from Community Transit, WSDOT, the Planning Board, and
Councilmember Johnson. The TAC is reviewing the work the consultant is doing and providing input.
One of the focuses of the study is Westgate and how SR 104 interfaces with Westgate including growth
on the corridor, interface with potential development, accident history, and an initial evaluation of zones
on SR 104. The SR 104 study will be a component of the February 25 public meeting regarding the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Williams said staff plans to schedule discussion regarding Westgate with the Council. One of the key
points is transportation. Staff will return with definitive conclusions from the consultant, staff and
committee about what is necessary regarding setbacks, intersection space, etc. now and into the future that
will allow Council to perhaps move forward with the Westgate proposal.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Retrofit Study, recalling
there were some issues Ecology was going to address issues and that a final report would be prepared. Mr.
Williams agreed the study being done by Tetra Tech is reaching an end. The Council received a report
from Rick Schaefer during the last couple months. The report contains recommended actions; it will be up
to the Council to select a course of action with regard to what projects to pursue to allow more infiltration
to occur in a number of locations to take the load off Perrinville Creek and hopefully be successful
enough to move forward with the culvert project under Talbot Road. The final report will be available at
the end of February.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Willow Creek project which states estimated completion is
early 3rd quarter 2015. She asked whether that was just the Marina Beach master planning. Mr. Williams
answered that was the feasibility study of Marina Beach.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about Sunset Avenue, the pedestrian walkway and signage for
bicycles. Mr. Williams explained the trial project began in August; the intent was to paint pedestrian and
bicycle symbols on the pathway. Due to delays in receipt of the bicycle stencil, they were not painted
before the weather changed. The bicycle stencils finally arrived and weather permitting the smaller
bicycle stencils will be painted on the pathway as well as a signs installed. Also important is to establish
an expectation of a 10 mph speed limit on the pathway for all modes of travel.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the pathway really cannot be evaluated until all the functionality
is in place. Mr. Williams commented bicycles are allowed on the pathway and they have been using it.
The stencils will make it clear and the speed limit is important; the goal is to have that done before the
summer season begins.
Councilmember Bloom referred to SW Edmonds #4 106/105 with a cost of $85,000 and LID retrofit of
$70,000. Mr. English answered that is a stormwater infiltration improvement project for 106th and 105th
Streets in southwest Edmonds. Councilmember Bloom did not remember seeing that project before. Mr.
English answered it from the 2010 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Bloom inquired
about nature of the LID. Mr. Williams answered the street has highs and lows and the soils are not
receptive which result in puddles. The plan is to install onsite infiltration basins in the low spots that can
take the water.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 13
Councilmember Bloom referred to the Coating Project at the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Williams
answered wastewater is very corrosive to concrete and several areas of the plant need to be coated and
treated.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there were any major changes in the sanitary sewer replacement
schedule. She recalled work being done at the corner of Daley and 6th was halted. Mr. Williams answered
a great deal of the scope in this year’s sanitary sewer plan could not be completed because soil conditions
suggested approaches that would exceed the budget. That project will be closed out and staff will return
next year with another proposal.
14. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FREIGHTLINER VACTOR 2100 CB VACUUM TRUCK
Mr. Williams advised the City has two vactors; one is owned by the Water Fund and the other by the
Storm Fund. The proposal is to replace a 1996 vactor. The only vendor in the northwest that sells vactor
equipment is Owen Equipment. It is essentially a sole source but the City received certification from
Owen that they have not and will not sell the vactor truck at a lower price. The vactor truck will be
purchased through the State’s contract which includes a competitive bidding element. The total purchase
price for a single engine vactor is $450,000. He anticipated the auction of the retired vactor will generate
approximately $50,000 - $75,000 which will be deposited into the vehicle replacement B-Fund.
Councilmember Johnson observed this is a large expense but in talking with Finance Director Scott
James, she learned it is part of B fund and approximately $29,000/year has been contributed for its
purchase, essentially prepaying for this equipment.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the City needs three vactor trucks. Mr. Williams answered the City
has two, this purchase will replace the oldest one of them.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling noted the Council has a very ambitious agenda next week. He will be present for the
business portion of the agenda at 7:00 p.m. but not for the interviews. He reminded of the State of the
City presentation on Thursday, February 12 at 8:30 a.m. at the Edmonds Theater. There will be two guest
presenters, Diana White, President of the Edmonds School Board; and Rick Steves, a prominent business
owner.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Bloom commented she was recently part of a flurry of emails that were not about a
legislative issue, which is Council’s responsibility, but an administrative issue which is the Mayor’s
responsibility. Council legislates; the Mayor is responsible for enforcement of all codes and ordinances.
The issue discussed in the emails was the posting of agendas and minutes by boards and commissions, a
requirement of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). All future issues related to enforcement of the
OPMA as well as the enforcement of all Edmonds City codes and ordinances should be directed to the
executive branch of the City’s government, Mayor Earling.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the ten applicants who applied for the Council vacancy and wished
them all good luck.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 14
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council was interested in training at a study session
regarding IT website development and Facebook. Councilmember Buckshnis said yes, if it was good for
the public. Councilmember Petso offered to get back to Council President Fraley-Monillas.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the Parking Committee disbanded over a year ago for two
reasons, 1) the chair stepped down after a number of years, and 2) she (Council President Fraley-
Monillas) also stepped down after being on the committee for the past four years. The committee stopped
meeting but was not actually disbanded. She asked whether Councilmembers were interested in recreating
the Parking Committee and if so, she needed a Council volunteer.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the City of Shoreline’s City Council met until after midnight
last night. She reported Committee Reports will be added to the agenda on the last Tuesday of the month
and will include reports on inside and outside committees.
17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
19. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 15
AM-7487 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim check #212837 through #212945 dated February 12, 2015 for $295,349.33.
Approval of payroll check #61501 dated February 6, 2015 for $2,126.51.
Recommendation
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:297,475.84
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $295,349.33
Payroll $2,126.51
Attachments
Claim cks 02-12-15
Project Numbers 02-12-15
Payroll Summary 02-06-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 02/12/2015 03:54 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/13/2015 07:12 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/13/2015 08:26 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/13/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/12/2015 11:19 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/13/2015
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212837 2/10/2015 075158 PHYSICIANS & DENTISTS CREDIT No. C14-2943 NO. C14-2943
Replacement for Greenmun Garnishment
811.000.111.100 776.72
Total :776.72
212838 2/12/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 344662 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.12
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 1-1344725
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 114.98
Total :197.10
212839 2/12/2015 072189 ACCESS 0884616 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS
Storage of Documents 02/01/15-02/28/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00
INV#0884726 CUST#STC61515 - EDMONDS PD0884726
SHRED 3 TOTES 1/8/2015
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 120.00
ADMINISTRATION CHARGE
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 10.00
Total :215.00
212840 2/12/2015 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 42263678 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING
Temporary help week ending 1/30/15 - C
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,307.22
Total :1,307.22
212841 2/12/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 020515061 WWTP - DRINKING WATER
cooler rental
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 16.00
water
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 23.80
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 1.52
1Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :41.322128412/12/2015 065568 065568 ALLWATER INC
212842 2/12/2015 074840 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 76256 Water - Seaview Vault - Arborist Tree
Water - Seaview Vault - Arborist Tree
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 250.00
Water - 18510 90th Ave W Arborist Tree76257
Water - 18510 90th Ave W Arborist Tree
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 500.00
Total :750.00
212843 2/12/2015 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 19525 FLOWER POLE PLAQUES EIB
FLOWER POLE PLAQUES EIB
127.200.64.573.20.41.00 249.33
9.5% Sales Tax
127.200.64.573.20.41.00 23.69
FIR TREE PLATES FOR LARGE MEMORIAL PLAQU19583
FIR TREE PLATES FOR LARGE MEMORIAL
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 126.63
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 12.03
Total :411.68
212844 2/12/2015 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046PB Water Watch Pager
Water Watch Pager
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.46
Total :4.46
212845 2/12/2015 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-1514 APA/AICP MEMBERSHIP / CLUGSTON
APA/AICP MEMBERSHIP / CLUGSTON
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 483.00
Total :483.00
212846 2/12/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987802050 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
2Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987802051
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987809230
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987813496
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987813497
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987813498
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987820616
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987824872
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
4Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987824873
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987824874
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
5Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987831970
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987836209
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
6Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987836210
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987836211
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987843230
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987847504
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
7Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987847505
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987847506
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 25.96
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.47
9.5% Sales Tax
8Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212846 2/12/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72
WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1987854718
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 70.94
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.74
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987854719
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02
Total :433.51
212847 2/12/2015 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S 071535 Alerton System - 2/1-4/30/15 Agreement
Alerton System - 2/1-4/30/15 Agreement
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,550.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 242.25
Total :2,792.25
212848 2/12/2015 065950 ATS ELECTRO-LUBE INTL INC 88349 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING
panasonic battery packs
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 840.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 36.55
Total :876.55
212849 2/12/2015 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 36244 ROUGH BOX - STORM
ROUGH BOX - STORM
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 430.00
ROUGH BOX RIDDELL36381
ROUGH BOX RIDDELL
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 430.00
9Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212849 2/12/2015 (Continued)001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
ROUGH BOX - KEENE36526
ROUGH BOX - KEENE
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 430.00
Total :1,290.00
212850 2/12/2015 075156 BAGGS, JANET 2/6 REFUND MEDICAL 2/6 REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL
2/6 REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL
001.000.239.200 64.64
Total :64.64
212851 2/12/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 14097 INV#14097 - EDMONDS PD - MACK
JUMPSUIT
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 515.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 48.93
Total :563.93
212852 2/12/2015 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 19523 HATHA YOGA 19523 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE
19523 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 325.08
19529 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19529 HATHA YOGA
19529 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 459.00
19532 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19532 HATHA YOGA
19532 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 383.40
Total :1,167.48
212853 2/12/2015 064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DIST CO 633248 WWTP - CALCIUM NITRATE SOLUTION
calcium nitrate
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,225.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 116.38
Total :1,341.38
212854 2/12/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC SF80933 BARRACUDA MESSAGE ARCH 450 W/3 YR EU
10Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212854 2/12/2015 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Barracuda Message Arch 450 w/3 yr EU
001.000.31.594.18.64.10 13,495.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.594.18.64.10 1,282.03
BARRACUDA SPAM VIRUS FW 300 W/3YR EUSF97208
Barracuda Spam Virus FW 300 w/3 yr EU
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 4,350.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 413.25
Total :19,540.28
212855 2/12/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN01151000 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS
HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.16
WWTP - SUPPLIES, GASESRN01151001
oxygen, nitrogen & carbon monoxide
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 70.75
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 6.72
Total :90.88
212856 2/12/2015 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 147.60
Total :147.60
212857 2/12/2015 069947 CITRIX ONLINE LLC 1205604588 GOTOMYPC CORPORATE SERVICE
GoToMyPC Corporate Service - Qty 22
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 2,904.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 275.88
Total :3,179.88
11Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212858 2/12/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD M&O MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00
Total :27,602.00
212859 2/12/2015 070300 CODE 4 INC 12680 INV 12680 VERBAL EXCELLENCE - DIEHL
VERBAL EXCELLENCE 3-19-15 - SHARON DIEHL
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 99.00
Total :99.00
212860 2/12/2015 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW
CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW
130.000.64.536.20.42.00 125.78
Total :125.78
212861 2/12/2015 072848 COPIERS NW INV1158516 INV#1158516 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD
IRC5045 LEASE 1/5-2/4/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54
INV#1158517 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1158517
B/W METER CHARGE IRC5045
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 72.01
COLOR METER CHARGE IRC5045
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 129.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 19.14
Total :468.95
212862 2/12/2015 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 171637 PS - Elevator Cert Renewal
PS - Elevator Cert Renewal
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00
Total :129.00
212863 2/12/2015 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2015010055 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for January 2015
12Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212863 2/12/2015 (Continued)047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00
Total :940.00
212864 2/12/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3523 INV#15-3523 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #15-0004
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 102.30
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #15-0245
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 36.30
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-5058
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 267.30
Total :405.90
212865 2/12/2015 075153 DOPPS, MARIA 1374 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 110.35
INTERPRETER FEE1504
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 110.35
INTERPRETER FEE1505
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 110.35
Total :331.05
212866 2/12/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 44487 PM KWIK CONNECT BL
PM KWIK CONNECT BL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.07
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL44596
#77 sensor safe
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 15.18
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1.44
Total :28.93
13Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212867 2/12/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000117 PM FASTENERS AND PLUMBING SUPPLIES
PM FASTENERS AND PLUMBING SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.88
PM CLEAR SEALANT000120
PM CLEAR SEALANT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.57
PM BUNGEES AND TARP PURCHASED IN 2014000121
PM BUNGEES AND TARP PURCHASED IN 2014
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.63
PM MANURE FORK000267
PM MANURE FORK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.18
Total :106.73
212868 2/12/2015 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2/7 DANCE 2/7/15 DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE
2/7/15 DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 240.82
02/15 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE2015-02-01
02/15 Recreation Services Contract Fee
001.000.39.569.10.41.00 5,000.00
Total :5,240.82
212869 2/12/2015 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 207468 INV#207468 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD
SPAY CAT - IMPOUND #9104
001.000.41.521.70.49.01 80.00
Total :80.00
212870 2/12/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 109614 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER
14Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212870 2/12/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
Meter charges 12/30/14 - 01/30//15 B&W,
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 124.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 11.86
CITY CLERK COPIER METER READ109621
City Clerks Copier Meter Read
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 393.33
ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE109667
Maintenance excess for printers
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 30.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 2.88
PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078109913 1
PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.90
Total :600.12
212871 2/12/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH613146 CITY PARK PLAY AREA REVITALIZATION LEGAL
CITY PARK PLAY AREA REVITALIZATION
125.000.64.576.80.41.40 32.68
Total :32.68
212872 2/12/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU34607 Water/Sewer - Supplies
Water/Sewer - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 206.94
Water/Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 206.94
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.66
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.66
Total :453.20
212873 2/12/2015 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 44315930 LAND USE SIGN
LAND USE SIGN
15Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212873 2/12/2015 (Continued)071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 950.46
Total :950.46
212874 2/12/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0449823 Water - Non Inventory Supplies
Water - Non Inventory Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 305.02
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 28.98
Water - Fastite Pipe0450219
Water - Fastite Pipe
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 780.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 74.10
Total :1,188.10
212875 2/12/2015 062193 FIELD INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS 158180 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
IFM Efector combined pressure sensor
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 740.50
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 14.26
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 71.70
Total :826.46
212876 2/12/2015 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 50334-00 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
Magnetrol pulse-bust radar level
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 6,965.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 93.11
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 670.52
Total :7,728.63
212877 2/12/2015 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
16Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212877 2/12/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 511.40
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 511.39
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES253-003-6887
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 10.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 41.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 41.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 41.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 41.61
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256
WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE425-712-0423
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 68.50
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 261.55
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET
130.000.64.536.20.42.00 110.06
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553
17Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212877 2/12/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 110.15
LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031
LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 90.93
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 62.05
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 128.56
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 108.77
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 49.18
425-776-5316 CITY PARK425-776-5316
425-776-5316 CITY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 95.18
CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.11
Total :2,754.76
212878 2/12/2015 074023 FW MEDIA INC 90315 WOTS AD WRITERS DIG
WOTS AD WRITERS DIGEST MAY/JUNE
123.000.64.573.20.41.40 1,715.00
Total :1,715.00
212879 2/12/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9651193949 PM YOST POOL CHEMICAL FEEDER ADAPTER
PM YOST POOL CHEMICAL FEEDER ADAPTER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.05
18Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :23.672128792/12/2015 012199 012199 GRAINGER
212880 2/12/2015 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3829565 Water Inventory #0334 W-PIPECO-01-011
Water Inventory #0334 W-PIPECO-01-011
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 3,947.40
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 375.00
Total :4,322.40
212881 2/12/2015 075133 HERRIN, NICOLE BID 2015_01_17 ADMINISTRATIVE AND WEB SERVICES
Administrative and web services
140.000.61.558.70.41.00 440.00
Total :440.00
212882 2/12/2015 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 55412184 HP ELITE DESK 800 COMPUTERS
HP Elite Desk 800 G1 Computer - Qty 10
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 8,934.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 848.73
HP ELITEBOOK 840 G2 NOTEBOOK55421706
HP EliteBook 840 G2 Notebook - Qty 3
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 3,672.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 348.90
HP ELITEBOOK 850 G1 NOTEBOOK55421713
HP ElteBook 850 G1 Notebook - Qty 2
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 2,633.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 250.16
Total :16,687.61
212883 2/12/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 8022347 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
poly sheet, splashblock & brushes
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 285.04
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 27.08
19Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :312.122128832/12/2015 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
212884 2/12/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2574363 EXEC TASK CHAIR- RECEPTION
EXEC TASK CHAIR- RECEPTION
001.000.62.524.10.35.00 326.31
OFFICE SUPPLIES DEV SERV2576488
OFFICE SUPPLIES DEV SERV
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 558.71
Office Supplies2577867
Office Supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 62.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.97
OFFICE SUPPLIES DEV SERV2580168
OFFICE SUPPLIES DEV SERV
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 61.54
DATE STAMP REPAIR2580589
Date Stamp Repair, New Die & Pad
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 22.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 2.15
REPLACE DAMAGED/BROKEN EQUIPMENT -2580896
REPLACE DAMAGED/BROKEN EQUIPMENT -
001.000.65.518.20.35.00 453.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.35.00 43.05
SUPPLIES2582656
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 184.49
PW Office Supplies2583207
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 72.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 6.88
Total :1,800.21
20Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212885 2/12/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3501 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION
Feb-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50
Total :547.50
212886 2/12/2015 072728 KAVADAS, JANET 19571 WEIGHT ROOM OR 19571 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR
19571 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 50.00
Total :50.00
212887 2/12/2015 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 19674 KRUCKEBERG 19674 KRUCKEBERG INSTRUCTOR FEE
19674 KRUCKEBERG INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 29.25
Total :29.25
212888 2/12/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4425213 SHREDDING SERVICES
Invoice 1139530 1/7/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.38
Invoice 1139530 1/7/15
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.38
Invoice 1143261 1/28/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.38
Invoice 1143261 1/28/15
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.38
SHREDDING SERVICES4425516
Invoice 1141592 1/28/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 62.60
Total :80.12
212889 2/12/2015 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER Nov, Dec 14, Jan 15 CIGNA INVOICES FOR NOV, DEC 14, JAN 15
CIGNA INVOICES FOR NOV, DEC 14, JAN 15
811.000.231.550 32,031.89
Total :32,031.89
21Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212890 2/12/2015 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Feb-15 02-15 LEGALS FEES
02-15 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00 41,000.00
Total :41,000.00
212891 2/12/2015 075149 LIM, VANNARA 1503 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 130.45
Total :130.45
212892 2/12/2015 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 298651 INV#298651 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD
3X5 PRINT CARD PACKS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 47.50
MIKROSIL CATALYST
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 8.00
4" FROSTED LIFTING TAPE
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 80.15
2" FROSTED LIFTING TAPE
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 47.25
2CM ADHESIVE RULERS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 18.30
WHITE RULER
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 8.75
BLUE/WHITE RULER
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 8.50
Freight
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 30.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 23.60
Total :272.05
212893 2/12/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1552 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
INTERPRETER FEE1555
INTERPRETER FEE
22Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212893 2/12/2015 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
INTERPRETER FEE1556
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
Total :260.70
212894 2/12/2015 019940 MC COMAS, GARY 10 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,495.24
Total :1,495.24
212895 2/12/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 21514057 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
cutoff wheel, gloves and sanding disks
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 487.98
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 11.72
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL21826937
mesh screen
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 31.62
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.08
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL21859234
threaded pipe
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 115.52
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.09
Total :662.01
212896 2/12/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 203974 PM CARBIDE CHAIN
PM CARBIDE CHAIN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 77.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.37
WWTP - PROPANE204599
propane refill
23Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212896 2/12/2015 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 60.38
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 5.74
PM SPARK PLUGS & FUEL FILTER204832`
PM SPARK PLUGS & FUEL FILTER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 73.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.98
Total :231.73
212897 2/12/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 58893 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE
sodium bisulfite
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,635.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 155.36
Total :1,790.76
212898 2/12/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1118572 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1120686
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 591.18
Total :902.17
212899 2/12/2015 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2558925-00 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
Kaeser Omega 21 plus Bare Blower
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4,859.65
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 461.67
Total :5,321.32
212900 2/12/2015 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL 50946 UST Tank Testing
UST Tank Testing
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 267.75
24Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :267.752129002/12/2015 067868 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL
212901 2/12/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 169728 PW Office Supplies
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 40.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.84
INV#178320 ACCT#520437 250POL - EDMONDS178320
SHARPIE CD.DVD MARKERS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 64.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 6.14
PW Office Supplies252758
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 23.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.22
Office Supplies266137
Office Supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 122.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 11.61
PW Office Supplies348823
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 31.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.03
Total :309.32
212902 2/12/2015 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1649636 Shop Comp Tester
Shop Comp Tester
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 38.31
Unit 43 - Sway Link Kits
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.52
Unit 31 - Gear Lube
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.83
25Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212902 2/12/2015 (Continued)072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS
Unit 66 - V Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.63
USING PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT212245
Using unapplied payment on account -
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 -16.41
Total :131.88
212903 2/12/2015 074614 PENSER NORTH AMERICA 39553 Workers Comp Claims Management - 4th
Workers Comp Claims Management - 4th
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 3,461.76
Total :3,461.76
212904 2/12/2015 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 12360 INV 12360 EDMONDS PD - 1/1-1/31/15
PERSONNEL EVAL. PROFILE - PREUSS
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00
Total :20.00
212905 2/12/2015 074793 PETDATA INC 4081 INV#4081 - EDMONDS PD
374 ONE YR PET LICENSES
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,458.60
5 REPLACEMENT TAGS
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 19.50
Total :1,478.10
212906 2/12/2015 008475 PETTY CASH 01/01-02/10/15 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.43
FAC MAINT - MILEAGE FOR S BRINKLEY
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 13.22
STORM - CDL RENEWAL B CLEMENS
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 102.00
STREET / STORM WORK BAGS
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 65.08
STREET / STORM WORK BAGS
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 65.07
26Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212906 2/12/2015 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH
WATER - WORK JEANS (2) L MCMURPHY
421.000.74.534.80.24.00 47.81
WATER - THE GROUP DUES 2015~
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 20.00
SEWER - WW0 CERT RENEWAL- ~
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 42.00
Total :383.61
212907 2/12/2015 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC 18087 PM PICKLEBALL NET SYSTEM
PM PICKLEBALL NET SYSTEM
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 164.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.62
Total :180.00
212908 2/12/2015 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 15654 Water - Postage for Flushing letters
Water - Postage for Flushing letters
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 1,568.00
Total :1,568.00
212909 2/12/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC G046149 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
hole seals
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 79.25
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 7.53
City Hall - Timing RelayG053883
City Hall - Timing Relay
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 84.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.03
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICG055026
power supply
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 314.07
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 29.84
27Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :523.252129092/12/2015 028860 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
212910 2/12/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 5,279.39
Total :5,279.39
212911 2/12/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 93.78
Total :93.78
212912 2/12/2015 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0091002-IN WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
CRN3-25 pump end
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,154.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 53.61
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 209.72
Total :2,417.33
212913 2/12/2015 072162 RANKINS, TAMMY 1/27 EXPENSE REIMB 1/27 EXPENSE REIMB SUPPLIES FOR DADDY DA
1/27 EXPENSE REIMB SUPPLIES FOR DADDY
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 54.87
Total :54.87
212914 2/12/2015 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.68
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 112.78
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 112.78
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 112.78
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
28Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212914 2/12/2015 (Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 112.78
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 112.79
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 157.67
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50
Total :820.76
212915 2/12/2015 074359 REQUA, BRENDAN 2/7 DJ SERVICES 2/7/15 DJ SERVICES
2/7/15 DJ SERVICES
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 150.00
Total :150.00
212916 2/12/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 5034432538 ADDITONAL IMAGES B/W
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.56
ADDITONAL IMAGES5034433069
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 403.58
Total :440.14
212917 2/12/2015 070042 RICOH USA INC 94055441 LEASE RICOH MP171SPF RECEPTION
LEASE RICOH MP171SPF RECEPTION
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66
MPC6000 COPIER94117332
MPC6000 COPIER
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 886.96
PRO907EX C32015296 COPIER94117336
PRO907EX C32015296 COPIER
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 1,654.00
Total :2,571.62
29Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212918 2/12/2015 075157 RODNEY & ALICE BEERS 4-12725 #633931 UTILITY REFUND
#633931 Utility refund due to estimated
411.000.233.000 92.23
Total :92.23
212919 2/12/2015 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8104 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 1,400.00
Total :1,400.00
212920 2/12/2015 061591 RYAN HERCO PRODUCTS CORP 8048305 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
rings and plugs
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 320.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 15.14
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 31.84
Total :366.98
212921 2/12/2015 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JAN 2015 INVOICE 1/31/15 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD
#159556 2 NPC - 1/8/15
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 23.42
#160402 1 NPC - 1/22/15
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 11.71
Total :35.13
212922 2/12/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0438914 PM FLOWER PROG FOR GREENHOUSE INSECT CON
PM FLOWER PROG FOR GREENHOUSE INSECT
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 46.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 4.46
PM FLOWER PROG FOR GREENHOUSE PLANTING MT-0438915
PM FLOWER PROG FOR GREENHOUSE PLANTING
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 28.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2.66
30Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212922 2/12/2015 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY
PM FLOWER PROG FOR BRACKETTS N PLANTINGT-0438931
PM FLOWER PROG FOR BRACKETTS N PLANTING
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 56.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 5.32
PM FLOWER PROG FOR BRACKETTS N PLANTINGT-0438968
PM FLOWER PROG FOR BRACKETTS N PLANTING
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 84.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 7.98
PM BRACKETTS N NIAGARA FALLS WHITE PINET-0439636
PM BRACKETTS N NIAGARA FALLS WHITE PINE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 265.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.27
Total :526.66
212923 2/12/2015 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV I000378915 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMORROW DUES
2015 Snohomish County Tomorrow dues
001.000.39.513.10.49.00 7,123.00
Total :7,123.00
212924 2/12/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER
WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.86
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / METER2003-2646-0
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.80
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER2011-0356-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 60.85
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 954.43
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3
31Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212924 2/12/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 35.09
WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / METER2019-2988-2
WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.86
WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / METER2019-9517-2
WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 33.92
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 10004452022-5063-5
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.80
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-6
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2,672.24
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 116.09
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14,668.00
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 337.50
WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0
WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT
423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.77
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3.75
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 83.38
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 43.94
32Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212924 2/12/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 11.15
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 151.58
Total :19,310.01
212925 2/12/2015 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 65776 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES JAN
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES JAN
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 701.00
Total :701.00
212926 2/12/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING103584
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING
423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 702.23
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89
Total :2,972.45
212927 2/12/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4247931-01 PM VEST, V-GARD, REFL STRIPE, RUBBER BOO
PM VEST, V-GARD, REFL STRIPE, RUBBER
33Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212927 2/12/2015 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 146.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.94
Total :160.64
212928 2/12/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18065255 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 76.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.27
Total :83.83
212929 2/12/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50882057 WWTP - C465 CLARIFIER PROJECT
Clarifier #3 Inspect-Cost Est
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 885.55
Total :885.55
212930 2/12/2015 075139 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC 68774 E4FE.SERVICES THRU 1/30/15
E4FE.Services thru 1/30/15
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 14,022.88
Total :14,022.88
212931 2/12/2015 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 3001564807 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING LIBRARY
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SNO-ISLE
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 78.54
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER3001564838
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 51.31
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER3001564850
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 15.44
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER3001564883
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER 250
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,050.24
9.5% Sales Tax
34Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212931 2/12/2015 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.77
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER3001564888
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 250.66
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 23.81
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM3001565250
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 118 5TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 346.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 32.87
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY3001565430
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,168.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 110.98
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDERSON CENTER3001565516
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANCES ANDERSON
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,116.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 106.10
Total :4,450.80
212932 2/12/2015 074669 TIGER DIRECT INC L10114010101 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
startech accessory, slimline
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 2.46
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 8.94
Total :11.40
212933 2/12/2015 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 49991 CITY PARK GATE FOR SR104 PEDESTRIAN ACCE
CITY PARK GATE FOR SR104 PEDESTRIAN
125.000.64.576.80.41.00 795.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.41.00 75.53
35Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212933 2/12/2015 (Continued)041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
RICHARD ANWAY PARK FENCE AND GATE50007
RICHARD ANWAY PARK FENCE AND GATE
125.000.64.576.80.41.00 4,558.25
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.41.00 433.04
Total :5,861.82
212934 2/12/2015 073310 UNISAFE INC 693778 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS
topgrip ultimate heavy-duty powder free
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 899.00
Total :899.00
212935 2/12/2015 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0587439-WA INV 0587439-WA
LAB - LEAD W/ZPP - BLOOD - ROTH
001.000.41.521.40.41.00 60.00
Total :60.00
212936 2/12/2015 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 5010120 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 68.11
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 68.11
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 70.18
Total :206.40
212937 2/12/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9739473444 C/A 772540262-00001
Lift Station access
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 90.72
Total :90.72
212938 2/12/2015 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20114625 INV 20114625 EDMONDS PD
BLEA - HWANG
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 3,063.00
INSTRUCTOR DEVELOPMENT - HAWLEY
36Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212938 2/12/2015 (Continued)068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 75.00
Total :3,138.00
212939 2/12/2015 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3089.01-1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN INVENTORY/SITE
MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN INVENTORY/SITE
125.000.64.594.75.41.00 4,120.86
MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN INVENTORY/SITEP3089.01-2
MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN INVENTORY/SITE
125.000.64.594.75.41.00 6,797.19
Total :10,918.05
212940 2/12/2015 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 52604 INV#52604 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1994 DODGE #AFN3121
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77
Total :181.77
212941 2/12/2015 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I15005528 INV#I15005528 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS - JAN 2015
001.000.237.100 412.00
Total :412.00
212942 2/12/2015 064800 WEHOP 470533 PM PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM
PM PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 765.06
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 72.68
PM FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS470634
PM FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS: COMBO GARDEN,
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,964.77
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 186.65
Total :2,989.16
212943 2/12/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6578 INV#6578 - EDMONDS PD
37Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212943 2/12/2015 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC
INITIAL SET UP 5 NEW CARDS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 60.00
PRINTING OF 5 NEW NAMES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 103.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.49
Total :178.49
212944 2/12/2015 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 11096 PM CEDAR, OREGON GRAPE, RHODODENDRON
PM CEDAR, OREGON GRAPE, RHODODENDRON
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 604.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.43
PM HAZEL MILLER PLAZA & FISHING PIER PLA11115
PM HAZEL MILLER PLAZA & FISHING PIER
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 467.75
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.44
Total :1,174.12
212945 2/12/2015 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E 80635 PM HARRIS WORK BOOTS
PM HARRIS WORK BOOTS
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 197.00
PM FREEBORN WORK BOOTSE 80636
PM FREEBORN WORK BOOTS
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 197.00
PM EDHOUSE RAIN GEARE 80637
PM EDHOUSE RAIN GEAR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 125.98
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.59
PM ROCKNE RAIN GEARE 80723
PM ROCKNE RAIN GEAR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 188.97
9.2% Sales Tax
38Page:
02/12/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:21:35AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
212945 2/12/2015 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.39
PM FREEBORN RAIN GEAR & SAFETY VESTE 80725
PM FREEBORN RAIN GEAR & SAFETY VEST
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 170.97
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.73
PM HILL RAIN GEARE 80726
PM HILL RAIN GEAR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 134.98
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.42
Total :1,072.03
Bank total :295,349.33109 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
295,349.33Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report109
39Page:
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
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 2/11/2015
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 791 (02/06/2015 to 02/06/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 -87.00 0.00
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 87.00 2,879.40
Total Net Pay:$2,126.51
$2,879.40 0.00
02/12/2015 Page 1 of 1
AM-7481 4. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Burt Hopkins (amount undetermined), Jay and
Allison Brewer ($2,490.00), and Stacie Trykar ($59.99).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Burt Hopkins
653 Bell Street, C
Edmonds, WA 98020
(amount undetermined)
Jay and Allison Brewer
7833 200th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
($2,490.00)
Stacie Trykar
250 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
($59.99)
Attachments
Hopkins Claim for Damages
Brewer Claim for Damages
Trykar Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 02/11/2015 11:30 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/11/2015 11:34 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/11/2015 11:34 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 02/09/2015 12:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2015
AM-7484 4. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Patrick Doherty
Department:Community Services
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka EDBID) Grants Program
Recommendation
Approve EDBID proposed Grants Program.
Previous Council Action
During its review of the EDBID proposed 2015 Work Program and Budget on 11/10/14 and 11/18/14,
City Council expressly requested that this item be presented separately for review and approval. At the
1/27/15 City Council Study Session the item was presented in detail by EDBID Board representatives and
was discussed by City Council, whose consensus was to move the issue to an upcoming Consent Agenda
for approval.
Narrative
As approved by City Council on 11/18/14, the EDBID 2015 Work Program and Budget includes a
proposed Grants Program. During their review of the Work Program on both 11/10/14 and 11/18/14,
Councilmembers raised questions and expressed concerns about this program (including legal parameters,
administrative matters, whether all grants funds would have to be expended each year, etc.) to be further
researched by staff. A motion to eliminate this program from the Work Program was voted down 6-1,
while a follow-on motionwas approved unanimously to require that "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." (Please see attached Minutes of the 11/10/14, pages 3-7, and 11/18/14, pages
14-18, Council meetings for reference.)
In addition, for these reasons, City Council requested that the proposed Grants Program be brought back
for further review before implementation. The currently proposed Grants Program has been thoroughly
reviewed and vetted by City staff. The program is offered as a pilot program and will be analyzed and
revisited after a year to be considered for continuation. The program includes two options: a small grants
program for requests of up to $1,500, offered quarterly; and a partnership program for requests of $5,000,
requiring matching funds, and offered semi-annually. The purpose of the Grants Program, as stated in
the attached document is to "...help harness the power of our local business community. The Grants
program utilizes a grassroots approach to identify projects and allocate funds for approved grants."
Please see the Grants Program document, presented by Ed!, for project categories, criteria and process
steps.
Members of the EDBID Board presented the Grants Program in detail at the 1/27/15 Council Study
Session. Councilmembers discussed the matter, and their consensus was to forward the Grants Program
to an upcoming Council Meeting Consent Agenda for approval.
Attachments
Council minutes 11-10-14
Council Minutes 11-18-14
Ed! Grants Program 2015
Council minutes 01-27-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/11/2015 10:35 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/11/2015 11:29 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/11/2015 11:34 AM
Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 02/11/2015 10:27 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2015
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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)
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.
Ed! Grants Program
Grant deadline for Small Grants Program requests of $1,500 or less: Quarterly
(January 15, April 15, July 15 and October 15)
Grant deadline for Partnership Program requests of $5,000 or less: Semi-annually
(June 15, December 15)
Mission of Ed!
The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka Ed!) is to encourage, promote and participate
in activities enhancing the general economic conditions of downtown Edmonds for the mutual benefit
of businesses in the district. Our goal is to ensure the downtown Edmonds business district stays
lively, attractive and prosperous.
Purpose of Ed! Grants Program
The Small Grants Program and Partnership Program, managed through the Edmonds Downtown
Alliance, help harness the power of our local business community. The Grants program utilizes a
grassroots approach to identify projects and allocate funds for approved grants.
Project Category
Community Events
Hospitality and special public events, including holiday decorations, street performers/artists,
festivals, fairs, historic education/heritage advocacy;
Neighborhood Marketing Initiative
Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media,
marketing/advertising campaigns;
Business Recruitment & Retention
May include, but is not limited to, education/seminars, market research, business recruitment,
business fairs, conferences.
Safety & Cleanliness
May include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements
Appearance & Environment
May include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication,
streetscapes/lighting/furniture
Transportation
May include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation
Historic education/heritage advocacy
Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M
Pilot
Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M
2
General Criteria for Small Grants Program and Partnership Program
Project submitted must meet the Ed! mission and comply with the approved purposes and categories
of the Grants Program.:
Project must not duplicate existing services or initiatives;
Project must be realistic in scope and qualify for readiness and feasibility;
Project must not benefit a sole enterprise, company or member;
Project must include letters of support and/or demonstrate community support;
Grantees must agree to include the approved Ed! logo and acknowledgement of Ed! funding in their
printed materials, website and other collateral materials.
Project must encourage collaborative efforts.
Additional Criteria for Partnership Program
Projects must have existing partial funding commitments, have significant matching funds, and/or
generally demonstrate diverse sources of income;
Project must encourage partnerships between private enterprise, members and/or community
organizations.
Eligibility
Small Grants Program: Ed! Members in good standing may apply or sponsor a grant application.
Partnership Program: Ed! Members in good standing alone, or in collaborative partnership with
nonprofit agencies, or private companies, may apply or sponsor a grant application.
Requirements
Submit 1 original plus three (3) copies of the grant application with the following information:
• Application cover page
• Name of project
• Project start and end dates
• Description of project including goals, expected attendance, stakeholders, income projections
• Target audiences
• Describe measurable goals and community benefits
• Name and qualifications of team members
• Timeline and schedule of events or targeted dates
• Detailed line item budget, including other sources of funding or revenue
• Budget detail must include any contract staff, professional services and/or administrative costs
• Letters of support
• Contact name and information
Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M
3
Process
Each grant application is reviewed by the Grant committee, composed of three (3) members. In
addition, each proposed grant will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and
Edmonds City Code 3.75.030. The Grant committee will submit its recommendation of awards to the
Ed! Members Advisory Board who will approve the final awards.
Timeline
APPLICATIONS DUE AWARD DECISIONS
Quarterly
Small Grants Program
January 15th March 1st
April 15th June 1st
July 15th September 1st
October 15th December 1st
Twice-Annual
Partnership Program
June 15th August 1st
December 15th February 1st
Payment of Grant Funds
Grant funds will be disbursed on a reimbursement basis after delivery to Ed! of
corresponding itemized invoice(s), together with supporting receipts or other materials.
Completion of Project
One month after the completion of the Project, a final report will be sent to Ed!. The report will include:
outcomes, results of measured goals, community benefits, participation, financial statement of
expenses and revenues, including amount of award used. Any unused portion of award will be
returned, as well as the complete award if the project is canceled within the agreed timeline.
Ed! GRANTS P R O G R A M
4
APPLICATION COVER PAGE
Requested Program: Small Grants ________ Partnership Program ________
Member applicant: ______________________________________
Name of owner: ______________________________________
Contact info: ______________________________________
Amount requested: _______________________
Start of project: _______________________
End of project: _______________________
Description of project as attachment will include:
• Name of project
• Team members
• Timeline
• Budget with projected sources of income
• Goal outcomes/target audience
I, ___________________________, agree with the conditions and stipulations of of the
Edmonds Downtown Alliance (Ed!) Grants Program.
________________________________________________
Signature of Applicant
________________________________________________ ______________
Print name Date
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 27, 2015
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
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i.). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. 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. Councilmember Mesaros left the executive session at 6:55 p.m.
The executive session concluded at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 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
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OF JANUARY 13, 2015
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212553 THROUGH #212563 DATED JANUARY 20,
2015 FOR $21,374.24 AND CLAIM CHECKS #212564 THROUGH #212617 DATED
JANUARY 22, 2015 FOR 111,042.34. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT
AND CHECKS #61460 THROUGH #61470 FOR $476,624.22, BENEFIT CHECKS #61471
THROUGH #61479 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $515,068.54 FOR THE PAY PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2015
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2015
City Clerk Scott Passey relayed the following correction requested by Councilmember Bloom:
• Page 13, last paragraph under Item 8, change first sentence to read: Councilmember Bloom
explained she abstained because she did not have enough information to determine that the
maximum amount of trees feasible were retained that was feasible.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, MOVED
TO APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Earling noted the first three names on the sign in sheet were not present: Edmonds IGA,
Hamburger Harry’s, and the Pancake Haus. He assumed they were signed up to relay their concerns
related to lengthy power outages as a result of windstorms. He put IGA in contact with Steve Klein, CEO,
Snohomish County PUD, and they have been working to resolve the problem.
Lann Pepper, Edmonds, explained their building experienced a 36-hour power failure 2 months ago.
Residents must be 61 or older or have a disability to live at Soundview; over 42 residents live in each
building. The power outages result in elevator failure, food spoiling and total darkness. Their building is
on a grid with Woodway and they have been told Woodway does not want the trees cut back and as a
result the power seems to go out more frequently than the surrounding area. For example, the
condominiums above them and next to them are on the 4th Avenue grid and do not experience power
failures as often. She pointed out the difficulty for IGA to operate their business during power outages
and the resultant loss of food and employees unable to work. She summarized the building residents love
living in Edmonds and are interested in having their power restored more quickly.
Reid Huntington, Edmonds IGA, provided the letter sent to PUD describing their concern with
operating a retail business with lengthy power outages. He explained the power outage is more than just a
loss of product but also a loss of revenue as insurance does not cover everything. IGA has been in the
Edmonds location for nearly two years; they have big plans for store but each time a lengthy power
outage occurs it sets them back. He was hopeful PUD will address the issue. Mr. Huntington advised
Steve Klein, CEO, Snohomish County PUD, contacted IGA and assured they are looking into the matter.
Mayor Earling assured the City will follow-up.
John Osterhaug, President, Board of Directors, Edmonds Senior Center, spoke in favor of Agenda
Item 6, Authorization for Mayor to Sign Option to Lease and Ground Lease with the Edmonds Senior
Center. The Council passed a resolution in late March 2014 in support of the Edmonds Senior Center
replacing the existing aging, failing building with a new building that would serve as a senior center and a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 3
community center. On the strength of that resolution, the senior center has initiated and pursued a
program to accomplish that replacement. To pursue that program, they need to qualify for funding from
foundations which includes meeting several criteria, one of which is to gain control of the property which
is done via the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease. He asked for the Council’s support.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, distributed a Request for Code Enforcement Action, the form resident a
completes to request code enforcement. The form has a space for a signature but a signature is not
required. The Request for Code Enforcement Action has not been successful because although the
Council knows about the problems with the sign code, it has not been scheduled on an agenda. She
distributed the Planning Board’s extended agenda which does not include any reference to the sign code.
The problems with the sign code were brought to the Council’s attention in late 2013 and a member of the
planning staff stated the sign code needed a major overhaul. The handling of this issue reflects problems
with Edmonds’ government and she suggested these issues be discussed at least once a month: the
executive branch which suffers from chronic cronyism, the legislative branch’s lack of purpose and an
understanding of the check and balance system. She summarized the sign code is a nasty piece of special
legislation, it is not enforced and it is stalled at the executive level. She urged the Council to schedule
review of the sign code on a future agenda.
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, explained the urgency of Agenda Item
#6; it is the cornerstone, foundation, lynch pin of all their fundraising efforts. The senior center cannot
proceed without it to pursue government or foundation funding such as the Hazel Miller Foundation. The
Option to Lease and the Ground Lease provide appropriate site control for an entity that does not own the
property but wants to do something with it long term. He commended Ms. Hite and Mr. Taraday for their
friendly, productive and hardworking assistance with this process. The partnership between the Edmonds
Senior Center and the City began in 1967 and enabled the City to own the property in 1973 at a time
when the City owned no waterfront property. The end result will be an extraordinary building that will
serve all the citizens of Edmonds in a structure that is worthy of the extraordinary site. On behalf of the
senior center members and everyone who uses the senior center and the many more who will use the new
community center, he urged the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign Option to Lease and Ground
Lease with the Edmonds Senior Center.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Fleming’s comments. With regard to Fire District 1, he
pointed out the invoices all the cities received totaled $2.5 million; Edmonds’ share was $1.67 million. He
asserted this was a bad deal because the City did not have a vote on the negotiating committee with the
union, only a position. This is basically taxation without representation because whatever Fire District 1
negotiates, the City gets the bill. He suggested a fourth choice in Agenda Item 12 should be to terminate
the agreement with Fire District 1. Another option would be to hire someone to assist the City in
negotiating with Fire District 1.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, disagreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comments regarding Fire District 1. He clarified
he was not supporting the continuation of the agreement with Fire District 1 simply because he voted in
favor of it when he was on the Council. He supported it because an analysis of the numbers shows it is
clearly the right thing for the City to continue. When the City entered into the agreement in 2010, the
savings were approximately $1 million/year; the City now saves a few hundred thousand more each year.
The $1.67 million bill is still less than the City likely would have paid. During the 4 years prior to the
City entering into the agreement with Fire District 1, the annual rate of increase averaged 5.4%; this bill is
approximately a 3.47% increase. He summarized it is still a good deal and anyone doing an objective
analysis would realize it is a dumb move to go back to the City having its own fire department.
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN OPTION TO LEASE AND GROUND LEASE WITH
THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 4
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite explained there has been a very collaborative
process with the Edmonds Senior Center, their attorney, Mr. Taraday and she was confident that Council
direction given in December had been satisfied. She recalled the Council adopted a resolution for the
senior center to rebuild in the current location. In October the Council gave staff direction to negotiate the
Option to Lease and the Ground Lease with the senior center. At the December 9 study session, the
Council provided further direction to staff on several issues and staff proceeded to negotiate those issues.
Ms. Hite reviewed the most substantive changes to the original proposal:
1. Lease Agreement is $10/year. The Council has discussed the possibility and/or longer term goal
of impacting the $60,000 per year operational funds it allocates each year, as opposed to charging
for the land.
2. The City and senior center worked out a mutually agreeable usage
3. The City added language to protect the desire of the Council to decide on the design and footprint
of the building
4. The City added clarifying language that the park area surrounding the senior center is under
control of the City, and accessible by the public
5. The City added language for the senior center to provide a performance bond
6. The City and senior center mutually agreed, and added language to share the cost of any parking
study needed, the design and construction of the parking lot
7. The City revised the insurance requirements to be in alignment with the WCIA recommendations
for insurance
8. At the Council’s request, added termination language
Ms. Hite requested Council authorization for the Mayor to sign the Option to Lease and Ground Lease.
Councilmember Petso asked why action was requested at a study session. Ms. Hite relayed the need to
approve the documents before the end of January due to an upcoming deadline. She recalled during the
past two months there have been action items on study session agendas prior to the study session items.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her preference to approve this next week at a regular Council meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE OPTION TO LEASE AND LONG TERM
GROUND LEASE WITH THE SENIOR CENTER.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented although the Council is in a study session format, the grant
funding request has a February 1 deadline. She was agreeable to approving this tonight.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said this could be moved to next week’s Consent Agenda. Ms. Hite
explained the Hazel Miller Foundation indicated if this was approved tonight, they will fulfill the grant
request from the senior center this month. If approval is delayed until next month, the senior center will
need to wait another month for approval of the grant funding from the Hazel Miller Foundation. That is
the reason it was expedited to be an action item tonight.
Councilmember Mesaros urged the Council to act on this tonight. Although the Council has established a
format of conducting business on the first and third Tuesdays and study sessions on the second and
fourth, exceptions will arise. Were tonight not a study session, this item would have already been
approved.
Councilmember Johnson commented the senior center is a wonderful organization in a beautiful location
and they have worked hard to implement the vision in the Strategic Action Plan. In reflecting on this
decision, she realized it was a $20 million decision that will impact the City for the next 55 years; the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 5
value of the land is approximately $9 million, the value of the senior center is approximately $10 million
and the improvements to the land are approximately $1 million. The same environment did not exist 47
years ago when the senior center was created. There is now a situation where trains impede development
as well as conflicts with the at-grade crossing.
She recalled at the December 9, 2014 meeting the City Attorney questioned whether this site was the
optimal location for the senior center. There were two comments on that discussion: Councilmember
Mesaros commented although the Council should be open to considering location options, there is a
historical precedent for keeping it at its current location; a statement she agreed with. At that meeting,
Councilmember Bloom recommended the Council honor the resolution that was unanimously approved in
support of the senior center at the current location and that to question the location of the senior center at
this point would be unfortunate timing as they are ready to begin their capital campaign. Councilmember
Johnson recognized that as a valid point; however, in her opinion this is the time to pause and reflect
about this $20 million decision.
Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has a fiscal responsibility to all the citizens to carefully
consider this decision that will last until 2070. For several years the Mayor, Staff and Council have
discussed the increased train traffic, safety, noise, and delays. The City is asking the Legislature for
funding to assist with the at-grade crossing. At the October 21, 2014 meeting where Mr. Fleming and Mr.
Lovell made a presentation regarding the Option to Lease and Ground Lease, Shawn Ardussi, PSRC, also
made a presentation regarding the regional impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry
Point. That presentation indicated full build out could be as early as 2019 and there will be an additional
18 trains 1.6 miles in length and will result in at-grade delays of 2-6 minutes for each train. Her take away
from that information was the City has no control over what BNSF does but does have control over its
capital land use siting decision.
Councilmember Johnson summarized although she may be the only one speaking out in this way, she felt
she had a responsibility to lay this out for the public. While she appreciated everything done to date, as a
long range planner, the pieces of the puzzle need to be put in prospective. She urged the Council to take
the time to make this decision very carefully and she did not think a one month delay for the funding from
the Hazel Miller Foundation would make difference. She did not expect anyone to agree with her but felt
it necessary to point out the obvious.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented she has paused and reflected on this for the past two years.
The Council has had a great deal of discussion about the possibility of building a new senior center as
well as the at-grade crossing in that area. The land for the senior center was given to the City
approximately 50 years ago; it has operated as a senior center in that location and no one has died due to a
train blocking the tracks. If the senior center is not concerned about building there due to the train and the
at-grade crossing, she was not concerned. She was not certain what a month delay would do to change
anything. She preferred to move ahead tonight and value the senior center and those who have given their
time, money and talents to create the senior center.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has also reflected, met with BNSF, and understands the issues
related to transportation. She totally disagreed with Councilmember Johnson, expressing concern that
Councilmember Johnson’s comments make it sound like this has not been discussed at length and was
something that had suddenly popped up. In fact, this has been discussed, the Council has given staff
direction, passed a resolution, and the Hazel Miller Foundation is ready to assist with funding. She
disagreed with delaying the senior center for transportation reasons, noting if that were done, the City
may as well stop the master planning for Marina Beach.
Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Johnson’s comments. After a
great deal of thought, she is ready to support this action but remains concerned that there is no emergency
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 6
vehicle or pedestrian access in the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out it is just a matter of time until
something serious happens on the waterfront; there have been instances of heart pains when a train was
blocking the tracks and emergency access was not possible. She was willing to support this as there was
unlikely to be a different result with a one week delay but pledged to continue working to get emergency
vehicle and pedestrian access in the Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible, emphasizing that is a
separate issue from the alternatives study. Other considerations in addition to emergency vehicle and
pedestrian access include climate change, rising tides, and recent storms that have resulted in large waves
over the boardwalk which required removing people from a small house next to the senior center.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
7. PRESENTATION OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE (AKA EDBID) GRANTS
PROGRAM
Development Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (Ed!)
presented their work plan and budget to the Council in November which the Council approved with
amendments. The amendments related to the proposed grant program were to return the grant program to
Council for review prior to implementation and for City staff to review each grant considered by the Ed!
Board for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code 3.75.030 prior to awarding the
grant. The grants program is a pilot program and Ed! will provide information regarding the program
when presenting its 2016 work program and budget later this year.
Pam Stuller, President, Ed! Members Advisory Board, explained the grants program originated via a
suggestion from a property owner, Bob Rochell, whose wife is a member of Ed! The grants program is a
way for Ed! to mobilize its members, encourage ideas and a way for members to propose and implement
small projects.
Natalie-Pascale Boisseau, Member, Ed!, explained she consulted with several people and researched
what other BIDs are doing with regard to grants and supporting initiatives. The program includes two
options:
1) Small Grants Program
o Offered quarterly
o Any member in good standing is eligible to apply or sponsor an application
o Examples include back alley festival or community recycling and garbage can program
2) Partnership Program
o Offered semi-annually
o Requires matching funds
o Any member in good standing or in a collaborative partnership with a nonprofit agency or
private company may apply or sponsor an application
o Examples include Swedish-Edmonds or senior center
Project categories include:
• Community events
• Neighborhood marketing initiatives
• Business recruitment and retention
• Safety and cleanliness
• Appearance and environment
• Transportation
• Historic education/heritage advocacy
Ms. Boisseau reviewed general criteria for Small Grants Program and Partnership Program:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 7
• Project submitted must meet the Ed! mission and comply with the approved purposes and
categories of the grants program
• Project must not duplicate existing services or initiatives;
• Project must be realistic in scope and qualify for readiness and feasibility;
• Project must not benefit a sole enterprise, company or member;
• Projects must include letters of support and/or demonstrate community support’
• Grantees must agree to include the approved Ed! logo and acknowledgement of Ed! funding in
their printed materials, website and other collateral materials
• Project must encourage collaborative efforts
• Additional criteria for Partnership Program includes
o Projects must have existing partial funding commitments, have significant matching funds,
and/or generally demonstrate diverse sources of income;
o Project must encourage partnerships between private enterprise, members and/or community
organizations
Applications will be reviewed by the Grant Committee composed of three members. Each proposed grant
will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW and ECC. The Grant Committee will submit its
recommendation of awards to the Ed! Members Advisory Board who will approve the final awards.
Applications are due quarterly for the Small Grants Program and twice-annually for the Partnership
Program. Grant funds will be disbursed on a reimbursement basis after delivery to Ed! of corresponding
itemized invoice(s), together with supporting receipts or other materials. One month after the completion
of the Project, a final report will be sent to Ed!. The report will include: outcomes, results of measured
goals, community benefits, participation, financial statement of expenses and revenues, including amount
of award used. Any unused portion of award will be returned, as well as the complete award if the project
is canceled within the agreed timeline.
Ms. Boisseau explained this is a pilot program; implementation will be through 2016 as the program has
not yet been announced. A budget of $10,000 has been allocated to this program, enough to welcome a
few good projects but not too big.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she participates on the WRIA 8 Grant Funding Board and they score
applications. She asked whether a scoring mechanism would be created. Ms. Boisseau advised there
would be. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council would review the scoring mechanism or
would it be self-directed by Ed! and City staff. Ms. Stuller advised the intent was to be self-directed. The
amount allocated to the grants program was $10,000; Ed! is not trying to deny Council information, but
she was confident a decision matrix could be developed to determine grant awards.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a three member committee to review grants was selected rather
than five or seven members. Ms. Boisseau answered the intent was enough people to have a diverse point
of view and an easy number to gather to review grant applications. The Advisory Board will make the
final decision. Other tools will be created to measure the success of projects.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Portland’s micro lending program which is another mechanism that
could be helpful to businesses.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda.
8. PRESENTATION OF 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
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 8
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the contract with Shannon & Wilson is closely related to
another consulting contract with SAIC who is working on the issues of flooding at SR 104 & Dayton and
westward on Dayton. Data collected by the two studies has been shared and funded by grant and
stormwater funds. The amendment will utilize the same funding sources to continue that work.
The City was unable to obtain access to the Unocal/Chevron property to conduct a survey of old pipes
that run through a corner of the marsh property until the property sale is complete. The proposal is
remove and modify some tasks and reallocate the funds toward new tasks; the net result is a $38,160
increase.
City Engineer Rob English reviewed the amendments.
• Remove survey work associated with pipe culverts and design and permitting - $54,000
• Add Tasks 13-16 associated with the marsh and improving stormwater/flooding situation at
Dayton & SR 104 - $61,000
o Task 13 - Harbor Square Outfall Storm Improvements
o Task 14 - Dayton St. Isolation Survey
o Task 15 - Dayton St. Isolation Analysis and Design
o Task 16 - Dayton St. Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Permits
o Task 17 - Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys
o Task 18 - Management Reserve
Councilmember Mesaros asked why Chevron was not willing to allow access, commenting it did not
appear very neighborly. Mr. Williams speculated the property transfer to the State was to someday
facilitate construction of Edmonds Crossing. All the cleanup work is directed under a consent decree with
the Department of Ecology who has strongly held views on what has been presented and whether it is
adequate, whether additional data needs to be collected, the level of cleanup, where it is measured, etc.
Chevron likely does not want to do anything to prevent an early resolution. The only reason Chevron has
given is the risk associated with having a third party on the property.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to failing manholes under SR 104 and asked whether this would
address that. Mr. Williams answered the two independent projects intersect in several places including
Shellabarger Creek. Normally the flows in Shellabarger Creek go through 2 culvers and under SR 104
into and through the marsh. When flows are high, the capacity and slope of the culverts as well as
vegetation creates enough blockage that flows go north and bubble up near Dayton on the northwest
corner of the Waste Water Treatment Plan property. That contributes significantly to flooding problems
as well as increases the duration, intensity and frequency. The intent is to keep the water flowing through
the culverts rather than heading north and to make improvements to the culverts as well as the sides of the
culverts which help solve flooding problems as well as assist the marsh.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether there were any State grants. Mr. Williams answered grants can
be expected associated with the daylighting of Willow Creek and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh. The
culverts themselves whether they function as designed is a maintenance issue for Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT). After several meetings, WSDOT understands a key part of the
future of this project will be to ensure the culverts are the right size, that they are not dilapidated or failing
and will probably need to be replaced due to their age. WSDOT has a project on their unfunded project
list to address that and the City would then take care of the downstream portion to ensure the water has
somewhere to go.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether there was a way to use the contract to estimate the cost of
replacing the culvert at SR 104 and the marsh. Mr. Williams answered WSDOT has identified a project
and likely have a better idea of what replacement will cost; the City will rely on their cost estimate.
Whatever the cost is, it should be paid by WSDOT; it should not be Edmonds’ responsibility to identify
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 9
grant funds to replace the dilapidated culverts. To the extent any berming or other modification needs to
occur on the roadside channel on the east of SR 104 to direct water to those culverts may be an eligible
City expense. Mr. English commented the elevation of the culvert themselves does not necessarily restrict
flows, the sediment buildup within the marsh is what impedes flows. Mr. Williams said the alignment,
size and depth of the culverts may be workable; if they are replaced, it may be advantageous to tweak the
angle to help facilitate flows.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding there was a sedimentation problem. Mr. Williams
agreed, advising it has existed for a very long time but was much worse in the early years.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda.
9. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained a major review of the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan is due to the State by mid-2015. Similar to the other elements of the plan, the intent with the Land
Use Element was to update data, make minimal changes to the goals and policies and recognize planning
is now through 2035 with regard to housing and job targets. Key changes to the Land Use Element
include:
• Updated Census, housing and population targets data
• Added text to explain regional planning policies
• Moved design standards for the Downtown/Waterfront to Urban Design section
• Reformatted goals and policies
• Updated outdated text in Open Space and Noise Pollution sections
• Removed Water Resources and Drain Management section (information covered in Utilities
Element)
In response to a question the Council raised at the public hearing regarding Edmonds Crossing, Ms. Hope
explained the plan includes language about Edmonds Crossing, simplified slightly from the original
language. The advantage to retaining reference to Edmonds Crossing is it allows flexibility should the
project progress while not emphasizing or requiring anything be done.
Another question the Council raised was whether Westgate should be added to the two existing activity
centers, Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 Medical. Although that could be done, it was not
proposed due to the intent for a limited update of the Comprehensive Plan.
In response to Council interest in emergency access to the waterfront, Planning Director Rob Chave
referred to language added on packet page 210, “Increased concern about conflicts and safety issues
related to the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic.” Language was also included in
Short Term Actions (packet page 220), “Develop a short term plan and strategy to address transportation
conflicts and safety issues involving the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the
waterfront area.”
Councilmember Petso advised she had numerous questions and asked Ms. Hope if she would be willing
to meet with her. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember Petso referred to discrepancies in the amount
of land allocated to parks 6.5% on page 8, 6.5% and 4.4% on page 10, 6.8% on page 47, 5.27% on page
50 and 5% in open space on page 51. She recalled when reviewing the PRO Plan, park acreage was
different depending on the perspective, whether land use or maintenance. She suggested for purposes of
allocating park land in the Land Use Element, it be from a land use perspective and not include parks in
Lynnwood, that are underwater, or the historic museum. Ms. Hope offered to review and adjust
inconsistencies or if there is a difference, explain why it is different.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 10
Councilmember Petso noted there is new language regarding annexation, for example of the Esperance
area, that appears to obligate the City to encourage annexation. She preferred to allow the residents to
seek annexation and feared one of the standard ways of encouraging annexation was to allow annexation
without assuming their share of the City’s bonded indebtedness. She preferred not to imbed those
decisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope explained under State law the City is supposed to move
forward on annexation; whether that actually occurs will depend on a number of factors. Esperance is part
of Edmonds’ urban growth area; under countywide planning policies, the City is obligated to move in that
direction. Any final decisions will be via Council direction. Mentioning annexation in the Land Use
Element adheres to State law and provides direction but is not a mandate.
Councilmember Petso referred to the interest in de-emphasize the motor vehicle in land use planning and
increase the emphasis on other methods. She referred to language regarding Highway 99 regarding access
by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. She did not feel she fit either of those
categories and suggested wordsmithing to address that. Another example was in downtown, building
design should discourage automobile access. She noted automobile access was not a problem if a person
lived or had transit access to downtown but it was difficult for residents in her neighborhood because
bicycling requires riding uphill. She also feared this would hurt downtown businesses that rely on people
driving, walking and using transit to reach downtown. Ms. Hope offered to review the language, assuring
the intent was to accommodate automobile traffic at the same time increasing opportunity for pedestrians
and bicycles.
Councilmember Petso commented residential growth is often emphasized in Edmonds, to the extent that
Edmonds is seventh in the State for residential density. The problem with that is it seems to go along with
de-emphasizing commercial which creates jobs. She questioned the ability to create more jobs, using the
rezone on Highway 99 to allow residential only as an example. She suggested the plan should
acknowledge that a rezone from mixed use to allow only residential will reduce the number of jobs
created. Ms. Hope anticipated more jobs will be created even with more residential development due to
the likelihood of commercial development that makes sense with residential development.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that residential mixed use was the most profitable types
of development in Edmonds from an economic standpoint from the perspective of a developer or property
owner. Ms. Hope answered residential development is the most profitable for developers who specialize
in residential; other developers who specialize in commercial may not think that.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the language Mr. Chave cited regarding emergency vehicle access on
packet pages 210 and 220. She recalled staff had said emergency vehicle and pedestrian access would be
addressed in the Transportation Element; she viewed it as both a land use and transportation issue. Ms.
Hope answered it is primarily a transportation issue but there is a relationship to land use which is the
reason there is some mention in draft Land Use Element. She acknowledged the wording could be
enhanced. Councilmember Bloom requested it be enhanced as emergency vehicle and pedestrian access is
a land use issue.
Councilmember Bloom referred to a statement on page 210, “Edmonds Community College has expanded
its downtown presence through initiatives with the Edmonds Conference Center (formerly the Edmonds
Floral Conference Center) and is working with the Edmonds Center for the Arts to enhance overall
operations.” She asked whether that statement should be corrected as the sale of the building is being
negotiated. Ms. Hope answered not until the building is sold; the language could be revised if the sale
occurs before the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Councilmember Bloom relayed a question from the
Economic Development Commission whether the building’s contract required public use. She will ask the
City Attorney to research that.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 11
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether information had been added since the public hearing such as
regarding annexation. Ms. Hope answered it was already in the document. Councilmember Buckshnis
referred to correcting scrivener’s errors such reference to the South County Senior Center which is now
the Edmonds Senior Center. She recommended Westgate be considered an activity center and offered to
submit additional comments to staff.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the February 25 open house. Ms. Hope answered the public
process to date has included meetings before the Planning Board and the City Council but that does not
reach everyone. She was hopeful the open house on February 25 from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall will reach a broader number. The intent of the open house is to describe the process as
well as provide summaries of the draft elements reviewed to date, and identify the schedule for the
remaining elements and gather input.
Councilmember Petso referred to Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion to make Westgate an activity
center. She recalled at the time of the Westgate Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Council approved a
concept that would allow mixed use as well as also allow the current general business use to remain. The
Council did not agree and eventually tabled adoption of specifics regarding Westgate. She asked the
effect of drafting language to designate Westgate an activity center. Mr. Chave explained PSRC’s Vision
2020 identified several regional centers; Edmonds identified two areas that had all the ingredients of an
activity hub – transit, pedestrian friendly, various uses, etc., Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 near
the hospital and high school. Westgate is not large enough and although it has some of the features, it did
not have the critical mass and was identified as a community commercial center, a different designation
than a neighbor center such as Five Corners. Westgate is a key commercial area that attracts a wider area
as well as serves the local neighborhood but does not rise to the level of an activity center.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
10. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ORDINANCES TO CONSOLIDATE AND CLARIFY ANIMAL
REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained to better coordinate and consolidate the regulations
regarding animals, two draft ordinances have been prepared to move portions of the zoning code that
reference animals into Chapter 5.05 of the City Code and make other clarifying amendments. The
Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval. Amendments to the Zoning Code and
Development Code require a public hearing at the Council; a public hearing is scheduled on February 2.
Assistant Police Chief Lawless explained the intent of the changes was to consolidate all animal
regulations in a single place as well as modify the animal noise language. He reviewed the proposed
changes:
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance A
• 5.30.130.A: Delete “Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any animal
except that such sounds made in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be
exempt.”
o System of declaring a nuisance is not currently user friendly and somewhat pits neighbor
against neighbor
o Not comfortable with enforcement action automatically resulting in a misdemeanor
• Move keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones from Section 17.35.030 to 5.05.015
• Remove 5.05.15.D: antiquated language regarding chickens
• Revise Section 5.05.115.B to read, “Nuisances are hereby defined to include, but not limited to,
the following:”
• Revise Section 5.05.115.B.5 to read, “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,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 12
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, except that such sounds made in
doors in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt.”
o Previously no definition of continuous noise.
• Section 5.05.115.C: delete language regarding misdemeanor with a maximum penalty
• Section 5.05.115.C.1: add, “Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a
civil infract ion, which shall be punishable by a fine of $100.”
• Section 5.05.115.C.2: add, “Any person committing a second violation of any provision of this
chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by
a fine of $250”
• Section 5.05.115.C.3: add “Any person committing a third violation of any provision of this
chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof,
be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail.”
• Move Section 17.35.040, Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones, to Section
5.05.130.1
• Add Section 5.05.13.1.B: “Up to three domestic female chickens may be kept on a lot(s) or
premises associated with a single - family residential dwelling unit. A chicken coop or other pen
or enclosure is an accessory structure and subject to all requirements of the applicable zone. An
accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the
number of chickens that may be kept on a single - family lot or lots (when a single - family
residence is located on more than one lot)”
• Delete Sections 5.05.130.1.C – G.
• Section 16.20.010.B.4: delete “the keeping of three or fewer domestic animals”
• Section 16.20.010.B.5: delete “the keeping of horses, subject to the requirements of Chapter 5.05
ECC
• Section 16.30.010.B.3: delete, “The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multi-
family building, according to Chapter 5.05 ECC.”
ACOP Lawless advised there were several meetings held with Ms. Hope, the City Attorney, him and
other staff to review several iterations of the amendments; animal control officers who provided input
regarding enforceability and reasonableness.
ACOP Lawless reviewed amendments to Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance B:
• Section 5.30.020.E: add, “Frequent repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds” mean sounds
that are continuous for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent for a period totaling
twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour.”
• Revise Section 5.30.140 to read: “Whenever it is stated in writing by three or more persons
having separate residences in a neighborhood that any person is violating any of the provisions of
this chapter, the noise control administrator or his/her designee shall review such complaints.
After the noise control administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation has
occurred, the administrator or his/her designee shall advise the person owner of the complaint
and that such violation is a nuisance and must cease. Failure of any person to cease any violation
of this chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor subject to penalties as established in this
chapter.”
ACOP Lawless referred to Section 15.30.020.J, explaining a noise control administrator means the person
designated by the mayor to enforce noise violations or any police officer which also includes animal
control officers.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 13
Mayor Earling commented this is a large problem for staff and the Mayor’s office who spend a
considerable amount of time trying to solve animal control issues. He commended the Development
Services and Police Department for the extraordinary work they have done.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to an email the Council received today from a citizen asking
whether an animal would be allowed to bark for 20 minutes/hour at night. It does not appear the policy
addresses nighttime. ACOP Lawless responded there was no delineation made with regard to hours of the
day. He noted dogs typically sleep when the owners sleep and some owners want their dogs outside to
alert them of prowlers; however, dogs do not distinguish between wildlife and a prowler. The proposed
language is a compilation of other ordinances; none of the ordinances that staff reviewed delineated hours
of the day. The proposed ordinances were developed in consultation with the City Attorney and past cases
before the Municipal Court Judge.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested nighttime barking would be more disruptive than barking
that occurred during the daytime. Ms. Hope pointed out dogs barking during the day may be an issue for
people who sleep during the day. Council President Fraley-Monillas responded a smaller number of
residents sleep during the day. She suggested reducing the amount of time noise could occur at night such
as 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Ms. Hope advised that could be considered at the February 2 public hearing.
Councilmember Bloom referred to reference to female chickens and asked whether other poultry such as
ducks, geese and quail were allowed. ACOP Lawless advised they are allowed. Councilmember Bloom
suggested other poultry such as ducks, geese, quail, etc. be specified and not just chickens. ACOP
Lawless advised female chickens was specified to prevent the keeping of roosters. Councilmember Bloom
suggested adding reference to ducks, geese and quail. Ms. Hope offered to research whether they were
included by definition.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained based on this language, poultry is prohibited and the exception to
the rule is hens. If the Council’s intent is to allow other poultry, the ordinance will need to be revised.
ACOP Lawless suggested that may be a separate discussion, recalling during previous discussions the
intent was to allow hens.
Councilmember Petso offered to forward the letter the Council received and asked staff to provide
comments related to the citizens’ other concerns. She relayed a concern that when the dog license fees
were changed, the non-resident fee was less than the resident fee. ACOP Lawless advised revisions to the
pet licensing fees will be a separate discussion. He advised the City has issued three licenses to Esperance
residents. Non-residents are not required to license their pets in Edmonds; it is done as a mechanism to
return an animal that gets loose. Input from those residents was they would not license their dogs if the
fee was increased.
Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff on the revisions to the ordinances.
Councilmember Johnson referred to deleted Section 5.05.130.1.G that contained a definition of poultry as
pheasants, quail, guinea fowl and pea fowl. She suggested instead of only referencing chickens,
referencing poultry and the definition.
A public hearing is scheduled for February 2, 2015.
11. PRESENTATION OF A SPRINT MASTER USE AGREEMENT AND SITE USE AGREEMENT
FOR INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THEIR WIRELESS
EQUIPMENT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 14
City Engineer Rob English explained in 2013 Sprint submitted a permit application to modify their
existing wireless antenna facility at 8730 Main Street. In reviewing the application, staff found there was
no existing Master Use Agreement (MUA) with Sprint for that facility. Staff and Mike Bradley,
Lighthouse Law, negotiated the MUA. The conditions are similar to the MUA the City has with three
other wireless providers, AT&T/Cingular, T-Mobile and Clearwire that were executed in 2005/2006. The
most significant change is the fee structure; the fees in the previous agreements ranged from $2,000 –
$5,000 and the range in this MUA is proposed to be $9,000 – 12,000 depending on the type of
installation. Another change proposed for this MUA is a Site Use Agreement, contained in Exhibit B, that
will be executed for each installation and allow staff to track and document each installation.
The second attachment is the Site Use Agreement for Sprint’s wireless facility at 8730 Main Street for
which the City issued a permit in October 2013. The Site Use Agreement addresses fees since installation
of $11,250 and a 5% fee increase per year, the 5 year term, and potential renegotiation in 5 years. He
recommended placing the ordinance on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Petso observed the MUA was not related to a specific site tower but any Sprint wireless
facility. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether it authorized new facilities or changed
the permitting requirements for facilities. Mr. English answered new facilities still require a permit and
review by Planning and Building for compliance with the code. A new facility would also require a Site
Use Agreement and appropriate fees.
Councilmember Petso asked whether this agreement would allow the wireless provider to circumvent any
currently required notification of neighbors or opportunity for comment. Mr. English answered he was not
aware that there was a public meeting requirement. Mr. Taraday answered this is primarily a franchise to
allow use of City right-of-way from a property rights standpoint; it does not have much to do with land
use permitting. He was not prepared tonight to answer the land use permitting question tonight. From a
big picture standpoint, he suggested Councilmembers think of this as a property right that was being
granted via a franchise to allow Sprint to use the public right-of-way. He summarized this was a real
estate document, not a land use document.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the MUA granted use in multiple unspecified locations. Mr. Taraday
answered he was not prepared to explain how this interfaces with the land use code. If Councilmember
Petso’s question was whether this granted the provider any easier access to a facility in Edmonds than
they would otherwise have without a MUA, Public Works Director Phil Williams said the provider would
still be required to satisfy all the code conditions. The MUA only provides a mechanism for approving
use of the City’s rights-of-way, establishes a fee, allows tracking of facilities, etc. There was no intent to
change any of the existing requirements they would otherwise be required to meet in the code
Councilmember Johnson relayed a concern from a resident on Main about super tall structures with cell
antennas. She asked whether that had been addressed in the development code. Mr. English answered he
was not extremely familiar with the development code but any proposal to install a larger facility would
go through plans review. Councilmember Johnson commented the pole was noticeably tall, approximately
30-50% taller than a standard telephone pole. Mr. Williams answered from a right-of-way standpoint,
verticality is not an issue. He offered to provide Council an answer before next week’s meeting.
Councilmember Petso said she has also been contacted by residents regarding those “already super high
towers.” She said they may be super tall PUD structures that have cell facilities attached.
Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the second attachment regarding wireless facilities at 8730
Main Street located on a Snohomish PUD pole.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Staff will provide
answer to question regarding super tall poles.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 15
12. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN PROPOSED
AMENDMENT(S) TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE FIRE DISTRICT 1'S FIRE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Mayor Earling explained in late August Fire District 1 (FD1) provided the City an invoice for $1.67
million invoice for 2013 and 2014 which was reflective of additional costs as a result of multiple years of
negotiations that the FD1 Commission had with their union membership. Since that time 25 meetings
have been held either in-house with FD1 or with the other 2 contract cities, Mountlake Terrace and Brier.
Of those meetings, 12 meeting had been held with FD1 including 1 meeting that Mr. James and a
Councilmember had with the State Auditor. The meetings focused on a request to justify the costs;
receiving a $1.67 million bill in late August with a request to pay it by September 15 with no backup
material was difficult to accept. It has been difficult to get some of the requested information from FD1
over the last several months and some of the answers are still forthcoming.
As important is examining the text of the original contract and seeking clarity regarding a contract written
five years ago under a different administration and several different FD1 Commissioners. FD1 has taken
the position that until the City pays the bill, they are not willing to entertain any negotiation with regard to
the text in the existing contract. FD1 has committed in writing and verbally that they will enter into
negotiations as soon as the City pays bill. FD1 has agreed to allow eight payments over two years and has
extended the deadline on at least two occasions but are taking the position that it is now time to pay the
bill. Mayor Earling emphasized the community has received superb service from FD1 personnel; that is
not part of the issue. There are still outstanding concerns and depending on Council action, staff will
move forward with further negotiations regarding the text of the contract.
Finance Director Scott James explained he also found the bill much larger than expected; similar
increases were sent to the other two contract cities, Brier and Mountlake Terrace. In addition to attending
many meetings, he also attended meetings with the former fire chief to gain insight and with the finance
directors of other two contract cities to gain additional facts regarding the retroactive bill. The three
finance directors posed several questions to FD1’s finance director related to the, 1) the labor contract,
and 2) the basis for the contract. The City’s contract with FD1 includes options for raising salaries
according to CPI, using comparable cities and an arbitration ruling. It was discovered FD1 worked with a
third party negotiator to reach an agreement.
FD1’s contract with the union expired in 2012 which raises the question why the City did not better
anticipate this increase. All three mayors indicate they had asked FD1 for information regarding the cost
increases. FD1’s administration indicated there was no way to share that information until the union
contracts were settled. As written, the City’s contract with FD1 does not provide a provision for FD1 to
pass on estimated costs, only costs that are negotiated as part of a labor agreement. The City asked FD1
for a copy of Exhibit C, the costs associated with labor, overhead for administration and equipment and
the basis for the rate increase which was a list of comparable cities.
The State Auditor recently completed an audit of FD1’s 2013 financials and he requested a meeting with
the Auditor to discuss the results. A meeting was held with FD1 Commissioners (noticed because a
majority of the Commission attended), Councilmember Petso, him, FD1 administration and several staff
members from the auditor’s office. His intent was to gain an understanding what was audited and if there
was anything in the audit justifying rate increase. The auditors looked at Exhibit C to determine whether it
matched the contract and labor costs, etc. The auditor found the cost increases were justified. The auditor
declined to look at the contract itself as it was the outside scope of their audit.
Mr. James relayed the City asked for concessions from FD1 related to the overhead charge. He explained
FD1 was not exempt from the recession and also experienced revenue reductions as well as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 16
administration staff reduction. The City suggested Edmonds share in the administration reduction by way
of a reduction in the overhead charge. FD1 declined, stating the City received the services outlined in the
contract.
With regard to how the bill got so large, Mr. James explained the labor agreement covers 2013 and 2014.
When the City’s contract with FD1 was signed in 2009, the labor agreement had expired and a new labor
agreement was negotiated that covered 2010 - 2012. Edmonds only experienced one increase of
approximately $20,000 for that 3 year period. The labor group did not want FD1 to follow-up on
increases in that contract due their fear concessions would need to be made such as layoffs. The labor
group agreed to a 1 month increase that the City saw in 2012. The labor group did not get increases for
2010, 2011, 2011, 2013 and 2014 with the exception of the one increase in 2012. When the labor group
began bargaining the new contract, the economic climate was improving and FD1 revenues were
increasing. When the agreement was settled, there was a lot of ground to make up for the years that the
labor group did not receive increases which is the primary reason the bill for the retro is so high.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to Section 4 of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between the City and
FD1, Annual Contract and Transport Fees Payment Terms. The packet includes proposed changes to
Section 4 that it is hoped FD1 will agree to in the future. It was hoped FD1 would agree to an amendment
that would incorporate the City’s proposed revisions in exchange for the City’s agreeing to pay the retro
payment invoice. FD1 has refused to consider those changes until after invoice paid.
The reason the City is in this situation is related to Paragraph 4.4 of the ILA. When the City was
preparing its 2013 budget in September 2012, the labor agreement between FD1 and the union had not yet
been finalized so the City did not have the new contract payment amount that ordinarily would be
adjusted by September 1 according to Paragraph 4.4. Under the ILA, the contract payment is adjusted
each September 1; that cannot happen if the labor agreement is not settled. Under 4.4, once the labor
agreement is settled, the District’s station personnel costs and the District’s indirect costs will be adjusted
upon execution of the labor agreement but will be retroactive to January 1. The drafters of the agreement
never contemplated a situation where it would take more than a year to settle the labor contract such as
happened in this instance. Ideally the adjusted numbers would have been provided in September 2012;
that labor agreement was settled in April 2014. While the agreement specifically addresses the payment
being retroactive upon execution of the labor agreement it did not address this scenario where it occurred
over a year later.
With regard to whether the City could take the position of only being responsible for a year of the retro
pay was evaluated, legally Mr. Taraday did not recommend the City take that position given other
language in the contract and that there was no express language in the contract suggesting an intent of the
parties to let the City not pay for the actual cost of service just because a labor agreement was late in
being resolved. At the end of the day, the City received a service from FD1 and the City now has to pay
for that service. The auditor confirmed what the City is being billed for is the actual cost of the service.
Any argument to not pay to the bill is essentially an argument that the City should not pay for the actual
cost of the services that were provided. The agreement does not include any language to suggest an intent
of the parties that FD1 would subsidize Edmonds and allow the City not to pay a portion of its bill.
Mr. Taraday said going forward the parties recognize from a budgeting standpoint not being able to
identify its fire costs at the time the budget is prepared creates major problems for the City. The proposed
amendments to the ILA include a new process for FD1 to communicate actual or at least anticipated labor
costs to the City during the budget process. The timing of the labor contract, the lack of an estimation of
actual labor costs and the lack an invoice for the estimated labor costs is what has resulted in this large
bill. FD1 seems open to fixing this issue among other issues in the contract.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 17
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO SIGN THE CONTRACT THAT EQUALIZES THE PAYMENTS OVER 2 YEARS
AND PAY THE BILL.
Councilmember Petso said she was able to attend the meeting with FD1 and auditors. Several questions
were raised as a result of information revealed at that meeting. FD1 has not responded to all the questions
regarding the amount they have billed. She will abstain from the vote because although she recognized a
lot was due, she did not have sufficient information to ensure the entire amount invoiced was due.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she attended a couple meetings. The City made significant cuts to salaries
during the Great Recession; in 2010 to 2014 the City experienced was only a .10% increase in salaries
and benefits, from $16,305,766 to $17,810,248. She complimented Mayor Earling for a great job of
controlling salaries and benefits. She relayed FD1 does not see any differentiation between the process
and the amount owed. Mr. Taraday agreed that was FD1’s position. FD1 has not ruled out revising the
contract language to make it more workable from a budget standpoint but they are completely unwilling
to allow the City to defer payment until the budgeting issue is addressed. Councilmember Buckshnis said
FD1’s compromise is the payment structure. Mr. James explained FD1 has offered concessions; when
they first presented the bill on August 22, the due date was September 15. Administration felt it could not
be paid without conducting some due diligence and demanded an extension which FD1 allowed until
November 30. FD1 later extended the deadline to January 31. Second, FD1 allowed payments over eight
8 and third; FD1 offered a $63,000 reduction in the bill.
Councilmember Buckshnis said FD1 Commissioners were invited to tonight’s meeting. They declined,
finding it was not to their benefit. She applauded the tremendous amount of work staff, Mr. Taraday and
the mayor have done. She summarized the City has no alternative than to approve the motion and
immediately begin work on amending the ILA language.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out Mr. James offered several courses of action:
1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Fire District 1's proposed amendment, and/or
2) Authorize the Mayor to sign the City's proposed amendments, and/or
3) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Fire District 1's proposed amendment upon receiving a verbal
commitment from Fire District 1’s Commissioner(s) to address the City’s proposed amendments within
an established time period, such as within the next two months.
She asked which option the motion addressed and whether FD1 provided a verbal commitment at today’s
meeting that they would address the issues within the next couple months. Council President Fraley-
Monillas advised FD1 committed to renegotiate the contract. The motion is Option 1.
Councilmember Bloom asked Council President Fraley-Monillas why she was proposing Option 1.
Council President Fraley-Monillas answered Option 1 divides the payment into 8 equal payments. The
City has the money to pay the bill in its entirety but the ability to pay it in 8 payments with a very low
interest rate (the State Pool Investment rate which is currently .09%) appeals to her.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the only difference between Option 1 and 3 was in Option 3 the
Council authorizes the Mayor to sign FD1’s proposed amendment upon receiving a verbal commitment to
address the City’s proposed amendments. Council President Fraley-Monillas said FD1 has refused to sign
or talk about any amendment until the City pays the bill.
Councilmember Bloom asked what questions FD1 failed to answer with regard to the invoice.
Councilmember Petso answered one of the questions that resulted from information she received at the
meeting with auditor pertained to the vehicle replacement funding or apparatus funding schedule. It is not
a large portion of the bill but there has been no response to the question that was raised. Mr. James agreed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 18
that question that has not been addressed. Exhibit C of the contract indicates the apparatus escalator is
4%; Exhibit D also contains an escalator of 3%. Those issues can be resolved during negotiation of the
contract terms. Mayor Earling assured staff will continue to pursue the answer to that question as well as
other potential financial benefits but there is a payment deadline.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Commissioner Kenny, Fire Chief Widdis and FD1’s attorney said
they were willing to open the contract to renegotiate the terms; therefore, Option 3 was the best choice.
Mr. James agreed FD1 is willing to open the contract and negotiate the terms but did not commit to
negotiating the City’s proposal and indicated they have some of their own requests to negotiations. Mr.
James recommended the Council approve Option 1.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification whether FD1 was willing to commit to addressing the
City’s concerns. Mr. Taraday explained the City’s initial hope was to trade the City’s willingness to pay
the bill for the amendment to the agreement that is included in the Council packet. If Option 3 is
interpreted to be that action, that is not going to happen. Option 1 already includes a statement in the
amendment that FD1 drafted that FD1 intends to work with the City to negotiate provisions that will
improve the contract. Specifically, Paragraph 5 of FD1’s amendment reads, “Commencing in February,
2015, the parties agree to meet and discuss options for assessing the Agreement and to address potential
amendments to the Agreement that may be desired by each party.” That statement does not say FD1 will
adopt Edmonds’ proposed amendments but they recognize that will be on table for discussion. Council
President Fraley-Monillas summarized FD1 is willing to discuss the contract; there just is not a specific
time table.
Mayor Earling commented based on the amount of progress made during the last five months; he would
be reluctant to recommend the Council give direction to solve all the problems in two months. He noted it
is often a challenge just to schedule meetings. There is a commitment from FD1 to begin in February
looking at the City’s and FD1 issues and reaching a resolution.
Councilmember Bloom Section referred to Section 8.1, Agreement Administrators, that addresses the
District providing the Mayor quarterly reports and as well as two District Board Commissioners, two City
Councilmembers, the District Fire Chief and Mayor meeting at least once per year on or before April 1.
She asked whether those have occurred and if not, why not. In order to support Option 1, she wanted
assurance FD1 was willing to amend the contract to avoid surprises in the future as well as assurance that
the requirement for quarterly reports and an annual meeting as specified in the current contract would be
met starting immediately. Mayor Earling answered there have been meetings but probably not quarterly.
During the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) meetings, the mayors of the three cities realized they did not
know how much they should be paying for fire service. The District and City interfaced on a regular basis
during the RFA process and have had numerous meetings with FD1 over the past several months. He
committed to calling the parties together for a meeting by April 1, recognizing several meetings regarding
negotiations would also be held during that time. He suggested Council President Fraley-Monillas appoint
two Councilmembers to participate in that meeting.
Councilmember Bloom observed it appeared the requirement for quarterly reports/meetings had been met.
She asked whether an annual meeting on or before April 1 with two District Board Commissioners, two
City Councilmembers, the District Fire Chief and Mayor had been held in the past. Mayor Earling
answered it has not. When he took office in 2012 he was not aware that was required by the contract and
the meeting was not held in 2013 or 2014. He assured it would be held in 2015. Mr. Taraday observed the
Joint Annual Meeting referenced in Section 8.2 has been held.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 19
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported WSDOT is expecting to have a ribbon cutting on the SR 104 crosswalk within the
next 2 weeks; the public and the Council will be notified when that is scheduled. He remarked the
crosswalk will improve pedestrian safety when crossing that very busy street as well as allow people to
more freely east to west. He said Go Hawks.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Fraley-Monillas announced her appointment of Dulane Fleetwood to the Economic
Development Commission. In response to Councilmember Johnson’s comments about the senior center
and Councilmember Bloom’s comments about emergency vehicle access, Council President Fraley-
Monillas commented identifying funding for a major project will be a difficult task in the coming 1-2
years. She suggested the City begin talking about providing emergency services on the waterfront such as
training in CPR, operation of Automated External Defibrillators (AED) and basic first aid and having
volunteers available on the west side of the tracks to provide first aid. She suggested the City could fund
AEDs for buildings on the waterfront and provide first aid training to volunteers in those buildings. She
suggested discussing that option along with emergency vehicle access. She said Go Hawks.
On behalf of the Tree Board, Councilmember Bloom announced an open house to learn about trees that
attract wildlife and are suited to small yards, help in selecting the right tree for a yard’s conditions and
free trees on January 31 from 9 a.m. to 12 pm at PUD’s office at 21018 Highway 99, Edmonds.
Councilmember Petso said Go Hawks.
Councilmember Mesaros said he was glad to hear about WSDOT’s plans for a ribbon cutting for the SR
104 crosswalk as he crosses there when walking to and from Council meetings. He reported the power
was out at Pt. Edwards for 36 hours earlier this month and for 14 hours during the last 10 days. He
reiterated his offer to represent the City at the Super Bowl; he is leaving for Arizona on Thursday.
Councilmember Johnson announced a series of classes offered by Pacific Science Center, Port Townsend
Marine Science Center and Edmonds Community College regarding how to be toxic free. The classes will
offer tips on cleaning products, personal care, home garden and food and making toxic free cleaning
products. The classes will be held at the Edmonds Conference Center on Mondays January 26 through
March 9 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. She said Go Hawks.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Go Redwings; the hockey season has begun at her house.
15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2015
Page 20
16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
AM-7486 4. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Renee McRae
Department:Parks and Recreation
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to Sign Agreement with the YMCA to Operate Yost Pool for the 2015 Season.
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with the YMCA to operate Yost Pool for the 2015 season.
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.
The 2015 operation of Yost Pool was discussed at the February 10, 2015 Council meeting. Council
recommended forwarding the agreement to the February 17 consent agenda.
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.
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
Agreement with YMCA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/12/2015 11:57 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/12/2015 03:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/13/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 02/11/2015 05:33 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/13/2015
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
Page 1 of 6
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
Page 2 of 6
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
Each Party warrants that it will obtain and keep in place during the term of this Agreement the
following insurance coverage or its equivalent in pooled self-insurance, and that it agrees to the
following provisions related thereto:
A.) Commercial General Liability insurance coverage 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.
B.) 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 and insured contract.
C.) Sexual Abuse/Molestation Insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each
occurrence or claim limits.
D.) The City shall be named as an insured under Concessionaire’s Commercial Grade
Liability and Sexual Abuse/Molestation insurance policies with respect to the
operations performed using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 04 [3 and
Additional Insured-Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute
endorsements providing equivalent coverage.
E.) The City has liability coverage through its membership in Washington Cities
Insurance Authority (WCIA) insurance pool. The above requirement shall be
satisfied by the City’s coverage by and membership in the WCIA pool.
F.) Failure on the part of the Concessionaire or the City to maintain the insurance as
required shall constitute a material breach of this agreement, upon which the
Concessionaire or the City may, after giving five (5) business days’ notice to the
other Party to correct the breach, immediately terminate the Agreement.
G.) All insurance policies 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
Concessionaire shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers harmless from all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or in
equity arising in whole or in part from the Concessionaire’s negligence or breach of any of its
obligations under this Agreement; provided that nothing herein shall require the Concessionaire
Page 3 of 6
to indemnify the City again and hold harmless the City from claims, injuries, damages, losses,
demands or suits based solely on the conduct of the City, its agents, officers, officials, employees
and volunteers; and provided further that if any such claims or suits are caused by or result from
the concurrent negligence of: (a) the Concessionaire, its agents, officers, or employees; and (b)
the City, its agents, officers, officials, employees or volunteers, this indemnity provision with
respect to: (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence; and (2) the costs to the City of
defending such claims or suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the
Concessionaire’s negligence or the negligence of the Concessionaire’s agents, officers or
employees.
Should the Concessionaire be required to incur defense expenses on behalf or itself or the City in
defending a claim which ultimately is determined to be the result of the sole negligence of the
City, the City shall indemnify and hold harmless the Concessionaire for such expense.
The Parties shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including
RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers.
The Parties specifically assume potential liability for actions brought by their own employees
against the other Party and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Parties
specifically waive any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW.
I. RULES GOVERNING CONCESSION OPERATION
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.
Page 4 of 6
Termination without cause – This Agreement may be terminated by the City or Concessionaire
without cause, in whole or in part, prior to the termination date specified in Section B. Term of
Agreement, by providing forty-five (45) days advanced written notice of the termination to the
other Party.
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
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.
Page 5 of 6
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
Page 6 of 6
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
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
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
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
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
AM-7491 4. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
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
Staff presented the Annual Street Preservation Program Carryforward Budget Amendment to Council on
February 10th.
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
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/12/2015 04:23 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/12/2015 08:46 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/13/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 02/12/2015 03:51 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/13/2015
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
1
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.
2
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
3
EXHIBIT “A”: Budget Amendment Summary (February 2015)
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
4
EXHIBIT “B”: Budget Amendments by Revenue (February 2015)
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$
5
EXHIBIT “C”: Budget Amendments by Expenditure (February 2015)
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$
6
EXHIBIT “D”: Budget Amendments (February 2015)
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 -
7
EXHIBIT “E”: Budget Amendment Summary (February 2015)
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
8
EXHIBIT “F”: Budget Amendments (February 2015)
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
9
AM-7483 4. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Police Uniform Vendor Contract Renewal
Recommendation
It is the recommendation and request of staff that Council approve via Consent Agenda, authorizing the
Mayor's signature on all three contracts.
Previous Council Action
This item was presented to Council during the February 10, 2015 Study Session. Council agreed to
forward to the February 17, 2015 Business Meeting for approval via Consent Agenda.
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
Blumenthal's Pricing
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/11/2015 10:35 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/11/2015 11:29 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/11/2015 11:34 AM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 02/11/2015 10:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2015
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
ItemModelPrice2XL+UNIFORMSSHIRT, MEN'S SHORT SLEEVE, DK NAVYSHT-TD02DN 59.00$ SHIRT, MEN'S LONG SLEEVE, DK NAVYSHT-TD02LDN64.00$ SHIRT, SHORT SLEEVE, MED BLUEM-HS1496/F-HS149742.00$ SHIRT, LONG SLEEVE, MED BLUEANIMAL CONTROLM-HS1494/F-HS149546.00$ SHIRT, SHORT SLEEVE, WHITEM-HS1223/F-HS127847.00$ SHIRT, LONG SLEEVE, WHITEM-HS1125/F-HS117752.00$ SHIRT, CONTEMPORARY DUTY, DK NAVYSHT-CD02DN82.00$ SHIRT, BDU,LONG SLEEVEPROPPER F545233.00$ SHIRT, LONG SLEEVE, MED BLUECLERKSM-HS1494/F-HS149551.00$ POLO SHIRT, BLUEBERRYSANMAR L44823.00$ 27.00$ PANTS, MEN'S P-TD02NPDN99.00$ PANTS, WOMEN'S P-TD02NPDN99.00$ PANT, CONTEMPORARY DUTY, DK NAVYP-CD02LTDN130.00$ JUMPSUIT ALL SEASON TRADITIONALDK NAVYJMP93TDASDN515.00$ JUMPSUIT WINTER TRADITIONALDK NAVYJMP93TDDN515.00$ JUMPSUIT SUMMER TRADITIONALDK NAVYJMP93TDLTDN475.00$ BELTCLERKSDUTYMAN151119.95$ 5.11 RAIN PANTSBLACK48057-01995.00$ 5.11 TDU P/C RIPSTOP PANTBLACK74003-01944.50$ 5.11 TDP RIPSTOP SHIRT, LONG SLEEVEBLACK72002-01947.75$ PATROL DUTY JACKETJ-PD07375.00$ PANT, MOTOR BREECH, SUMMER, DK NAVYP-MC994LTDN215.00$ PANT, MOTOR BREECH, WINTER, DK NAVYP-MC994DN235.00$ TURTLENECK SHIRT, NAVYMOCK NECK SHIRT, NAVYHAT, LAPD STYLE INC RC AND CAP STRAPMIDWAY LAPD59.00$ CAP COVERNEESE 447CCNCAP STRAP, SNAKE STYLE SIILVERCADET 7-450CAP STRAP, SNAKE STYLE GOLDCADET 7-451TIE, WOMEN'S CLIP ONBROOME 45055-618.95$ TIE, REGULAR NAVY CLIP ON BROOME 45015-618.95$ TIE, LONG NAVY CLIP ONBROOME 45045-619.50$
TIE, WOMEN'S NAVY VELCROBROOME 45122-6113.95$ TIE, REGULAR NAVY VELCROBROOME 45095-6113.95$ TIE, LONG, NAVY VELCROBROOME 45115-6114.50$ BOOTSBOOT, WOMEN'S GORETEX HI-TOPROCKY 4044BOOT, MEN'S GORETEX HI-TOP LUG SOLEROCKY 8032BOOT, 5.11 ATAC 6"5.11 12002 BLK85.75$ BOOT, 5.11 ATAC 8"5.11 12001 BLK92.50$ BOOT, MEN'S DANNER ACADIA21210258.00$ BOOT, LOW TOPTHOROGOOD 834-6056MEN'S SHOE BLACKROCKY 2025THOROGOOD CLERKSMK706BLTHOROGOOD CLERKS534-6908BODY ARMORBALLISTIC VEST, POINT BLANKVISION AXIIIA W/OUT THORSHIELD 2 CARRIERSVISIONAXIIIA2CARNOTHOR896.00$ DUTY GEARHOLSTER, ALK MID RIDE LEVEL II NO LIGHT6360-219 128.80$ DUTY BELT BW, 2.25AKER B0160.00$ DUTY BELT BW, 2.25BIANCHI 795059.00$ ASP HOLDER BW CLOSED BOTTOMAKER 552 FOR 21/2629.75$ ASP HOLDER BW CLOSED BOTTOMBIANCHI 7912-2402223.99$ KEEPER, BW HIDDEN SNAPBIANCHI 790613.75$ MACE HOLDER, MK4, BW, HSAKER 570H34.75$ MACE HOLDER, MK4, BW, HSBIANCHI 7907-2209930.25$ CUFF CASE, SINGLE, BW, HSAKER 508H37.00$ CUFF CASE, SINGLE, BW, HSBIANCHI 7900-2310128.75$ KEYHOLDERAKER 56422.50$ KEYHOLDERBIANCHI 7916-2211921.00$ DOUBLE MAG PUCH, BW, HSBIANCHI 7902-02-2534135.50$ DOUBLE MAG PUCH, BW, HSSAFARILAND 77-76-4HS35.00$
HANDCUFFSPEERLESS 700BN27.50$ TACTICAL BATON F-21BASP 5241184.00$ TACTICAL BATON F-26ASP 5361188.50$ GEAR BAGHWI DB10049.00$ HI VIS SAFETY VEST W/POLICE FRONT AND BACKHS333739.00$ COLLAR BRASS, E.P. 1/2" RHODIUMCW NIELSEN15.00$ COLLAR BRASS, E.P. 1/2" GOLDCW NIELSEN15.00$ TIE BAR, W/SEAL AND EP RHODIUMCW NIELSENTIE BAR, W/SEAL AND EP GOLDCW NIELSENSET OF BUTTON W/ WASHERS, TOGG SILVERWATERBURYSET OF BUTTON W/ WASHERS, TOGG GOLDWATERBURYCHEVRONS, SGT, PAIR4.00$ CHEVRONS, CORP, PAIR4.00$ SERVICE BARS1.00$ EACHMETAL NAMETAGSN8 SLVR OR GOLD14.95$ EMB NTAG, JKT, (F.M. LAST)8.00$ EMB NTAG, SHIRT, (F.M. LAST)8.00$ PRINT PANEL, POLICE, REFLECTIVE SILVER18.00$ ACADEMYHANES T-SHIRT5180 6.25$ 8.25$ LAST NAME ON SHIRTGRAY SWEATSHIRTJERZEES 562M12.50$ 13.25$ LAST NAME ON SWEATSHIRTGRAY SWEATPANTSJERZEE 973M14.25$ 15.95$ PANTS, NAVY UNIFORM 65/35REDKAP 5P56T00BLUE ACADEMY PANTS 5.11 74004-72444.50$ BLUE ACADEMY PANTS, RIPSTOP 5.11 74003-72447.25$ PANTS, CARGO BDUPROPPER F520131.50$ ACADEMY SHIRT, S/SWITH SEWN IN CREASESREDKAP ST62NV20.50$ ACADEMY SHORTSSPORTTEK ST31015.25$ L/S TACTICAL GEAR SHIRTSPORT TEX-T473LS15.99$ 16.99$
TRAFFIC TEMPLATEPICKETT 18619.95$ GRAVITY GRIP HAND TRAINERGRAVITY GRIPPMOUTHPIECEBASEBALL HAT W/ EMB EP58528.00$ ELBOW GUARDHATCH NE3515.00$ KNEE GUARDHATCH NE4532.00$ ALTERATIONSWAIST ADJUSTMENT18.00$ ALTER RISE18.00$ SHORTEN SLEEVE12.00$ SEW ON EMBLEMINCLUDED WITH GARMENT5.00$ SEW ON BADGEINCLUDED WITH GARMENT5.00$ SEW ON NAMEINCLUDED WITH GARMENT5.00$ SEW ON CHEVRONS, PAIRINCLUDED WITH GARMENT5.00$ SEW ON BUTTONS5.00$ TAPER SIDES OF SHIRT18.00$ SEW ON POLICE PANEL5.00$ SEW ON VELCRO ON BACK OF EMBLEM5.00$ EMBROIDER NAME8.00$ SEW ON SERVICE STRIPESINCLUDED WITH GARMENT5.00$ REMOVE EMBLEMS, PAIR5.00$
KROESEN'S UNIFORM LIST - UPDATED PRICINGItem Model Kroesen's 2015.00 Alternative Option/ Current Disc % Price List CommentsShirt, Men's Short Sleeved F/C 746R9226 69.50 Discontinued Shirt, Men's long sleeved F/C 414W92267 92.50 Discontinued Wool s/s dark navy UD70r958672.50 Matches 32289 pantsWool l/s shirt UD20W958661.25 Matches 32289 pants Shirt name tag (F.M,.Last) 3/4" x 3" cloth 4.75 4.95 Shirt name tag (F.M,.Last) Reflective Silver5.95 w/mylar letters Sew on emblem COG $2.50 NC 2.00 Sew on badge COG $2.50 2.00 2.00 Sew on name COG $2.50 2.00 2.00 Sew on chevrons, per pair COG $2.50 pr 2.00 2.00 Sew on buttonsNC 2.00 Sew on years of service COG $2.50 1.00 0.75 Remove emblems, per pair2.00 2.00 Turtle neck shirts, navy Blauer 8100X 29.50 25.00 Mock turtle neck shirts,navy Blauer 8100X 29.50 25.00 Blauer 8110X Shirt, short sleeve, med blue Flying cross 49.50 44.0095R6625 Shirt, short sleeve, white Flying cross 37.50 35.00 65R5400 Shirt, long sleeve, white Flying cross 39.50 37.00 15W5400 Shirt, BDU, long sleeve Propper 5452 32.50 27.86Krosen's does not charge to apply our patches to new purchases ** WILL NOW CHARGE $2.00 UNDER NEW CONTRACTKroesen's does not charge to apply patches that were purchased from themKreosen's does not charg to removed old emblems when replacing them with new
Pants, Men's wool navy SPD mod 32289 140.00 99.00style O/SPant, Men's wool navy SPD mod 32289 125.00 90.00Pant, Men's dacron wool SPD Blauer 8561P7 89.50 85.50Pant, Women's wool navy SPD mod 35289 130.00 90.00Pant, Tactical Class A, Fechheimer 44900 102.50Discontinued84.00 Similar style #47680Traditional Pant w/Ninja Pocket N/A N/A Contemporary Summer Weight Pt N/A N/A Pant, Tactical Class A, Edwards Co. 8650 42.00 42.00 Rain Pants 48057-19 99.99 93.005.11 TDU P/C Rip pants 74003-019 44.99 44.005.11 TDP Rip Shirt l/s 72002-019 54.99 47.00JumpsuitN/A Nametag Patches Badge Service Stripes Chevrons Sleeveless Sweater vest SAI 6600 24.50 21.00 UP TO XL24.00 2XL AND UPPatrol Duty Jacket JPD07N/A 5 in 1 Jacket (Basic Charge) 5.11 48017-724 249.99 224.00 BUC Patrol Jacket (Basic Chg) PJ400 N/A Jacket name tag (F.M.Last) 1" x 5" cloth 6.50 6.50 Reflective Police Panel Heroes pride 7.50 7.00 Hat, LAPD style inc rain cover Midway LAPD 55.50 56.00 and cap strap Cap cover, black nylon Blauer 101 7.00 7.00
Baseball cap w/embroider 16.80 Richardson 585 Embroider "Edmonds Police" Embroidery included Cap strap, snake style silver Eisman Ludmar 7.50 6.50 Cap strap, snake style gold Eisman Ludmar 7.50 6.50 Watch cap navy/gold13.95 Tie, women's clip on Broome 45055-61 7.00 7.00 Tie, Regular navy clip on Broome 45015-61 7.00 7.00Tie, Long navy clip on Broome 45045-61 7.00 7.00Tie, women's navy velcro Broome 45122-61 7.00 7.00Tie, Regular navy velcro Broome 45095-61 7.00 7.00Tie, Long navy velcro Broome 45115-61 7.00 7.00Tie, Long navy velcro Broome 45135-617.00Boots, Acadia 21210 WSP243.60 Boots, Blackhawk II Danner 24600 229.00Discontinued235.20 Danner Patrol #25200Boot, Women's Goretex hi-top Rocky 4044Discontinued112.00 Rocky #4090Boot, Goretex hi top lug sole Rocky 8032 147.50Discontinued183.40 Rocky #81321Boot, 5.11 ATAC 6" 5.11 12002-BLK 86.00 84.00 Boot, 5.11 ATAC 8" 5.11 12001-BLK 95.00 91.00 Boot, Striker 8", Goretex Danner 42980 145.00Discontinued170.80 Danner Striker #43003Boot, 8" Stiker II GTX Discontinued130.20 Danner Kinetic #28010Boot, ATAC 8" waterproof 12004-019 129.99 119.00 Boot, Goretex cross trainer Danner 42900Discontinued134.40 Danner Striker #43027Boot, Men's nylon/ltr/Acadia Danner 21210 229.00 243.60 Swat Metro Air 9" w/side zip OSWAT 12340187.33 Swat Metro Air 5" w/side zip OSWAT 12610171.84 Shoe, lo top Thorogood 834-6056 115.50 109.20 Men's shoe Black Rocky 2025 93.00Discontinued105.00 Rocky #5000 Ballistic Vest w/2 vision carriers Alpha Elite IIIA Do not carryBallistic Vest w/1 vision carrier Alpha Elite IIIA Do not carryBallistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-3A00S-SM01 NA 765.00 Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-2000S-SM01 NA 835.00 Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance 3A SM02835.00 2 carriersBallistic Vest, 2nd Chance 2 SM02790.00 2 carriersBallistic Vest, 2nd Chance 3A SM02760.00 1 carrierBallistic Vest, 2nd Chance 2 SM02725.00 1 carrier
ABA Xtreme XT02 3A691.00 2 mens carriersABA Xtreme XT02 3A691.00 2 female carriersHolster, ALS mid ride Level II 6280-219 160.00 91.63 BWSTXSafariland Duty Holster Level III 6360-219113.19 BWSTXDuty Belt BW 2 1/4 Aker B01 54.50 54.50 Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Bianchi 7950 52.50 45.33 Belt, Black BW 1 3/4 Chambers 6605 16.90 17.00 #7050Belt, Black BW 1 1/2 Chambers 660617.00 #6050Liner Belt Bianchi21.35 #7205ASP Holder BW closed bottom Aker 552 for 21/26 28.50 26.30 ASP Holder BW closed bottom Bianchi 7912-24022 or 45.50 20.65 Radio Holder W/Swivel Bianchi45.15 Keeper, BW hidden snap Bianchi 7906 14.50 11.90 Bianchi #7050Belt Keepers/D Ring/4 pk 27.50 K&W 535OBKTactical Harness 15.95 k&W 035OBKMace Holder MK4 BW HS Aker 570 30.50 30.50 Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Bianchi 7907 28.50 23.28 Mace Pouch, small Bianchi23.28 #7907Cuff case, single BW HS Aker 508 32.50 31.64Cuff case, single BW HS Bianchi 7900 28.50 24.15Cuff case, double Bianchi29.23 #7917Cuff case,double, W/HS 29.23 #7917Keyholder Aker 564 20.00 19.95Keyholder Bianchi 7916 21.50 18.38Double mag pouch BW HS Bianchi 7902 38.50 32.20Double mag pouch BW HS Saf 77-76-4HS 39.50 31.68Handcuffs 6501 28.50 25.34 Peerless 700Expandable Baton Holder Bianchi20.65 #7912Tactical Baton F-21B ASP 52411 84.50 88.27 Tactical Baton F-26 ASP 53611 87.50 92.82Gear Bag Premier PBG-081 53.50 35.95Tactical Patrol Bag 49.00 5.11 #59012Hi Vis Safety Vest Blauer 339P 49.50 44.00Side break ASP Baton Case 52433-BW36.40Flashlight ring BW7.00 Bianchi #7909Letters E.P. 1/2" Rhodium Emb Ent 15.90 14.00
Letters E.P. 1/2" Gold Emb Ent 15.90 14.00Tie bar w/seal & EP Rhodium C.W. Nielsen 16.30 13.95Tie bar w/seal & EP Gold C.W. Nielsen 16.30 13.95Set of btns w/washers, togg-silver Waterbury 10.50 10.50Set of btns w/washers, togg gold Waterbury 10.50 10.50Chevrons, sgt, pr Emblem Ent 5425S 3.00 2.50Chevrons, corp, pr Emblem Ent 5425C 3.00 2.50Service bars Emblem Ent 5396 0.75 0.56Insignia 5/8" 2 star (collar) M/2092A-GF8.75Insignia 1" 2-stars J101 smooth10.29Metal name tags N8 slvr or gold 15.00 15.00Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 55.90 52.15 (animal control) 45W6625Pant, poly/wool/pleated Fechheimer 32231 49.50 46.55ACADEMYHanes T- shirt Hanes T5180 4.50 17.50 w/nameLast name on shirt Gray sweatshirt Jerzees 562M Birch 10.50 22.00 w/nameLast name on sweatshirt Gray sweatpants Jerzees 973M Birch 13.00 14.00Pants, navy uniform 65%/35% BigBen PT62NV 20.50 24.00Blue academy pants 511-74004-724 44.99 44.00Blue academy pants-rip pants 511-74003-724 44.00 44.00Pants. Cargo/BDU Popper F5201 32.50 22.26Academy shirt s/s BigBen ST62NV 31.00 25.50 includes military creasesAcademy shorts Sport Tel ST310 12.00 13.00Traffic template 1186I 9.50 9.95Gravity grip hand trainer Gravity Gripp N/AMouthpiece Mouthpiece NA 1.25Baseball hat w/ emb EP19.95 16.80L/S Tactical Gear shirt Under Armor 1201085 28.00Discontinued14.98 San MarElbow Guard Hatch NE35 15.00 11.00Knee Guard Hatch NE45 32.00 24.00
Apply Heat Letters9.00 10.00Waist adjustment(Normal charge $10.00)10.00 10.00Alter rise(Normal charge $10.50)10.50 10.50Shorten sleeve(Normal charge $10.00)10.00 10.00Taper sides of shirt 10.00 10.00Sew on Police Panel2.00 2.00Sew velcro on back of emblem 2.00 2.00Heat stamp 1 line 1 side7.50 6.25CLERKSShirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 37.50 37.50 139R5425 Polo shirt, blueberry Sanmar L447 21.00 21.00Polo shirt 3/4 sleeve Colbalt Blue L801 22.50 25.50 3xl 22.50Polo shirt s/s Colbalt Blue L800 20.50 23.50 3xl 20.50Embroider name8.90 8.90 Pant, poly/wool/pleated 8659-10 42.00 42.00Pant, 511-tactical 3407IT-019 46.20Pant Edwards #8567 24.50 24.50Pant Edwards #8568 31.00 31.00Pant Edwards #8572 43.90 43.90Pant, poly/cotton/no pleats 8576-010-12 26.95 26.95Pant, 511 twill PDU A Class Model #64304 51.99 51.99 Black Micro Fleece Jacket L223 22.50 25.50 3xl 22.50Black/Chrome Jacket L790 soft shell 46.99 49.99 3xl 46.99Cardigan Sweater SAI 6300 36.50 36.50Port Authority Jacket l222 Black 42.50 42.50 Belt 6050-01 17.90 17.00 New Balance MK706BL 62.50New Balance WK706BL 62.50Thorogood 534-6908 100.00 100.00Propet shoes MaxiGrip WSR003 62.50 62.50
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR 2015 CONTRACTBlauer Supershirt Poly Wool Uniforms/Currently Bellevue Police Class ACargo pant 856576.00Dress pant 8561p682.00Non cargo pant 856072.00L/S shirt 843668.00S/S shirt 844660.00Bianchi Patroltek Leather GearDouble Mag 20C23.80Triple Mag 2923.80Key with flap 3112.60Covered key holder 31C17.50Asp Holder 32A16.80Baton ring 32P10.50Belt keepers 3315.40Handcuff case 35P21.00OC holder 36A23.80Large FL holder 37BL10.50Mini FL holder 37M12.60Compact FL holder 37S12.60Sam Brown Belt B2 38.50
Item Model Blumenthal Dept Using Current Disc % Item Shirt, Men's Short Sleeved Elbeco 7408Z 67.95 2.4% Shirt, Men's long sleeved Elbeco 7480Z 89.95 2.1% Shirt name tag (F.M,.Last) 22BB wht or gld ltrs 4.9528.7% Shirt name tag (F.M,.Last) Reflective Silver Sew on emblem COG $2.50 N/C 60% Sew on badge COG $2.50 1.00 60% Sew on name COG $2.50 1.00 Sew on chevrons, per pair COG $2.50 pr 2.50 Sew on buttonsNC Sew on years of service COG $2.50 1.00 Remove emblems, per pair2.50 Turtle neck shirts, navy 7700 22.50 16.5% Mock turtle neck shirts,navy 8600 22.50 Shirt, short sleeve, med blue Flying cross 45.5095R6625 Shirt, short sleeve, white Flying cross 25.0065R5400Shirt, long sleeve, white Flying cross 33.00 24.9%15W5400Shirt, BDU, long sleeve Propper 5452 29.95
Pants, Men's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13057 O/S 108.00 6%style O/SPant, Men's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13507 108.00Pant, Men's dacron wool SPD Fechheimer 32220 N/C Pant, Women's wool navy SPD Fechheimer 13507W 108.00Pant, Tactical Class A, 5.11 44060T N/ATraditional Pant w/Ninja Pocket N/A Contemporary Summer Weight Pt N/A Pant, Tactical Class A, N/A Rain Pants 48057-19 85.005.11 TDU P/C Rip pants 74003-019 42.505.11 TDP Rip Shirt l/s 72002-019 42.50JumpsuitN/A Nametag Patches Badge Service Stripes Chevrons Sleeveless Sweater vest SAI 6600 25.00 Patrol Duty Jacket JPD07 N/A 5 in 1 Jacket (Basic Charge) 5.11 48017-724 239.00 4.4% BUC Patrol Jacket (Basic Chg) PJ400 400.00 Jacket name tag (F.M.Last) 13DNDN wht ltrs/ 4.95 28.7% Reflective Police Panel X144038B (10170) 8.00 33.0%
Hat, LAPD style inc rain cover Midway LAPD 44.95 and cap strap Cap cover, black nylon Neese 447CCN 7.95 Baseball cap w/embroider11.95 14.3% Embroider "Edmonds Police" 10.00 16.6%Cap strap, snake style silver Cadet 7-450 9.95 Cap strap, snake style gold Cadet 7-451 9.95 Watch cap navy/gold 9.95 Tie, women's clip on Broome 45055-61 5.14 Tie, Regular navy clip on Broome 45015-61 5.14 53%Tie, Long navy clip on Broome 45045-61 5.14 53%Tie, women's navy velcro Broome 45122-61 6.95Tie, Regular navy velcro Broome 45095-61 6.95Tie, Long navy velcro Broome 45115-61 6.95Tie, Long navy velcro Broome 45135-61 6.95Boots, Acadia 21210 WSP 239.95 Boots, Blackhawk II Danner 24600 262.95 Boot, Women's Goretex hi-top Rocky 4044 Boot, Goretex hi top lug sole Rocky 8032 Boot, 5.11 ATAC 6" 5.11 12002-BLK 85.00 Boot, 5.11 ATAC 8" 5.11 12001-BLK 87.95 Boot, Striker 8", Goretex Danner 42980 169.95 Boot, 8" Stiker II GTX Boot, ATAC 8" waterproof 12004-019 115.00 Boot, Goretex cross trainer Danner 42900 133.90 Boot, Men's nylon/ltr/Acadia Danner 21210 239.95 9.4% Swat Metro Air 9" w/side zip OSWAT Swat Metro Air 5" w/side zip OSWAT Shoe, lo top Thorogood 834-6056 115.00 Men's shoe Black Rocky 2025 Ballistic Vest w/2 vision carriers Alpha Elite IIIA Ballistic Vest w/1 vision carrier Alpha Elite IIIA Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-3A00S-SM01 800.00 Ballistic Vest, 2nd Chance BA-2000S-SM01 725.00
Holster, ALS mid ride Level II 6360-219 120.00 Safariland Duty Holster Level III Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Aker B01 39.42 Duty Belt BW 2 1/4 Bianchi 7950 49.95 Belt, Black BW 1 3/4 Chambers 6605 19.95 Belt, Black BW 1 1/2 Chambers 6606 19.95 Liner Belt Bianchi ASP Holder BW closed bottom Aker 552 for 21/26 18.92 ASP Holder BW closed bottom Bianchi 7912-24022 or 20.49 Radio Holder W/Swivel Bianchi Keeper, BW hidden snap Bianchi 7906 14.95 Belt Keepers/D Ring/4 pk16.95 19%tactical Harness36.95Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Aker 570 20.83 Mace Holder MK4 BW HS Bianchi 7907 23.33 Mace Pouch, small Bianchi Cuff case, single BW HS Aker 508 22.12 Cuff case, single BW HS Bianchi 7900 25.20Cuff case, double Bianchi cuff case,double,W/HS44.95Keyholder Aker 564 18.95 Keyholder Bianchi 7916 18.95 Double mag pouch BW HS Bianchi 7902 34.95 Double mag pouch BW HS Saf 77-76-4HS 34.95 Handcuffs Peerless 700N 21.41 Expandable Baton Holder Bianchi Tactical Baton F-21B ASP 52411 78.95 Tactical Baton F-26 ASP 53611 78.95Gear Bag Premier PBG-081 39.95Tactical Patrol Bag49.99Hi Vis Safety Vest Blauer 339P 47.95Side break ASP Baton Case 52433-BW 44.95Flasklight ring BW10.90Letters E.P. 1/2" Rhodium Blackington 17.95Letters E.P. 1/2" Gold Blackington 17.95Tie bar w/seal & EP Rhodium Blackington A367 17.95 12.4%Tie bar w/seal & EP Gold Blackington A367 17.95 12.4%
Set of btns w/washers, togg-silver Waterbury 8.95 25.1%Set of btns w/washers, togg gold Waterbury 8.95 25.1%Chevrons, sgt, pr Emblem Ent 5425S 2.95Chevrons, corp, pr Emblem Ent 5425C 2.95Service bars Emblem Ent 5396 0.75Insignia 5/8" 2 star (collar)11.99 ---Insignia 1" 2-stars J101 smooth 14.70 ---Metal name tags N8 slvr or gold 9.95Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 51.25 Animal (animal control) 45W6625Pant, poly/wool/pleated Fechheimer 32231 46.75 AnimalHanes T- shirt Hanes T5180 6.08 AcademyLast name on shirt10.00Gray sweatshirt Jerzees 562M Birch 12.47Last name on sweatshirt10.00Gray sweatpants Jerzees 973M Birch 10.91Pants, navy uniform 65%/35% RedKap 5P56T00 Blue academy pants 511-74004-724 35.99Blue academy pants-rip pants 511-74003-724 35.99Pants. Cargo/BDU Popper F5201 Academy shirt s/s RedKap7M76SNV 18.18Academy shorts Jerzees T-110 10.95Traffic template 1186I 7.95Gravity grip hand trainer Gravity Gripp 7.79Mouthpiece Mouthpiece 1.25Baseball hat w/ emb EP21.95L/S Tactical Gear shirt Under Armor 24.99Elbow Guard Knee Guard Apply Heat Letters Waist adjustment(Normal charge $10.00)6.75 32.5%Alter rise(Normal charge $10.50)7.00
Sew on Police Panel2.50 50.0%Sew velcro on back of emblem5.00Heat stamp 1 line 1 side6.00 7.6%Shirt, long sleeved, med blue Flying cross 51.25 Clerks 139R5425Polo shirt, blueberry Sanmar L447 25.00 ClerksPolo shirt 3/4 sleeve Colbalt Blue L801 ClerksPolo shirt s/s Colbalt Blue L800 ClerksEmbroider name8.00Pant, poly/wool/pleated 8659-10 ClerksPant, 511-tactical 3407IT-019 ClerksPant Edwards #8567 ClerksPant Edwards #8568 Pant Edwards #8572 ClerksPant, 511 twill PDU A Class model #64304 ClerksBlack Micro Fleece Jacket L223 ClerksBlack/Chrome Jacket L790 soft shell ClerksCardigan Sweater SAI 6300 35.95 ClerksBelt 6050-01 ClerksNew Balance MK706BL 109.95 ClerksNew Balance WK706BL 109.95 ClerksThorogood 534-6908 129.95 ClerksPropet shoes MaxiGrip WSR003 Clerks
AM-7493 4. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:Consent
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
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/13/2015 08:10 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/13/2015 08:27 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/13/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 02/13/2015 08:09 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/13/2015
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
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
AM-7489 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:02/17/2015
Time:
Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on Draft Economic Development Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommendation
Consider information, including any public testimony, on the Draft Economic Development Element
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
ISSUE
Public comment is sought on the draft Economic Development Element (Attachment 1), which has been
prepared as part of the 2015 Major Update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. A "track-changes"
version of just the goals and policies section is contained in Attachment 2.
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Plan is being updated to meet the state deadline of mid-2015. The main focus is
refreshing data and "cleaning up" or simplifying information, as appropriate. Each element is being
considered sequentially, but no proposed changes will be final until the whole draft Comprehensive
Plan--with all updated elements--can be considered this summer.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
The existing Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 3) was approved
in 2006. Nine years later, much of the data and descriptions have become outdated.
As part of the current update process, the Citizens Economic Development Commission ("EDC") offered
significant input on the goals and policies section. (To view the EDC minutes of December 17, 2014, see
Attachment 4.) A draft updated element then went to the Planning Board. At the Planning Board's
February 11 meeting, various changes to the draft element were requested. (Minutes from this meeting
will be available at a later date.) The input from both the EDC and the Planning Board is incorporated
into the draft (Attachments 1 and 2).
Because of the extensive revisions to the existing element, only the goals and policies section of the draft
Economic Element is shown in tracked changes. (See Attachment 2.)
Note: For reference, the existing Economic Development Element from the Comprehensive Plan is
included in Attachment 3.
NEXT STEPS
- February 17: Public hearing by City Council
- February 24: Study session for City Council to further discuss and provide any direction on this element
- February 25 Open House on the Comprehensive Plan update (5 to 7 pm at City Hall, Brackett Room)
- Any final draft refinements of the Draft Economic Development Element
- Ongoing work to update other Comprehensive Plan elements (now through June 2015 or thereabouts)
- Consideration of the whole draft Comprehensive Plan in public hearings by the Planning Board and City
Council (June 2015)
Attachments
Attachment 1: Draft Econ. Dev. Plan, clean version
Attachment 2: Goals & Policies, Tracked Changes
Attachment 3: Existing Econ Dev Element
Attachment 4: EDC Minutes of 12.17.14
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 02/13/2015 07:12 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/13/2015 08:27 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/13/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 02/12/2015 12:03 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/13/2015
Economic Development
Introduction. The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to state the city’s economic
development policies clearly in one place, thereby guiding local policymakers and informing the
public about issues relating to the local economy.
The chapter is divided into four major sections: Introduction and Discussion of Economic
Development, The Edmonds Economy, Economic Development Goals and Policies, and
Implementation.
Introduction and Discussion of Economic Development
Why is economic development important?
The International Economic Development Council provides the following general objective
regarding economic development:
“Improving the economic wellbeing of a community through efforts that
entail job creation, job retention, tax base enhancements and quality of life.”
In simple terms, economic development has traditionally been thought of as meaning encouraging
“growth.” In recent years, many communities have focused more on how economic development
fits within a general framework of community sustainability. This framework attempts to
integrate economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, political governance, and cultural
engagement as the constituent parts of the community’s overall health.
With similar objectives in mind economic development in Edmonds can be defined as “the city’s
goals, policies and strategies for growing the local economy in order to enhance the quality of
life.” Economic development is essential to preserving the existing level of service and attaining
long-range goals for sustainable growth and community vitality.
In general, economic development programs and activities affect the local economy by
broadening and strengthening the local tax base, providing a greater range of goods and services
for local residents, and by providing meaningful employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.
Economic development priorities vary widely from community to community, but Edmonds’
priorities have historically coincided with those of many other Puget Sound area communities,
including: creating affordable housing, adding employment, downtown and business district
revitalization, small business assistance, expansion of existing businesses, new business
recruitment and site selection assistance, community marketing, historic preservation, tourism
generation, public relations, streamlining permit processes, and special development or
streetscape projects (including public art).
While the state of the economy may change greatly as boom and bust cycles come and go with
each passing decade, these economic development priorities seem to stand the test of time.
Greater or lesser emphasis may be placed on specific priorities, but for communities in
Economic Development 95 Draft
Washington, including Edmonds, these are the main economic development activities to continue
to pursue.
The Edmonds Economy
A solid understanding of the local economy helps a community to effectively guide policies,
investments, staff resources, and future plans. The following analysis provides a background of
the fundamentals of the Edmonds economy, local household and business characteristics, and
their impact on municipal revenues.
The Edmonds economy can best be understood by analyzing local demographics and household
characteristics, local employment data, and local sales activity.
Population
The US Census Bureau’s 2013 estimate lists 40,727 residents in Edmonds. That is a 2.6%
increase since the official 2010 census, lagging behind both the Snohomish County and
Washington State growth figures of 4.6% and 3.7%, respectively, during that period.
Of further note in understanding the local economy are the following additional demographic
factors:
Average age. The average age in Edmonds is 46 years, substantially older than the countywide
average age of 37, indicating a sizeable retiree population. Several conclusions can be drawn
from the relatively older population of Edmonds.
• The size of the labor force is smaller in Edmonds than a similar-sized city with a
lower average age.
• While the retiree population includes a segment on fixed incomes, the city’s higher-
than-average household income figures suggest that there is a sizable segment of
retirees who have discretionary income. Coupled with greater free time, these retirees
constitute a demographic cohort that is able to engage in leisure activities and
associated spending that creates economic activity.
• The housing stock occupied by the older adults and couples may start to see a turn-
over in the next decade, potentially providing more housing for younger adults,
couples and young families. If this occurs, it could increase the size of the labor force
population and increase demand for certain household and personal goods and
services, as well as eating/drinking establishments.
• Conversely, if the average age continues to increase, it could mean that fewer
younger families and workers will reside in Edmonds. This could have a range of
economic impacts that would need to be monitored.
Ethnic make-up. Edmonds and greater Snohomish County exhibit a lesser degree of racial or
ethnic diversity than the State as a whole or many parts of the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett
96 Economic Development
Draft
metropolitan area. With 83% of residents listed as “white,” Edmonds is less ethnically/racially
diverse than the following nearby cities:
Table XX: Percentage of Residents Listed as “White” in US Census
Households. Of the 17,381 households, the degree of home ownership (69%) in Edmonds is
substantially greater than many nearby cities.
Table XX: Percentage of Owner Occupied Households
Household income. As would be expected by the high percentage of owner-occupied homes in
Edmonds, the average household income levels are also higher than regional averages and
generally, although not exclusively, higher than other nearby cities. During the period from
2011-2013, the Edmonds’ median household income was $67,228 per year, compared with a
Snohomish Countywide average of $67,192 and a King Countywide average of $70,998.
Conclusions that can be made from the preceding data regarding ethnic make-up, home
ownership and household income include the following:
• With a generally more affluent population, Edmonds residents create demand for a
wide variety of goods, services and activities. While nearby communities vie with
Edmonds for market share to meet this demand, this fact should be kept in mind
when pursuing economic development strategies.
CITY PERCENTAGE RESIDENTS LISTED
AS “WHITE” IN US CENSUS
Edmonds 83%
Kirkland 79%
Everett 74%
Mill Creek 74%
Shoreline 71%
Seattle 69%
Redmond 65%
Lynnwood 63%
Bellevue 62%
Source: American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
CITY PERCENTAGE OWNER-
OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS
Edmonds 69%
Shoreline 65%
Mill Creek 63%
Kirkland 57%
Redmond 54%
Lynnwood 53%
Bellevue 53%
Seattle 48%
Everett 45%
Source: American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
Economic Development 97 Draft
• Edmonds’ very robust services sector (see below) provides many related jobs.
However, often services-sector jobs pay lower wages than average. Consequently,
with higher home prices and rents in Edmonds, services-sector employees may have
fewer housing options here. This may create demand for more affordable housing
development.
Labor Force. Of the city’s total 2013 population of 40,727 the US Census estimates the civilian
labor force to be 21,174. This is an important figure to keep in mind when considering the
number of jobs in Edmonds. While jobs per capita is often used as an econometric measure, it is
can be more insightful to consider jobs per labor force population, which portrays more
accurately the availability of jobs for working Edmonds residents.
Employment
The Edmonds economy is diverse and includes employment in the full range of business sectors:
construction, finance/insurance/real estate, retail, services, warehousing/utilities/transportation,
government, education, and a small amount of manufacturing.
With 13,149 jobs in 2013, Edmonds exhibits a ratio of 0.323 jobs per capita. However, this
equates to 0.621 jobs per person in the civilian labor force. The substantial disparity between
these two ratios reflects the relatively large amount of Edmonds residents who are retirees and no
longer in the labor force.
The following table provides a quick comparison of jobs, population and jobs per capita in
Edmonds and other Snohomish and King County communities:
Table. XX: Jobs per Persons in Civilian Labor Force
County City Total Jobs Population # Jobs per
Capita Labor Force
# Jobs per
Persons in
Civilian Labor
Force
King Redmond 79,649 57,530 1.384 32,593 2.444
King Bellevue 126,425 133,992 0.944 72,726 1.738
Snohomish Everett
91,310 105,370 0.867 54,725 1.669
King Seattle 499,946 652,405 0.766 393,184 1.272
King/Snohomish Bothell
26,886 35,576 0.756 19,550 1.375
Snohomish Lynnwood
25,474 36,485 0.698 19,019 1.339
King Issaquah 22,310 33,566 0.665 18,236 1.223
King Renton 59,697 97,003 0.615 54,325 1.099
King Kirkland 41,091 84,430 0.487 48,170 0.853
Snohomish Mountlake Terrace 7,201 20,674 0.348 12,516 0.575
Snohomish Edmonds
13,149 40,727 0.323 21,174 0.621
King Shoreline 15,819 54,790 0.289 29,773 0.531
Snohomish Marysville 12,409 63,269 0.196 32,448 0.382
King Kenmore 3,556 21,611 0.165 10,998 0.323
Snohomish Lake Stevens 4,451 29,949 0.149 15,444 0.288
King Total 1,183,811 2,044,449 0.579 1,128,768 1.049
Snohomish Total 264,844 745,913 0.355 391,151 0.677
Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council; American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
98 Economic Development
Draft
As can be seen, Edmonds provides a relatively lower number of jobs per capita (0.323) than
several other nearby cities. However, as mentioned above, when compared with the 21,174
Edmonds residents in the labor force, the Edmonds economy provides 13,149 jobs – a ratio of
0.62 per Edmonds worker. Nevertheless, according to US Census data, Edmonds-based jobs
employ only about 20% (approximately 4,200) of these Edmonds labor-force residents. That is to
say, up to 80% (approximately 17,000) of Edmonds workers travel elsewhere to work. Given that
Edmonds households exhibit relatively higher median incomes, while predominately working
elsewhere; this seems to suggest that the Edmonds economy does not provide a sufficient supply
of higher-wage jobs.
Jobs by Sector
It is also of interest to analyze the break-down of jobs by sector. By far the largest single source
of employment is the “services” sector, comprised of jobs in such areas as health care,
accommodations and food service, arts and entertainment, professional services, etc. Swedish
Medical Center-Edmonds and the numerous health care-related businesses in its vicinity provide
a significant portion of these jobs in the “services” sector. In summary, this sector comprises
nearly 70% of Edmonds jobs – substantially above the averages of Snohomish County and
several nearby cities:
Fig. XX: Edmonds Employment by Sector
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, “Covered Employment Estimates,” 2013
Table XX: Percentage of Jobs in Service Sector
LOCATION PERCENTAGE JOBS IN
SERVICES SECTOR
Edmonds 70%
Mill Creek 59%
Shoreline 46%
Lynnwood 45%
Snohomish County 35%
Economic Development 99 Draft
The second largest employment sector is retail, comprising 12.3% of all jobs. While this
percentage is generally in line with countywide averages, it is notable that Lynnwood, with its
regional shopping mall and nearby shopping centers, exhibits a substantially larger percentage of
retail jobs, at 28%.
Notwithstanding several major employers, including Swedish-Edmonds, the Edmonds School
District, major assisted-living/rehab centers, larger restaurants, major auto dealers and large
grocery store outlets, among others, much of Edmonds’ employment base is comprised of small
businesses. Among these small businesses figure retail shops, eating and drinking establishments,
professional services firms, personal services establishments, and many home-based businesses.
The manufacturing sector, in contrast, provides only 87 jobs and constitutes a substantially minor
employment sector, which is similar to many suburban Snohomish and King County
communities. Conversely, Everett and some areas of unincorporated Snohomish County provide
a large number of manufacturing jobs.
Based on the foregoing snapshot of the Edmonds employment base, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
• The services sector will continue to dominate the Edmonds employment base, with
continued growth expected, especially in the health care sector.
• While competition exists from nearby communities, the retail sector provides a
significant opportunity for additional employment growth.
• The following sectors will likely remain stable: education; government; finance,
insurance, real estate; wholesale, transportation, utilities.
• The construction sector is likely to see an upturn as additional commercial, multifamily
and mixed-use development occurs throughout the City.
• The manufacturing sector will likely remain small, but growth is likely to increase in both
the artisanal industries, such as food, beer, spirits and other products, as well as low-
impact, specialty manufacturing, such as software, electronics, green technology, etc.
• A substantial gap exists between Edmonds residents in the labor force and Edmonds-
based jobs. Additional, higher-paying jobs in all sectors in Edmonds would likely help
reduce this gap. Additionally, this would help increase quality of life, reduce regional
commuting, and increase the City’s tax revenue.
• Conversely, a substantial number of jobs in Edmonds are occupied by residents of other
outside communities. Additional housing within a greater distribution along the
affordability spectrum could help capture the latent housing demand of many Edmonds
workers.
100 Economic Development
Draft
Retail Sales
An analysis of overall retail sales is also very insightful in understanding the Edmonds economy.
Comparison with other nearby communities yields an understanding of strengths and weaknesses in
local components of retail sales, indicating potential sources of sales “leakage.”
The following table shows the top (over $10,000,000) retail sales sectors (by NAICS title) in 2013 of
the 50 sectors reporting.
Fig. XX: Top Retail Sectors in Edmonds (2013)
As presented in the table, automobiles and other vehicles are the top retail sales category by a wide
margin. At just over half of the car-sales figure, the food and drink sector is also substantial.
Another important data set to consider is retail sales per capita, especially as it compares with other
nearby communities.
Fig. XX: Taxable Retail Sales per Capita
Retail Sector (NAICS Title)Taxable Retail
Sales 2013
Car and Other Vehicle Dealers $ 152,240,262
Food Service, Caterers, Bars $ 86,979,230
Food Markets and Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores $ 29,420,996
Construction (New Housing) $ 24,959,623
Apparel, Accessories, and Jewelry $ 22,774,116
Auto Repair, Car Washes, Computer Repair, and Other Personal and Household Goods Repair $ 16,197,582
Florists, Office Supply, Pet Supply, Art Dealers, Manufactured Home Dealers, and Tobacco $ 14,283,410
Medical, Surgical, Psychiatric, and Substance Abuse Hospitals $ 11,846,321
Construction (Masonry, framing, glass, etc) $ 10,896,179
Health and Personal Care Stores $ 10,486,282
Department and General Merchandise Stores $ 10,286,713
Source: Washington Department of Revenue
CITY TAXABLE RETAIL
SALES PER CAPITA
Edmonds $15,198
Kirkland $23,199
Shoreline $15,582
Lynnwood $57,289
Mountlake Terrace $9,522
Mukilteo $11,203
Source: American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
Economic Development 101 Draft
As shown in Table XX, the city of Lynnwood, with its regional mall and associated shopping centers,
captures a great deal of retail sales, with the highest retail sales per capita – approaching four times
the amount in Edmonds. Kirkland, a similar-sized city in King County, captures modestly more retail
sales, while neighboring Shoreline sees almost the same per-capita sales.
Even more insightful is an estimate of sales per capita within key retail categories as a function of
per-capita income, compared with Western US standards. This exercise provides an estimate of the
“leakage” of retail sales to other communities that could potentially be captured by Edmonds
residents within Edmonds.
One starts by using standards provided by the US Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
Washington Department of Revenue, which indicate that the portion of annual per-capita income
routinely spent by Western US residents on the main retail categories listed below is 19.94%. Based
on the City’s per-capita income and population, one can determine the total income anticipated to be
spent by Edmonds’ residents. Applying the aforementioned 19.94% retail sales expenditure rate to the
City’s total income, one arrives at the anticipated total retail sales by Edmonds’ residents, otherwise
known as “demand” for these retail categories. By analyzing the City’s actual retail sales receipts for
these categories, one can quantify both the total retail sales “leakage” and the relative gap within each
retail category. The following tables break down this analysis:
Fig. XX: Edmonds Actual Aggregate Retail Sales as a Percentage of Potential Sales
Fig. XX: Edmonds Actual Retail Sales by Category as Percentage of Potential Sales
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
City population, 2013 Census est.40,727
Per capita income, US Census 2011-2013 $40,892
Total % of income spent on retail categories listed (Western US Average)19.94%
Total income to be spent by Edmonds residents $1,655,408,484
Anticipated expenditures by Edmonds residents in listed retail categories $332,022,497
Estimated actual Edmonds taxable sales in retail categories listed $279,092,756
Source: US Census; American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013;Bureau of Labor Statistics; Washington
Department or Revenue
Category
% of CU Income
Spent on Category
(Western US Avg.)
Est. Demand for
Category by City's
Residents (2013)
Edmonds Taxable
Retail Sales for
Category (2013)
Ratio of Total
Consumed to Total
Demanded - the "Gap"**
Eating and Drinking Places 4.39% $73,038,154 $85,776,628 0.851
Household Textiles 0.22% $3,658,902 $1,040,569 3.516
Furniture 0.63% $10,432,119 $481,624 21.66
Floor Coverings 0.04% $611,205 $1,101,342 0.555
Major Appliances 0.39% $6,463,450 $ -
Apparel and Services 2.71% $45,170,874 $20,189,446 2.237
Footwear 0.52% $8,586,846 $1,055,428 8.136
Other Apparel and Services 0.37% $6,231,959 $1,529,057 4.076
Vehicle Purchases 4.68% $77,896,151 $148,878,789 0.523
Gasoline 3.89% $64,812,702 $5,220,946 12.414
Pet Supply 0.77% $12,793,668 $2,044,641 6.257
Toys, Hobbies, and Playground Equipment 0.27% $4,446,641 $1,354,332 3.283
Personal Care Products 1.07% $17,879,825 $10,419,954 1.716
Total 19.94% $332,022,497 $279,092,756 1.19
Source: US Census; American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013;Bureau of Labor Statistics; Washington Department or Revenue
102 Economic Development
Draft
**Note: A ratio of 1:1 would signify a 100% capture in Edmonds of Edmonds’ latent demand for that
category. A ratio under 1 signifies a greater capture of market demand for a category than Edmonds
demand. A ratio over 1 signifies uncaptured demand or a retail sales “leakage” to other
communities.
The principal conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing analysis of retail sales in Edmonds are as
follows:
• Among the main retail sales categories, Edmonds captures approximately 84% of the
total retail sales that would be expected from Edmonds residents, based on Western US
average retail sales rates, with up to $57,929,741 of potential spending going elsewhere.
• This figure, however, is skewed substantially by vehicle sales, because the rate of capture
in Edmonds is higher than average and the value of vehicle sales is high. Extracting
vehicle sales from the equation, Edmonds captures approximately 51% of retail sales that
would be expected from Edmonds residents, based on Western US average retail sales
rates.
• Consequently, there is an almost 50% “leakage” of potential nonvehicle-related retail
sales from Edmonds – an amount that could total as high as $125,000,000 annually.
• In addition, while the vehicle sales sector is valuable to the Edmonds economy, the
remaining major retail sectors are providing substantially less than Edmonds residents’
demand for such goods and services.
• This all points out that, given the volatility and size of the vehicle sales sector, growth in
the other sectors could help protect against an over reliance on that sector. In 2013,
vehicle sales made up 32.4% of the total taxable retail sales for businesses with locations
in Edmonds.
City Revenues & Sustainability
Economic development is an important issue not only because it addresses jobs, availability of goods
and services and quality of life, but also for its role in supporting city revenues on a sustainable basis.
Services
Quality
of Life
Revenue
Economic Development 103 Draft
Of the City’s annual tax revenues, property tax comprises 38.9%, utility tax 18.4% and sales tax
16.9%, for a combined total of almost 75% of municipal deriving from taxes. Economic vitality is
key to ensuring the continued sustainability of these tax revenue sources in order to ensure continued
support of valuable city services and the quality of life enjoyed by residents and businesses.
Fig. XX: Edmonds General Revenues by Source
Source: City of Edmonds Adopted 2015 Budget
The following chart compares Edmonds against other nearby communities in terms of percentage
contributions from sales and property taxes to municipal revenue:
Fig. XX: Percentage Contribution of Sales and Property Tax
As one can see, Lynnwood relies substantially more than Edmonds and other nearby communities on
retail sales tax, given the presence of the regional shopping mall and associated shopping centers in
that community. Edmonds and several other communities rely to a greater degree on property tax
revenues. While this is often a more stable continued source of revenue than sales tax revenue, the
State-imposed limit of no more than one-percent annual growth in property tax revenue (absent a
voter-approved levy) does not keep up with inflation and has transformed this source into more of a
revenue baseline rather than a source of growth. In the face of inflationary pressures and increased
demands for services, municipalities like Edmonds must seek revenue growth from other sources.
COMMUNITY SALES TAX PROPERTY TAX
Edmonds 17%39%
Lynnwood 28%17%
Mukilteo 20%34%
Mill Creek 21%49%
Bothell 14%14%
Kirkland 12%18%
Source: Budget documents from corresponding cities.
104 Economic Development
Draft
Additionally, in the case of Edmonds, in light of the substantial “leakage” of potential retail sales to
other communities, recapture of even a modest amount of this leakage could yield much-needed
additional sales tax revenue.
While it is simple to establish a goal of increasing sales tax revenues, it is more difficult to determine
how to implement that goal. Many cities have focused on new development because of its potentially
positive impact on both sales and property taxes.
Appropriately sited and sized development/redevelopment projects increase:
• Property tax receipts through the “new construction” provision that captures new
construction value-based property tax for the first year a project is brought on line and
adds that value to the city’s future property tax baseline.
• Sales tax revenue from construction materials and activity.
• Sales tax revenue from both personal and business spending accruing from new residents,
workers and businesses within newly developed buildings.
• Utility tax revenue from a greater number of utility customers.
Development opportunities in Edmonds are generally limited to redevelopment in the business
districts where under-developed parcels may still be found. This does not imply a need for wholesale
redevelopment of entire districts, but rather an emphasis on appropriately sited and sized residential,
mixed-use and commercial projects in key locations, such as the Highway 99 corridor, Westgate, Five
Corners and select locations in and near Downtown.
Consequently, this chapter includes goals and policies that reflect the need to accommodate
appropriate development/redevelopment throughout the various business districts in Edmonds.
Lastly, another source of potential growth in retail sales and the resulting municipal tax revenue could
lie in achieving greater energy efficiency in Edmonds’ homes and businesses. A 2010 study
conducted by Sustainable Edmonds reported that utility consumption just from electricity and natural
gas constituted on the order of $35-40 million annually in the 2008-2009 period. While that figure
can vary considerably as energy prices vary, a figure on the order of $30+ million suffices for
planning purposes. Sustainable Edmonds has further identified that through relatively modest energy-
saving interventions on existing homes and businesses, approximately 10% savings can be achieved,
which could free up approximately $3 million dollars in additional discretionary income among
Edmonds residents.
Economic Development 105 Draft
Economic Development Goals and Policies
Edmonds’ current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) relating to economic
development
As a companion to of the foregoing analysis of the fundamentals of the Edmonds economy, the
following “SWOT” analysis assists in preparation of the goals and policies for economic development
in Edmonds.
Strengths:
• Amenity-rich community with high quality of life
o Picturesque waterfront setting, with
publicly accessible waterfront and rich
variety of parks and recreational activities
o Traditional downtown with array of
specialty retailers, food and drink
establishments, entertainment and
services, complemented by free parking
o Distinctive neighborhoods and business
districts
o Regionally renowned events and festivals
o Historic character
• Intermodal transit connections
• Port of Edmonds’ role in economic vitality, especially as anchor to strong, growing maritime
business sector
• Publicly accessible fiber optic network in the Downtown area
• Strong, prominent and regionally recognized arts community
• Burgeoning health services sector, anchored by Swedish Hospital-
Edmonds
• Strong and prominent educational infrastructure from public and
private K-12 institutions to Edmonds Community College
• International business community, offering diverse array of goods
and services, both in Highway 99 “International District” and
throughout the City
• Strong social capital and community pride
106 Economic Development
Draft
• High degree of home ownership
• Low rates of unemployment and poverty
Weaknesses:
• Limited retail trade area due to geographical constraints (Puget Sound to the west, distance
from I-5) and prominence of major regional retail centers and lifestyle centers in nearby
communities
• Potentially restrictive land use and parking regulations in the business districts compared with
other communities
• Lack of large, regularly shaped parcels to accommodate redevelopment in commercial areas
outside the downtown BC zone
• Limited amusement/family entertainment establishments relative to surrounding
communities.
• Shortage of tourism infrastructure, such as full range of accommodations, public restrooms,
way-finding signage, etc.
• Shortage of affordable housing opportunities
• Substantial portion of resident labor force commutes away for work, while large number of
workers commute in to town for work
Opportunities:
• Location, “character” and natural assets can leverage additional economic development by
nurturing existing businesses for growth and expansion and recruiting new, complementary
businesses that seek those assets.
• Existing and planned intermodal transit connections can leverage transit-oriented
development.
• Through enhanced connectivity, opportunities exist to maximize the synergy and economic
impact of the Edmonds Center for the Arts with the Downtown business community,.
• The burgeoning arts community can leverage greater
tourism, artisanal manufacturing and associated
business.
• Highly skilled, educated workforce provides
opportunities for businesses to locate in Edmonds
that offer high-paying jobs
• Continued growth in the emerging business sectors
of artisanal and craft producers, including
Economic Development 107 Draft
microbreweries, distilleries, specialty foods, and low-impact, specialty manufacturing.
• Telecommunication/technology assets can provide better service for existing business
customers and attract new business.
• Infrastructure improvements around the business districts can enhance their attractiveness for
investment and viability of commercial and mixed-use development.
• Downtown and the Highway 99 corridor near the medical services node around Swedish-
Edmonds offer opportunities for additional hospitality facilities.
• Underdeveloped sites in the City’s business districts (e.g., Westgate, Fiver Corners, Highway
99 corridor, etc.) offer opportunities for appropriate commercial and/or mixed-use
redevelopment projects. Additional population density in business districts can add market
demand for goods and services and employee base for new and growing businesses.
• Large numbers of workers who commute to Edmonds create demand for affordable housing
• Travelers through Edmonds via the Washington State Ferry system offer potential for greater
business activity.
• Senior, more affluent residents provide opportunities for businesses related to that
demographic cohort.
• Increased energy efficiency in homes and businesses could free up discretionary income to
support more local spending
Threats:
• Retail “leakage” (i.e. loss of potential local sales activity to areas outside of the City of
Edmonds)
• Wider variety and availability of housing options and commercial space elsewhere
• Concerns over the long-term fiscal sustainability of City of Edmonds services and
infrastructure without additional significant business sector growth
• Increasing volumes of train traffic, with resulting increase in blockage of at-grade crossings,
could threaten economic vitality of the waterfront community.
Goals and Policies
Economic Development Goal A. Foster a healthy business community that encourages appropriately
scaled growth and investment that offers a wide range of goods and services, provides employment,
and enhances municipal revenue.
108 Economic Development
Draft
A.1. Continually strive to offer an efficient, timely and predictable regulatory
environment within the framework of a strong customer service approach.
A.2. Develop or maintain business recruitment programs, including a tool box of
possible incentives, to encourage a wide range of new business development,
including retail, service, artisanal manufacturing and professional services
sectors.
A.3. Foster business expansion and retention through existing and enhanced programs.
A.4. Prioritize purchasing from local businesses while balancing a concern for cost
containment.
A.5. Promote local business through enhanced public awareness campaigns, events,
awards programs and other activities.
A.6. Promote emerging business sectors such as artisanal and craft producers,
including microbreweries, distilleries, specialty foods, etc., as well as low-
impact, specialty manufacturing, including software, electronics, green
technology, etc
A.7. Continue to partner with business leaders, organizations and community
members, such as the Port of Edmonds, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, etc., to
leverage business opportunities and to solicit and address feedback to enhance
the business environment.
A.8. Leverage business opportunities related to travelers to/from Edmonds using the
Washington State Ferry system.
A.9. Pursue greater energy efficiency in homes and businesses to free up discretionary
income for more local spending.
Economic Development Goal B. Revitalize and enhance the city’s business districts, balancing the
needs for housing, commerce and employment development with neighborhood character, amenities
and scale.
B.1. Adopt land use policies, zoning, and design guidelines that are supportive of
economic development, while recognizing neighborhood character, context and
impacts.
B.2 Monitor and potentially revise parking requirements in business districts to
encourage business development, while reasonably accommodating parking
demand.
B.3. Pursue strategic planning efforts and/or develop land use regulations that will
encourage viable, appropriately scaled commercial and mixed-use redevelopment
of key properties in the City’s business districts.
Economic Development 109 Draft
B.4. Continue to foster and enhance the economic vitality of Downtown Edmonds,
including retention and growth of existing businesses, attraction of new businesses,
and promotion of appropriate in-fill redevelopment. Monitor and enhance the
Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District in its efforts to fund business
promotion, marketing, improvement projects, beautification, etc.
B.5. Explore the potential of additional Business Improvement Districts in other
commercial areas to help fund business promotion, marketing, improvement
projects, beautification, etc., in a sustainable fashion.
B.6. Promote enhanced connectivity between the Edmonds Center of the Arts and the
Downtown business community to maximize synergy and economic impacts.
B.7. Continue to support an historic preservation program that works to identify and
preserve historic architectural, archeological and cultural resources for future
generations. This can include use of available incentives and the historic
preservation building code to encourage property owners to register eligible
historic buildings.
B.8. Work to “brand” and promote distinct business districts where there is a natural
identity, such as the Highway 99 International District, Westgate, the Swedish
Hospital Medical District, and the waterfront, among others.
B.9. Work with property owners, developers and investors to seek appropriate
redevelopment in underdeveloped and/or emerging business districts, such as the
Highway 99 medical services district, Five Corners, etc. Ensure that
redevelopment in business districts provide a quality environment with character,
walkability and amenities for patrons and residents to enjoy.
B.10. Implement regulations and/or design guidelines that will ensure the development of
quality retail and commercial space that can physically accommodate a variety of
future uses.
B.11. Implement infrastructure and technology improvements around business districts to
provide enhanced service, retain and attract business.
Economic Development Goal C. Diversify and grow the City’s economic make-up to reduce sales
leakage, attract spending from nearby communities, enhance local employment, and increase
municipal tax revenues to support local services.
C.1. Identify under-represented business sectors and work with partners, property
owners and/or developers to recruit new businesses that help fill under-met market
demand.
C.2. Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections, to support
technology-based businesses and potentially to pursue new revenue streams.
C.3. Focus on recruitment and “buy local” community marketing on consumer spending
segments in which there is significant “leakage” and also a strong possibility of
recapturing spending.
110 Economic Development
Draft
C.4. Employ strategic marketing opportunities to attract consumer spending from
beyond Edmonds.
C.5. Pursue available incentives to foster appropriate redevelopment, where possible.
C.6. Encourage longer hours of business operation and/or more evening uses in the
business districts to add options during “peak” hours of consumer spending.
Economic Development Goal D. Support and enhance the community’s quality of life for residents,
workers and visitors in order to sustain and attract business and investment, and enhance economic
vitality.
D.1. In concert with the Housing Element’s Goals and Policies, pursue a housing
strategy that seeks to accommodate a wide variety of housing options, both in
design and affordability, to meet the demands of the full range of the working
population, retirees, students, artists, et al.
D.2. Recognizing the value of a progressive community in retaining and attracting
business, continue to foster an open and accepting community culture that respects
diversity.
D.3. Support and enhance social, cultural, artistic, recreational and other learning
activities for residents, workers and visitors.
D.4. Pursue efforts to communicate with the public about the value of economic vitality
in sustaining the City’s quality of life, services and amenities.
D.5. Integrate programs and activities related to economic prosperity with objectives
related to environmental sustainability, political governance, cultural engagement
and social equity.
Economic Development Goal E. Expand and enhance the tourism sector to attract outside spending
to help fuel the local economy.
E.1 Continue to support existing, and provide support to new, events and festivals that
attract visitors.
E.2. Continue to support and enhance the arts/culture sector and the visitors that
arts/culture events and activities attract.
E.3. Support and enhance sporting, nature, and other outdoor events and activities that
attract visitors.
E.4. Strategically employ marketing media and resources to attract visitors. An overall
marketing strategy should include a variety of traditional marketing, online
marketing, earned media presence and use of social media.
Economic Development 111 Draft
E.5. Market Edmonds as a year-round destination for its waterfront location, historic
downtown, arts community and venues, eating and drinking establishments,
international shopping and dining, natural amenities, parks and recreational assets,
etc.
E.6. Support the tourism infrastructure, including visitor amenities such as public
restrooms, the visitors center, way-finding signage, enhanced waterfront
accessibility etc.
E.7. Support efforts to enhance the hospitality infrastructure, including potential for an
increased number and/or wider range of lodging establishments Downtown, in the
medical services district on Highway 99, and/or in other business districts.
Implementation
The policies in this document were constructed to provide a supportive foundation for future
economic development projects, legislation and decisions. Implementing the city’s policies will
require cooperative involvement on the part of the City, other public entities, and business and
community organizations.
As stated throughout this chapter, economic development in Edmonds could require a variety of
measures on the part of the City and other entities, including such measures as:
• Staff support, outreach and actions in support of business attraction and expansion, as well as
promotion of investment and development
• Legislative actions (such as decisions related to zoning, incentives, fees and taxes,
permit/business requirements, etc.)
• City expenditures on such things as amenities and infrastructure, and potential property
acquisition
• Actions by the Port of Edmonds to attract and expand marine-related business and activity
• Programs provided by Edmonds Community College that support work-force development,
job readiness, job placement, etc.
• Collaborative efforts between the Chamber, City and other entities to create and enhance a
positive, business-friendly environment
In addition, as part of a larger regional economy, the City of Edmonds and its partners must continue
to work actively with regional economic development organizations such as the Economic Alliance of
Snohomish County, the Snohomish County Economic Development Department, the Greater Seattle
Trade Alliance, the Washington Economic Development Association, the Puget Sound Regional
Council, the Prosperity Partnership, and the Washington State Department of Commerce, among
others.
Strategic Action Plan
112 Economic Development
Draft
After approximately two years of work on the part of staff, consultants, the Economic Development
Commission, and Councilmembers, together with substantial public involvement, on April 2, 2013
the Edmonds City Council approved the City’s Strategic Action Plan (SAP). The plan identifies both
short-term (3-5 years) and mid-term (5-10 years) community strategic objectives, as well as specific
action tasks and responsible participants, schedules and performance measures to achieve them.
The SAP is organized into five general strategic objectives:
1. Create economic health, vitality and sustainability
2. Maintain, enhance and create a sustainable environment
3. Maintain and enhance Edmonds’ community character and quality of life
4. Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure system to meet current and future
demand
5. Provide responsible, accountable, and responsive government
Each strategic objective is further subdivided into 88 specific action items to achieve implementation.
Strategic Objective 1, as mentioned above, is most directly involved with economic development
through a series of action items related to general economic sustainability, marketing of business
districts, promotion of business development, business outreach and development and a series of land
use standards and design guidelines intended to foster investment and appropriately scaled
redevelopment.
However, additional action items (for a total of 22) related to economic development can be found
throughout the SAP, illustrating the importance of economic development in the City’s strategic
direction.
As mentioned above, the SAP spans action items that can be worked on immediately to those that
may take many years. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all participants to begin the process of
implementation.
Implementation is scheduled to begin in 2015 pursuant to a Council-approved implementation plan.
Notwithstanding all the above, the SAP does not enshrine the totality of economic development
activities to be pursued by the City and its partners. Strategic economic development initiatives, in
response to the bulleted items stated earlier will need to be pursued on an on-going basis. These
initiatives will in many cases be complementary to action items identified in the SAP.
Performance Measures
Economic development is a tireless activity in pursuit of enhanced economic vitality that is often
more influenced by exogenous economic factors than local actions. For this reason it is difficult to
measure on a year-to-year basis the performance of the actions of a local agency and its partners on a
community’s economic health. Did an increase in business activity, home starts or jobs result from
local programs, incentives and/or outreach or would those economic successes have arisen otherwise
in a booming economy? Conversely, do lower sales, higher unemployment and a sagging
Economic Development 113 Draft
construction sector reflect on unsuccessful local economic development programs or more respond to
a regional, national or even global economic down-turn?
Whether or not economic success or failure can be attributed to any local actions, it is insightful and
informative to monitor the local economy’s performance and to attempt to steer economic
development strategies in response.
To this end, one of the two most basic performance measures related to a local community’s
economic health is growth or decline in overall employment.
What’s more, in its adopted planning growth targets Snohomish County has allocated 2,269 new jobs
to the City of Edmonds for the planning horizon of 2035. While job growth does not follow a straight
line year over year, this 20-year planning target provides a good index to gauge annual job growth in
Edmonds.
114 Economic Development
Draft
Formatted: Font: 22 pt
Formatted: Font: 22 pt
1
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 2 + Aligned at:
0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1"
2
Formatted: Font: Italic
3
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
4
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
5
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
6
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Comment [DP1]: Essentially a repeat of 2c.
Formatted Table
7
Formatted Table
8
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted Table
9
Comment [DP2]: Adding new tourism-related
goal and policies at 5
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Comment [DP3]: This is squarely an issue to be
addressed in the Land Use element
Comment [DP4]: Addressed at 3b.
Formatted Table
10
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
11
City of Edmonds
Economic Development Element
Adopted
December 19, 2006
1
Edmonds Economic Development Comprehensive Plan Element
The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to state the city’s
economic development policies clearly in one place, thereby guiding local
policymakers and informing the public about issues relating to the local
economy.
The chapter is divided three major sections: Introduction and Approaches
to Economic Development, The Edmonds Economy, and Economic
Development Goals and Policies.
I. Introduction and Approaches to Economic Development
A. Why do economic development?
Economic development in Edmonds can be defined as “the city’s policies
and services for growing the local economy in order to enhance the
quality of life”. Economic development is essential to preserving the
existing level of service and attaining long-range goals for sustainable
growth and community vitality.
In general, economic development affects the local economy by
broadening and strengthening the local tax base and by providing
meaningful employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.
An increasing number of communities around the region have economic
development policies and staff. Community economic development
priorities vary widely, but may include: creating affordable housing,
adding employment, downtown or commercial revitalization, small
business assistance, business recruitment and site selection help,
community marketing, historic preservation, tourism generation, public
relations, streamlining permit processes, and special development or
streetscape projects (including public art).
Communities are realizing that there is no such thing as a “static” or fixed
economy; local economies are always changing. They are also impacted
by countless forces: national and state economic cycles, competition from
surrounding cities for desirable businesses, local and regional land use
changes, residential and commercial real estate market trends, and other
forces. Without change and adaptability, a communit y can become
stagnant or even decline. Successful communities today acknowledge
their past and allow a vision for the future to guide them through the
changes needed to prosper.
2
B. Past economic development efforts and local stakeholders
The Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development was formed in 1995 as
a coalition of businesspeople and property owners to promote the city
and recruit businesses. It undertook analysis, strategic planning, and
projects through 2004.
In 1996, the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, and the Greater
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce crafted the “Edmonds Economic
Development Strategic Action Plan”, which was adopted by reference. This
element updates and replaces that work.
The city’s economic development efforts continued to focus primarily on
the downtown, and in 1999, downtown economic development specialists
Hyett-Palma were selected for a downtown study. The study, Edmonds
Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy – 1999, outlined several
strategies for dealing with economic development in downtown Edmonds.
They noted that the future of downtown Edmonds should not be “boiled
down to an either or decision”, but instead Hyett-Palma identified the
challenge for downtown as follows:
“Keep Downtown “the same” — by maintaining its charm, quaintness,
and small town ambiance — while at the same time managing change
in a way that allows Edmonds to take advantage of economic
opportunities that will benefit the community.” 1
They concluded that avoiding change will, in fact, not keep downtown
“the same”. That will only result in a downtown that will not stay the same
or flourish to be more attractive.2 They also identified several
recommended actions, such as:
• Reserving the first floor, by city zoning ordinance, in a downtown
core specialty cluster for retail;
• Developing a large number of housing units in the downtown
through mixed-use developments;
• Adding design guidelines;
• Helping existing businesses to expand and open additional
ventures; and
• Ensuring that aesthetics add to the downtown ambiance through
high quality public and private signage, art and streetscape
elements.
1 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. P. 11
2 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. P. 12
3
Many of the Hyett Palma conclusions resurfaced during a 2004-2005
Downtown Plan Comprehensive Plan Update, for which additional study
was completed by Heartland LLC and by Mark Hinshaw at LMN Architects.
In 2004, the City also added the first Economic Development Director on
staff under the Mayor. This position works in close collaboration with
local and regional economic development stakeholders. Prior to the
development of the Economic Development Element, initial staff priorities
were set involving: business recruitment and retention, tourism
development, creating a more business-friendly regulatory environment,
and addressing barriers to development in business districts around the
entire city. This Economic Development Element will provide further
guidance for staff and council on economic development priorities.
C. Current national thinking in economic development
Across the country, many past economic development efforts focused
either on providing major tax breaks to entice large corporations or on
government provision of significant infrastructure projects geared
towards assisting industry. Today’s general outlook on economic
development recommends a more balanced approach wit h an emphasis
on long-term planning for a vital, sustainable community.
Support locally-owned businesses
States and municipalities are increasingly establishing policies to bolster
smaller, locally-owned businesses. Economic development expert Michael
Shuman, an economist and attorney, focuses on creating self-reliant
communities. In his book “Going Local”, Shuman highlights ways in which
municipalities can bolster locally-owned companies and increase local
spending. Recent research has begun to highlight the positive “multiplier
effect” associated with prioritizing the growth of local companies. The
multiplier effect describes how the expenditure of a dollar generates
more than a dollar of activity. A worker who receives a check might spend
a portion of it at a local restaurant or shop, thereby resulting in more
transactions within that community. The local multiplier effect stops
when the transaction leaves the local community. Shuman writes,
“The primary virtue of import substitution, community
corporations, and local investment is that these
strategies increase the likelihood of the economic
multiplier’s staying at home.”3
3 Shuman, Michael. Going Local. P. 50
4
While it is impossible today to substitute many of our “imports” locally,
many improvements are achievable. Some examples of common practices
in line with this school of thought include procurement policies that favor
local companies (if within a range of price competitiveness) and “shop
local” programs.
Create vibrant places
Another movement in economic development has produced a shift
towards creating vibrant places where today’s workforce will want to live,
as documented by public policy and economic development expert
Richard Florida. Florida’s research demonstrates how today’s “creative
class” of workers choose location first, and employment second. In this
line of thinking, corporations are increasingly forced to locate to where
the desirable, educated workforce resides, not necessarily whichever
locale offers the largest tax break.
In the following segment, Florida describes what today’s workforce seeks
in a place to live.
”What’s there: the combination of the built
environment and the natural environment; a proper
setting for pursuit of creative lives
Who’s there: the diverse kinds of people, interacting
and providing cues that anyone can plug into and
make life in that community
What’s going on: the vibrancy of the street life, café
culture, arts, music, and people engaging in outdoor
activities – altogether a lot of active, exciting creative
endeavors”4
4 Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class, p.232
5
Consequently, municipalities and regions engaged in economic
development must think about nurturing environments for businesses
and people in order to grow a local economy.
II. The Edmonds Economy
A. Analysis of local economy
A good understanding of the local economy helps a community to
effectively guide policies, investments, staff resources, and future plans.
The analysis completed for the Economic Development Element offers a
background on local business characteristics and a summary of city
revenues.
Local business characteristics
Edmonds is home primarily to a small business economy. In 2005, City
records counted 1,791 licensed businesses located in Edmonds. Claritas
consumer research, which provides detailed information not collected
locally, recorded 1,526 businesses. Some summary employment statistics
are listed below.
Table 1:
Median # of employees: 3
Average # of employees: 8
Total employees: 12,693
Source: Claritas
While most Edmonds businesses employ a small number of workers,
larger local employers include Stevens Hospital, the Edmonds School
District, and the City of Edmonds.
Stevens Hospital, with 217 beds and 888 full-time employees, serves as
an anchor to the greater health care industry in Edmonds. In 2005, there
were 209 related health care and social assistance businesses.
Edmonds is also home to a large number of retail and professional
service businesses, ranging from small shops and restaurants to
nationally-known architectural, engineering and technical firms.
Table 2 shows the number of Edmonds businesses by NAIC code.
6
Table: 2
Number of Businesses in Edmonds by NAIC Code in 2005
NAIC Business
Description Code Count
Retail 44-45 231
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 54 229
Health Care and Social Assistance 62 209
Other Services (except Public Administration) 81 172
Construction 23 114
Finance & Insurance 52 107
Accommodation and Food Services 72 102
Real Estate & Rental Leasing 53 72
Administrative, Support & Waste Management & Remediation Svs 56 58
Wholesale Trade 42 53
Educational Services 61 41
Manufacturing 31-33 33
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 29
Public Administration 92 21
Transportation and Warehousing 48-49 18
Information 51 18
Utilities 22 2
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 11 2
NAICs Total 1,511
All businesses in Edmonds 1,526
*15 businesses were non-classifiable
Source: Claritas
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) replaced
the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system.
Edmonds is also home to many businesses in fields that are experiencing
dramatic growth in self-employment across the nation. Nationally, the
number of businesses with no paid employees grew from 17.6 million in
2002 to more than 18.6 million in 2003, a growth rate of 5.7 percent,
according to a report issued by the U.S. Census Bureau. This represents
the biggest rate of increase in self-employment since the Census Bureau
began releasing such statistics in 1997.
If Edmonds is indeed experiencing the same trend locally, it may be part
of the reason why Edmonds has a relatively high percent of workers who
live and work within Edmonds. According to the 2000 Census, 18.5% of
Edmonds’ working population chose to live and work in Edmonds.
Comparatively, that figure was only 10.8% for Lake Forest Park, 15.1% for
Mukilteo, 9% for Mountlake Terrace and 12.8% for Mill Creek. Perhaps due
to its large amount of commercially zoned land and therefore number of
businesses, 23.4% of Lynwood’s workers worked and lived within the city.
7
New business development in Edmonds will likely continue to be
dominated by small businesses and self-employed persons, unless
significant land use changes are made to encourage the development of
larger office buildings or other commercial uses.
Geographically, employment is currently spread throughout the city’s
downtown, neighborhood business districts and along Highway 99.
8
Services
Quality
of Life
Revenues
City revenues & sustainability
Each year, budget season arrives and usually some difficult choices are
made about what to fund and what to cut. Throughout the year, land use
decisions are also made, according to staff reports, regulations, public
testimony, and other factors. Rarely do we stop to consider the bigger
picture: the linkage between each year’s budgetary constraints and the
ongoing land use decisions. This connection affects the revenues
generated, the services the city is able to offer, and the quality of life
enjoyed by residents and businesses.
Edmonds is heavily reliant on taxes as a source of General Fund income.
In 2005, roughly 73% of General Fund revenues were generated from
three tax sources: property, sales, and utility. While this dependence on
taxes is not new, one percent property tax limitations on local
governments have acted as a major fiscal drain in largely residential
communities such as Edmonds.
In conformity with I-747, Edmonds is limited to a one percent annual
property tax increase. Prior to I-747, property taxes could rise up to six
percent annually. This has led Edmonds and many other municipalities to
pursue economic development agendas to diversify their revenue base,
including but not limited to increasing sales taxes.
The city receives sales tax from two main sources: the sale of consumer
goods and construction materials. Sales tax revenues vary from city to
city, depending on commercial development patterns, construction
activity and other factors. In Bothell, for example, sales tax is the city’s
largest revenue source. In Lynnwood, it accounts for 46% of general fund
revenues. In Edmonds, it accounts for roughly 19.3 % of the General
Fund. A table with sample cities and their sales tax revenues is listed
9
below. The per capita sales tax generated is also included, although a
more detailed analysis would need to be done to determine how much of
the sales tax revenue is generated by local residents versus visitors.
It is simple to state the goal of increasing sales tax revenues, but
somewhat more complex when determining how to implement that goal.
Many cities have focused on development because of its positive impact
on sales and property taxes.
Quality development/ redevelopment increases:
• Property values, resulting in additional property tax revenues.
• Construction activity, which subsequently adds sales tax
revenues.
• The number of utility customers, resulting in higher consumption
and additional utility tax revenues.5
Because Edmonds is largely built out, emphasis in the business districts
should be on redevelopment, where appropriate. This does not imply a
need for “wholesale” redevelopment of entire districts, but rather an
emphasis on realizing growth around important but limited
opportunities, such as the Harbor Square and Edmonds Shopping Center
areas. On a smaller scale, the recent closure of a gas station at 5th Avenue
South and Dayton Street presents an opportunity to close the gap
between neighboring uses and encourage pedestrian linkages. Moreover,
increased mixed-use development would also benefit the city because
“more density equals more customers”, as Hyett Palma pointed out in
1999.6
5 City of Bothell budget revenue narrative
6 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. P. 16
Table 3: Selected Mid-Size and Small Cities
2005
Population Sales Taxes Per Capita
Shoreline 52,740 $ 6,016,940 114$
Kirkland 45,800 $ 14,309,796 312$
Edmonds 39,620 $ 4,746,814 120$
Lynnwood 34,540 $ 17,419,531 504$
Bothell 30,930 $ 8,885,688 287$
Mountlake Terrace 20,390 $ 1,360,097 67$
Mukilteo 19,220 $ 1,814,520 94$
Arlington 14,700 $ 3,683,440 251$
Snohomish 8,585 $ 2,383,186 278$
Port Townsend 8,535 $ 1,591,514 186$
Source: WA State Dept. of Revenue
10
The strategy of encouraging redevelopment in all of the business districts
falls in line with the geographic distribution of business revenues around
the city. Downtown, successful restaurants and retailers occupy many of
the ground level commercial units. In the neighborhood business
districts, grocery stores, drug stores and convenience retail dominate. On
Highway 99, larger “box” retailers, car dealerships, and restaurants bring
in substantial revenues.
It is important to recognize the significance of the city’s boundaries and
commercial districts in and directly adjacent to the city. In the past,
Edmonds was given the opportunity to annex large neighboring
commercial areas such as the Aurora Village and James Village shopping
center developments. In hindsight, this would have been a wise decision
from a revenue perspective. While a recent annexation effort in the
Esperence section of Snohomish County failed, there may be property
owners interested in annexing by petition, such as along Highway 99.
This would increase continuity to an important commercial area with
complex municipal boundaries.
Another consideration pertaining to sales tax generation involves the
level of “leakage” in consumer spending, or in other words, what local
residents purchase outside of Edmonds. As part of the Berk & Associates
consultant study performed for the Highway 99 Task Force in 2004,
consumer spending in the collective trade area of Edmonds and
Mountlake Terrace was analyzed. They found that residents in the
Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace areas combined spend roughly $550
million in other cities each year on retail items (all retail, excluding autos
and groceries). 7
While consumer spending patterns are influenced by national economic
trends, local municipalities can nonetheless work to address compatible
areas of spending leakage. A 1999 survey conducted by Hyett Palma of
primary trade area residents found that people chose to come downtown
primarily for eating in the restaurants and shopping. The needs of special
consumption categories such as these should help guide corresponding
recruitment and land use policies in order to maximize the effectiveness
of efforts to recapture local spending dollars. For example, design
guidelines should ensure that first floor commercial units in the
downtown and throughout the city are able to physically accommodate
restaurant and retail uses. Parking regulations can further “make or
break” a retail and dining district.
7 Edmonds Highway 99 Enhancements Market Assessment, 10-04, page vi
11
In 1999, only 5% of the consumer survey respondents reported to come
downtown for entertainment8. However, a modest “nightlife” might help
attract young professionals, a conclusion drawn by Hyett Palma as well.
The arts have a vital role to play; evening “artwalks” and performing arts
events are significant draws. Creating business districts with activity into
the evening can add a critical mass of potential consumers during the
time of the day when Americans spend most of their money. In turn, this
might encourage local retailers to stay open later.
B. Important regional trends
A major regional economic development agenda has been developed by
collaboration through the Puget Sound Regional Council. “The Prosperity
Partnership” identifies strengths and weaknesses in the Puget Sound
economy, and calls for specific “foundation initiatives”: education,
technology commercialization, new and small business support, social
capital and quality of life, tax structure, and transportation. Edmonds
staff and council members have attended meetings of “The Prosperity
Partnership”, as Edmonds residents and businesses could clearly benefit
from progress in several of these foundation initiatives.
While regional efforts continue, many cities around the region are
undertaking ambitious economic development projects, from new town
centers to transit oriented developments (TOD). These projects typically
contain a mix of retail, office and residential uses. For example, Kent
Station is a 470,000 square foot retail, entertainment, education, office,
and residential project located along the Sounder commuter rail line. The
City of Kent had an active role in the development of this project by
purchasing property, implementing necessary zoning and land use
changes, and soliciting developers.
8 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy.
12
C. Developments in neighboring cities
Nearby, several major developments will likely affect the Edmonds
economy by providing additional consumer options and more
competition for businesses. In addition to the actual amenities offered at
these locations, sophisticated “branding” and marketing campaigns
accompany many of today’s center developments.
In 2005, Lynnwood’s Alderwood Mall added a “lifestyle village”, an
outdoor shopping area that features upscale stores and dining options.
The streetscape setting mimics older, authentic downtowns, such as
Edmonds, and represents a widespread trend in mall development today.
Lynnwood is also planning to take on significant additional density, and
has a 20-year plan for a City Center. Buildings in the entire City Center
area would house retail businesses, offices and homes, with heights up to
26 stories or 350 feet. Most of the property is privately held. The city will
buy the land for the parks and a promenade, and then allow the zoning
and market forces to drive development.
Just south of Edmonds, the Aurora Corridor Project is the City of
Shoreline’s plan to redesign and redevelop the three miles of Aurora
Avenue North (State Route 99) that run through Shoreline. The goal of the
plan is to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety, pedestrian and disabled
access, vehicular capacity, traffic flow, transit speed and reliability,
nighttime visibility and safety, storm water qualit y, economic investment
potential and streetscape amenities. While in an immediate sense, it may
result in the dislocation of some businesses, in the long term it will likely
result in more center-oriented development and the aggregation of small
parcels.
While not immediately adjacent to Edmonds, the Mill Creek Town Center
has proved to be a significant draw to businesses and consumers from
the Edmonds area. The Mill Creek Town Center Plan was initiated by the
City in 1993 to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan for a new
mixed-use center in the City’s central core area. The Town Center
provides for multi-storied buildings, strategically placed pedestrian
plazas and parking facilities organized around a ne w street pattern that
provides connections to adjacent neighborhoods and the existing
commercial core. Today, several hundred thousand feet of retail and
office space have been constructed, with anchor tenants such as Central
Market and the University Book Store.
13
III. Economic Development Goals and Policies
A. Edmonds’ current strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
(SWOT) relating to economic development
In preparation of considering the goals and policies for economic
development in Edmonds, a SWOT analysis was used as a planning tool to
provide direction.
Strengths
Picturesque waterfront
community
Identifiable neighborhoods and
business centers
Mass transit
Downtown specialty retailers
and food establishments
Events and festivals
Historic buildings
Reputation as an arts community
Stevens Hospital
International business community
Strong social capital/ community pride
Generally low rates of unemployment and poverty
Weaknesses
Limited trade area due to waterfront location
State B&O tax structure implications on small business
communities
Land use and parking regulations in the business districts
Multiple property owners and small lots in commercial areas
outside the downtown BC zone
Opportunities
Use location and “character” to
leverage additional economic
development, nurturing and
recruiting locally-owned, unique
businesses to enhance our
advantage.
Build on the existing transit hub and
future Edmonds Crossing multi-
modal station with transit-oriented
development.
14
Maximize the impact of the Edmonds Center for the Arts by
developing the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, by linking it to Main
Street shops and restaurants.
Leverage telecommunication/ technology assets to provide better
service for customers and new revenue sources for the city.
Plan and implement improvements in regulation around the
business districts.
Threats
Lifestyle villages and new town centers in nearby cities
Wider variety of housing options and more commercial space
elsewhere
Lack of design guidelines/ regulations to protect quality first floor
commercial space
Business recruiters from other cities targeting Edmonds
businesses.
Lack of a long-term vision for sustaining or improving the Edmonds
quality of life with projected revenues.
B. Goals and Policies
Goal:
1.
Foster a healthy business community that provides employment
and other economic opportunities.
Policies
1a. Promote a results-oriented permit and licensing process, which
consolidates review timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and
maintains a strong customer service approach.
1b. Develop or maintain business recruitment programs, and create
a tool box of incentives to encourage retail and ot her commercial
development.
1c. Encourage and expand business expansion and ret ention
programs.
1d. Develop a local purchasing policy that gives prioritizes doing
business with locally-owned companies, if within a range of price
competitiveness.
1e. Consider public relations tools to increase awareness of the local
business community, such as annual small business awards.
15
1f. Continue to partner with business and economic development
organizations, and address feedback from the business
community.
Goal:
2.
Revitalize the city’s business districts, balancing redevelopment,
preservation and the need for consumer amenities.
Policies
2a. Adopt land use policies, zoning, and design guidelines that are
supportive of responsible economic development.
2b. Strengthen neighborhood business centers through community
planning and commercial revitalization, resulting in new
regulations that will spur development.
2c. Revise parking requirements, especially downtown, to encourage
business development.
2d. Develop land use regulations that will encourage Transit
Oriented Development (T.O.D.) in the Harbor Square and “Old
Safeway” area.
2e. Explore options such as Business Improvement Districts/ Areas
(special assessment districts) as a way to help shopping areas
fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion.
2f. Continue to support an historic preservation program that works
to identify and preserve historic architectural, archeological and
cultural resources for future generations.
2g. Utilize incentives and the historic preservation building code to
encourage property owners to register eligible historic buildings.
2h. Work to identify and “brand” distinct business districts, where
there is a natural synergy, such as the Highway 99 International
District, the Stevens Hospital Medical Corridor, and the 4th
Avenue Arts Corridor.
2i. Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for
example, by implementing a “retail core” area in the downtown.
2j. Provide a quality environment with character for patrons and
residents to enjoy.
16
Goal
3.
Diversify the tax base and increase revenues to support local
services.
Policies
3a. Address barriers to redevelopment in the business districts, and
encourage mixed-use development.
3b. Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections,
to pursue new revenue streams.
3c. Implement regulations and/or design guidelines that will ensure
the development of quality retail and commercial space that can
physically accommodate a variety of future users.
3d. Focus recruitment and “buy local” community marketing on
consumer spending segments in which there is significant
“leakage”, and also a strong possibility of recapturing spending.
3e. Pursue private and public grant or sponsorship funding for
programs, where possible.
3f. Encourage longer hours of business operation and/or more
evening uses in the business districts to add options during
“peak” hours of consumer spending.
3g. Expand tourism efforts to take advantage of regional trends,
such as nature tourism.
Goal
4.
Strengthen the quality of life and vitality of the community for
residents, workers and visitors to enjoy.
Policies
4a. Develop a housing strategy that plans for a variety of housing
options, both in design and affordability, around t he city.
Consider housing options for artists.
4b. Promote the visitor/tourism sector. Sustain and develop facilities
that attract tourists, conferences, professional training, sporting
events and other recreational opportunities.
17
4c. Consider building incentives that may encourage
environmentally-friendly construction (or LEED certified), a
percent set-aside for the arts, public spaces, and affordable
housing.
4d. Provide leadership on technology issues in order to ensure that
Edmonds residents and businesses have fast, affordable service.
4e. Foster an open and accepting community culture that respects
diversity.
4f. Expand social, cultural, artistic, recreational and other learning
activities for all generations.
4g. Strive to improve communications with the public.
18
C. Implementation
The policies in this document were constructed to provide a supportive
foundation for future economic development projects, legislation and
decisions. Implementing the city’s policies will require cooperative
involvement on the part of the City Council, Mayor, commissions and
boards, committees, and staff. In the past, several studies have
recommended a number of strategies for implementation, and yet few of
these recommendations have actually been realized. At the same time,
the city’s long term financial outlook has only worsened. It is therefore
imperative that real progress be made in setting the course for economic
development in Edmonds.
Phased implementation could be achieved through a series of legislative
actions and ongoing administrative services.
Legislative
The City Council ultimately decides on many land use and other
regulations that greatly affect the ability for economic development to
take place. As the policy-making body, the City Council must also act in
the best interest for Edmonds residents and businesses today - and far
into the future. This involves balancing immediate community feedback,
the results of expert studies, staff recommendations, and the need for
long term vision and planning for Edmonds’ future financial picture and
quality of life.
In the spring of 2006, the City Council formed an Economic Development
Committee, which acts as the liaison between the City Council and the
Economic Development Director. The Committee works to ensure that the
Council as a whole has a deeper understanding of the economic
development issues facing the City.
As described in this Economic Development Element, a great deal of
economic development involves “setting the stage” for economic growth
to occur in a way that will enhance the community.
Currently, a number of studies and community planning efforts are either
underway or were recently completed that recommend revisions to
various zoning regulations. Below are the short term implementation
action items for the City Council.
• Adopt design guidelines that ensure quality commercial space;
• Resolve downtown zoning and height regulations consistent with
an expressed vision;
19
• Approve recommended reforms stemming from the work of the
Highway 99 Task Force;
• Study and approve updated Comprehensive Plan language and
zoning regulations for the neighborhood business districts;
• Study and adopt a package of incentives for use in business
recruitment and retention efforts; and
• Adopt a local purchasing policy, setting a priority for doing
business with local companies, if within a specified range of price
competitiveness.
Services
While staffing at the City of Edmonds has been streamlined significantly
due to budgetary constraints in recent years, the city also recognizes that
economic development contributes positively to the revenue outlook,
local employment, and the quality of life for residents.
The city should provide adequate resources for the following services to
implement economic development in Edmonds:
• Long-range planning for commercial areas
• Site selection assistance and business recruitment
• Community marketing
• Business expansion and retention efforts
• Public relations involving economic development
• Data collection and analysis
In cooperation with the city, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
is also involved in economic development through a special
subcommittee and the many festivals and business networking services
that contribute positively to the local economy.
Where relevant, the City of Edmonds should work in collaboration with
the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and other business groups,
local economic development stakeholders, and regional alliances to
further the economic development policies outlined in this Economic
Development Element.
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
December 17, 2014
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
December 17, 2014
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chair
Witenberg in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Bruce Witenberg, Chair
Kevin Garrett, Vice Chair
Jenny Antilla
Nicole Hughes
Jamie Reece
John Rubenkonig
Michael Schindler
Rich Senderoff
Douglas Swartz
Teresa Wippel
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
John Dewhirst
Darrol Haug
Roger Hertrich
Debbie Matteson
Doug Purcell
Darlene Stern
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
David Preston
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
PUBLIC PRESENT
Jeff Sherrer
1. OPENING REMARKS
Chair Witenberg introduced new Commissioner Jenny Antilla and she described her background and
interest in the EDC.
Chair Witenberg announced Commissioners Dewhirst, Matteson and Stern have excused absences.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA - NONE
3. APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19,
2014
COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REECE, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. STATUS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND
CIP/CFP
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
December 17, 2014
Page 2
Planning Manager Rob Chave Council reported the Council approved the Capital Facilities Plan/Capital
Improvement Program and the 2015 budget at last night’s meeting. Of note to the EDC, the Council
authorized $100,000 to match funds they are requesting from the legislature for an alternatives analysis of
ferry/emergency conflicts. The Council also included $100,000 in the budget for a Planned Action on
Highway 99 which would fund planning work and ultimately environmental review of land use and
transportation improvements on Highway 99. That effort, coupled with recent changes the Council made
to encourage more housing on Highway 99, will position Edmonds to capture development occurring in
the region.
The Council also authorized an $110,000 contract with a team of consultants led by Makers to work on
the development code update during 2015. The code update is a multiyear project; the City Council will
consider providing additional funds at the end of the year to complete the code update. The consultants
have already begun work.
Mr. Chave reported the Planning Board is currently reviewing the Land Use and Utility elements. The
City Council is reviewing the Housing Element followed by the Land Use and Utilities Elements and is
holding hearings on each element.
Chair Witenberg reported the City Council left downtown restrooms in the CFP but did not appropriate
any funds in 2015 for temporary downtown restrooms.
5. DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Economic Development and Community Service Director Patrick Doherty explained the previous
Economic Development Plan has not been updated since it was adopted in December 2006. The deadline
for updating the entire Comprehensive Plan is June 2015. Due to the constrained timeline, staff is revising
elements rather than starting over. The Economic Development Element is a policy document, the
background for the regulatory framework.
Mr. Doherty recalled the EDC agreed the Business Enhancement Subgroup would provide initial
revisions to the goals and policies. The draft provided to the EDC includes his and the subgroup’s
proposed revisions as well as additional input from Commissioner Senderoff. Following tonight’s
meeting he will prepare the entire element which includes the goals and policies as well as the narrative
and implementation. The element will be presented to the Planning Board for review and public comment
at their January 28 meeting. Commissioners can comment on the Economic Development Element as
individuals to the Planning Board.
Commissioners reviewed the goals and policies and provided the following suggestions/comments:
• Add fiber optics in Strengths
• Add shortage of tourist facilities/lack of infrastructure to support tourism (accommodations,
restrooms, wayfinding) to Weakness
• List of Weaknesses is short, there may be additional items in the narrative
• Add specialty retail and restaurants to International Business Community in Strengths to indicate
why it is a strength and identify concentration on Highway 99
• Determine whether to use intermodal or multimodal throughout document
• Add free parking to Strengths
• Add “recognized” to events and festivals under Strengths
• Add electric car charging station to Strengths
• Concern the wording of some opportunities are policy language versus action
• Add opportunities on Highway 99 such as big properties, good visibility due to traffic volume,
transit
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
December 17, 2014
Page 3
• Add opportunities provided by ferry traffic on SR 104 to Opportunities
• Add glossary of terms
• Add Port of Edmonds as partner in economic development to Strengths
• Add policy recognize Port’s role in economic development
• Add accessible public waterfront and pedestrian connections to Strengths
• Add waterfront amenities to Strengths
• Add continue to make waterfront more accessible as a goal
• Identify business districts in narrative
• Add parks to Strengths
• Add Dive Park to Strengths
• Consider whether to include 4th Avenue Corridor in Policy 2f
• Expand language in Policy 5g
• Reword Goal 4
• Add quality of life to Strengths
• Consider referencing impeded access to waterfront from increase in train traffic in SWAT
analysis
• Rephrase 4e to address economic development
• Add to Policy 2c accommodating a wide range of housing options to enhance use of commercial
• Add flowers as a Strength
• Include parks and recreational facilities in 5f
Commissioners and staff discussed signage on SR 104 for restaurants near the ferry holding lanes,
services provided by fiber optics versus cable, Comprehensive Plan as a vision with broad categories,
concern with use of the word “appropriate” in the document, whether 4th Avenue Corridor is a business
district, and revisions that have been made to B&B regulations.
Mr. Doherty reported Salish Crossing has signed leases with Top Pot Donuts and Spud Fish & Chips. Top
Pot plans to use a mobile app to take orders.
6. TOURISM AND VISITOR SUB GROUP UPDATE
Commissioner Garrett reported the subgroup discussed downtown restrooms and the position paper
approved by the EDC. Commissioner Dewhirst made a presentation regarding downtown restrooms to a
downtown group who was very supportive. The City’s tourism website has been launched; during the first
quarter of 2015, consideration will be given to other opportunities for providing information about the
City to people visiting the region. The subgroup also brainstormed 2015 projects/efforts. The subgroup
meets every other month; their next meeting will be in February.
7. BRAINSTORM IDEAS TO CONSIDER FOR 2015
Commissioners’ brainstorming identified the following ideas:
• Leakage: survey current business types and needs, target businesses to recruit (UW study
regarding Westgate had a list of community needs)
• Identify physical areas/business districts that would promote economic development
• Encourage small pharmacy, Doc in a Box
• Strategies for engaging businesses on Highway 99, particularly International District businesses
• Business-oriented website for recruitment and investment
• Analyze how waterfront businesses can be enhanced
• Food trucks – waterfront, Yost Park, City Park
• Downtown gathering place
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
December 17, 2014
Page 4
• Village green on 4th Avenue at Dayton to anchor the south end of the 4th Avenue Corridor
• Targeted code amendments
• UW Green Futures Lab study on Five Corners
• Advocate for a boutique hotel downtown and other lodging facilities particularly near the hospital
• Enhanced effort on liaison program
• Review 25 items in SAP related to economic development and consider how to move them
forward
• Capture ferry traffic tourism
• Talk with WSF about ferry reservation system
• Explore increasing the number of gas stations in the City to increase gas tax
It was agreed to review the ideas at the next meeting and determine which subgroup would pursue them.
8. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson reported on Council activity:
• Adopted CIP/CFP and 2015 budget
o Council allocated $100,000 for matching funds for an alternatives study
o Council allocated $100,000 for Highway 99 planning
• Adopted Legislative Agenda for 2015 which includes $1.25 million for the alternatives analysis
and $10 million to implement a Highway 99 Gateway project
• Adopted Social Media policy
• Reappointed Doug Swartz and appointed Jenny Antilla to the EDC
• Agreed to move forward with a Diversity Commission. A task force is being formed to determine
what the commission should address.
• Approved the Edmonds Downtown Alliance’s Work Plan and the LTAC’s Work Plan
• Added the Schumacher Building to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
• Received an update on the SAP
• Completed review of the Shoreline Master Program
• Presentation from PSRC regarding regional impacts of the proposed terminal at Cherry Point
(Commissioner Rubenkonig left the meeting at 7:52 p.m.)
9. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Member Phil Lovell reported on Planning Board activities:
• Reviewing Comprehensive Plan Elements, currently reviewing the Land Use and Utilities
Elements.
• Identified two Student Representatives; one will finish in 2014 and the second will start in 2015
• Extended agenda includes:
o Economic Development Element (January)
o Transportation and Cultural and Urban Design Elements (February)
o Street Tree Plan and Streetscape Plan (March)
o Transportation Element (March)
o Capital Facilities Element (May)
• Public hearing on entire Comprehensive Plan (June)
• Elected Neil Tibbott as Chair and Phil Lovell as Vice Chair
10. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE - None
11. MISCELLANEOUS
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
December 17, 2014
Page 5
Chair Witenberg reported Councilmember Peterson will be leaving his Council position next month to
represent District 21 in the State Legislature. He acknowledged Councilmember Peterson’s contribution
and his support of the EDC. He also thanked Commissioner Purcell for his service on the EDC including
his contributions to the Business Enhancement Subgroup.
12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jeff Sherrer commented on the economic impact Edmonds Community College’s large student
population has on the City. He suggested partnering with Edmonds Community College on something
that would draw students. He pointed out the Economic Development Element does not mention reaching
beyond the City’s borders such as a Sister City Program.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.