Loading...
2009.10.06 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ OCTOBER 6, 2009 7:00 p.m.   Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda   2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A. Roll Call   B. AM-2517 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2009.   C. AM-2525 Approval of claim checks #114249 through #114363 dated September 24, 2009 for $1,059,880.19, and #114364 through #114534 dated October 1, 2009 for $289,015.39.   D. AM-2514 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Ray Lankford and Vince Petosa (amounts undetermined), and Patricia Dorgan ($800.00).   E. AM-2519 Authorization to call for bids for the BNSF double track utilities upgrade project.   F. AM-2522 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with BHC Consultants, LLC.   G. AM-2515 Report on bids opened on September 14, 2009 for the Odor Control Improvement Project and award to Prospect Construction, Inc., for the amount of $1,410,312, including sales tax.   H. AM-2498 Ordinance designating the Great Northern Railway Section Foreman’s House located at 1011 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the Official Zoning Map with an “HR” designation.   I. AM-2499 Ordinance designating the residence located at 533 3rd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the Official Zoning Map with an “HR” designation.   J. AM-2518 Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2912, and amending the provisions of the Edmonds City Code to add a new Chapter 3.10, Emergency Reserve Finance Fund.   K. AM-2523 Proclamation in honor of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, November 2009.   3. AM-2516 (10 Minutes) Edmonds Business Story: Ruth Johnson-Pirie, Sweet and Swedish.   Packet Page 1 of 385 4. AM-2529 (30 Minutes) Report on Fire District 1: Brier Mayor Bob Colinas; Mountlake Terrace Mayor Jerry Smith; Mountlake Terrace Mayor Pro Tem Laura Sonmore; Mountlake Terrace City Manager John Caulfield.   5. AM-2532 (15 Minutes) Public comment on the Fire District 1 contract offer.   6. AM-2530 (20 Minutes) Consideration of whether to adopt a motion or resolution in support or opposition to Initiative Measure 1033. Public comments will be received both pro and con to the initiative. The ballot title for the initiative reads as follows: Initiative Measure No. 1033 concerns state, county and city revenue. This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No   7. AM-2527 (30 Minutes) Continued public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to approve the creation of a new mixed use zoning classification for Firdale Village to implement the Comprehensive Plan. (File No. AMD-2008-10 / Applicant: Shapiro Architects)   8. AM-2520 (15 Minutes) Public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to adopt an ordinance adding a new section to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40 to establish a qualified building setback exemption for residential projects with expired County building permits (File No. AMD20090011).   9.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.   10. AM-2528 (10 Minutes) Report on petitions received regarding the "Meadowdale Beach Area" Annexation.   11. AM-2526 (20 Minutes) City of Edmonds Website - City Council Web Pages.   12. AM-2521 (15 Minutes) Discussion and potential action on Ordinance amending the 2009 Budget.   13. AM-2531 (5 Minutes) Resolution establishing notice provisions for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner regarding the termination of an Interlocal Agreement relating to the maintenance of playfields at a site formerly owned by the Edmonds School District and adjacent to Hickman Park.   14. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15. (15 Minutes)Council Comments   ADJOURN   Packet Page 2 of 385 AM-2517 2.B. Approve 09-22-09 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 09-22-09 Draft City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 03:47 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/29/2009 03:48 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 03:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 09/29/2009 03:45 PM Final Approval Date: 09/29/2009 Packet Page 3 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES September 22, 2009 At 6:40 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session regarding negotiation of the purchase of real estate. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Wilson, Plunkett, Olson, Bernheim, Orvis, Wambolt and Peterson. Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd was also present. The executive session concluded at 6:51 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director Douglas Fair, Municipal Court Judge Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114144 THROUGH #114248 DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 FOR $295,507.33. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48593 THROUGH #48633 FOR THE PAY PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 FOR $835,740.09. Packet Page 4 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 2 D. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENTS E. AUTHORIZE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER ENTRYWAY REPAIRS PROJECT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, BUNTTING, INC. F. RESOLUTION NO. 1206 – APPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANS FOR THE 2009 PROCESSES RELATING TO THE SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE. 3. EDMONDS BUSINESS STORY - RENATA CHURCHILL, ENGEL'S PUB. Renata Churchill explained her husband and she acquired Engel’s Pub as a working tavern in 2003, upgrading it into a full service bar two years later. They offer a variety of spirits and 17 tap handles, catering, delicious food and music. In March they celebrated 75 years and a commemorative T-shirt is available at the Pub. In April they received the Best Blues Club Award from the Washington Blues Society. She remarked it was an honor to do business in Edmonds where they attracted local residents and business people as well as people from outside the area. She thanked the Chamber of Commerce for offering networking via the internet, commenting visitors to the Pub also enjoy the waterfront, family friendly events, shopping, and other amenities Edmonds offers. She encouraged residents to shop locally, pointing out nearly everything they needed or used was available downtown. She encouraged the City to continue family-friendly events such as the recent car show which draws visitors to the community as well as drawing the next generation. She looked forward to new events such as a Blues Festival, teen concerts, etc. Their annual fundraiser, Women and Blues Night on October 10 from 9:00 - 11:00 p.m., benefits Pathways for Women, features Mary McPage and C.C. Janes. Their month-long food drive benefits Edmonds Food Bank. She encouraged everyone to visit Engel’s Pub located at 5th & Dayton. 4. PRESENTATION ON JAIL SERVICES BY SHERIFF JOHN LOVICK AND CORRECTIONS BUREAU CHIEF MARK BAIRD. Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick described his background, 13 years in the U.S. Coast Guard, 31 years in the Washington State Patrol, 5 years on the Mill Creek City Council, 9 years in the legislature and Sheriff for approximately 2 years. He commended Police Chief Al Compaan for his professionalism. In early 2009, the Snohomish County Council made a decision to move jail services under the direction of the Sheriff and that has proved to be very successful. Corrections Bureau Chief Mark Baird observed the former message from corrections was the County responsibility population for felons and unincorporated misdemeants would use up the current capacity in the jail and there would be a time in the not too distant future when there would be no room in Snohomish County corrections for municipal prisoners. Since January 1, 2009, Sheriff Lovick has changed that message to assure that the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office will be in the business of municipal prisoners for years to come. He explained the change was due to, 1) population trends have not occurred in the way they anticipated when original forecasts were made, 2) expanded use of community corrections options has allowed better utilization of secure capacity, and 3) Sheriff Lovick’s commitment for the jail to be in the municipal business. The current jail services contract expires at the end of 2009. They have been working with municipal Police Chiefs and their administrators to develop a new jail services contract for 2010 and into the future. That process is nearly complete and a final draft will be distributed soon to municipalities. The key Packet Page 5 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 3 change in the contract is the opportunity for municipalities to take advantage of community correction options; in addition to secure confinement, there will be opportunity to use work release, electronic home detention, and in-custody work groups. They have found many appropriate uses for those options and those less expensive options will allow municipalities’ corrections dollars to be stretched further. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether crime and the need for jail capacity had increased due to the recession. Chief Baird answered they had anticipated that happening, however, it had not materialized. Other facilities along the I-5 corridor have also experienced this unexpected change in the seasonal trend, a decrease in populations. He did not expect that to continue indefinitely but even in the current economy, they have not seen an increase and have actually seen a decrease. He noted that also coincided with typical seasonal low periods. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it could be attributed to the new administration in the Sheriff’s Office. Chief Lovick answered in researching trends, both in King County and Snohomish County, they found although certain crimes have increased, their population has not increased tremendously. He anticipated the very bad criminals were being removed from the streets. For example, the very successful Auto Theft Task Force started last year has reduced auto theft 41% in Snohomish County over the same period last year. He anticipated this was due to the thieves being apprehended and incarcerated. The Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office was very interested in crime prevention. Council President Wilson recalled Granite Falls and Snohomish County were identified as the methamphetamine capital of the United States in Rolling Stone Magazine a few years ago. He inquired about changes in meth crimes. Sheriff Lovick responded although there is meth imported into the area, the issue of meth houses has decreased dramatically, particularly due to legislative actions that made it more difficult to obtain the drugs to create meth. He acknowledged meth continued to be a problem but all police agencies were working hard to address that problem. Council President Wilson asked Sheriff Lovick to describe his involvement in the schools. Sheriff Lovick explained growing up in a very segregated part of Louisiana in the 1960’s, the person who was most impressive to him was the Sheriff. The Sheriff reached out to the community and treated everyone with great dignity and respect. Sheriff Lovick explained when he became Sheriff he wanted to reach as many young children as possible. He distributes a business card to young people with his picture and the following message, “Sheriff John Lovick offers all children and young people he meets the following tips for success: Be kind and respectful, be honest and respectful to everyone, be kind and forgiving to yourself and to others, never stop learning, take responsibility for your actions, to set goals and work hard to achieve them and to never give up.” Council President Wilson referred to recent discussions regarding regionalization of fire service in South Snohomish County, specifically the Edmonds Fire Department and Fire District 1. He noted King County had a model where the Sheriff provided police services to several cities. He inquired about the availability of a similar contract for police services in Snohomish County and his observations regarding regionalization of police services such as King County’s model. Sheriff Lovick responded he would not recruit cities to have the Snohomish County Sheriff become their police agency. If a city decided they wanted to talk with the Sheriff’s Office, he would provide information regarding the level of service, type of service, etc. King County has had several new cities incorporate in recent years which was not the case in Snohomish County. The Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office currently has full service police services contracts with Sultan, Stanwood, Darrington and Community Transit. Councilmember Bernheim explained Councilmember Peterson and he were on a committee considering possible savings in municipal court services. He commented upward of 50% of the municipal court’s traffic case load is driving with license suspended charges and up to 20% of the non-traffic case load is marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession. He questioned the amount of municipal court funds Packet Page 6 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 4 devoted to prosecuting those crimes. He thanked Sheriff Lovick and Chief Baird for the information they provided at his request regarding jail time for driving with license suspended and misdemeanor drug charges. He asked for their observations on the jailing of adults for misdemeanor drug possession and driving with license suspended crimes from the viewpoint of jail overcrowding, jail budgeting and tax expenditures. Sheriff Lovick answered Police Officers are responsible for enforcing the laws the legislature passes. Although there may be crimes that people may not think deserve jail time, they made the decision to drive with a suspended license and in most cases without insurance, placing the public at risk. Similarly a small misdemeanor amount of drugs was a violation of the law and there were consequences for those actions. He acknowledged there was a cost to municipalities of those rules and regulations and keeping the public safe. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether in their opinion the public was safer via the jailing of those people. Sheriff Lovick answered he was responsible for enforcing the law that the legislature and municipalities passed. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE 2002 TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE AMENDMENTS IN THE PROPOSED 2009 TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD: (1) USE A FUTURE PLANNING YEAR OF 2025 INSTEAD OF 2022. (2) BASE CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UPDATED CITYWIDE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL AND UPDATED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ON STATE ROUTES. (3) INCORPORATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAFETY STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2009. (4) GIVE STRONGER EMPHASIS TO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECTS MAKE UP APPROXIMATELY 25% OF PLAN COSTS INSTEAD OF APPROXIMATELY 5% IN THE 2002 PLAN. (5) UTILIZE PLANNING-LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS BASED ON HIGHER PER UNIT PRICES TO REFLECT TRENDS. (6) ADJUST REFERENCES TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTI-MODAL PLAN. NO CITY EXPENDITURES ARE PROPOSED BUT THE ITEM IS RETAINED AS A LONG- TERM PROJECT. (7) UPDATE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, INCREASING THE FEE FROM $764 PER TRIP TO $1,040 PER TRIP. (8) ADD A TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM AND ADA RAMP TRANSITION PLAN AS ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained this was a continuation of the August 4, 2009 public hearing. He identified a minor change made in response to public comments submitted since September 1, 2009: In Question 2 regarding rail station improvements and future ridership, sentence five in the second paragraph currently states the permanent Edmonds Train Station is dependent on implementation of the Edmonds Crossing project; this should be changed to “this project may be in conjunction with the Edmonds Crossing project.” He explained this change was needed because the project was identified in the Sound Transit 2 Plan and the permanent Edmonds train station will occur regardless of whether Edmonds Crossing occurs. If Edmonds Crossing takes place, the train station will be relocated in close proximity to the new ferry terminal; if the Edmonds Crossing does not take place, the permanent Edmonds station will remain in its current location with additional improvements. Jennifer Barnes, ICF Jones & Stokes, explained the Transportation Plan was the City’s long range planning document to establish the framework and priorities for transportation funding through 2025. Plan elements include Goals, Objectives, Policies, Street System, Non-Motorized System, Transit and Transportation Demand Management and Implementation and Financial Plan. Major milestones completed to date on the project include the following: Packet Page 7 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 5  Review of the Draft Transportation Plan (June) by neighboring cities WSDOT, PSRC, Washington State Department of Commerce, City staff and community members  Community involvement - three open houses and involvement of the Transportation, Walkway, Bike and Parking Committees  Briefings to the Planning Board on March 11 and May 27 and a public hearing on June 10  Planning Board passed recommendation to forward Plan to City Council  Briefing to the City Council on July 21, public hearing on August 4 Ms. Barnes advised responses were prepared in response to questions and comments at the August 4 public hearing. Minor revisions made since as a result of feedback provided on August 4 include the following:  Removal of projected future land use in Esperance area from Table 1-1 totals  Addition of cul-de-sac design standards back into policies until the ECDC is amended (same as sidewalk standards)  Addition of alternative ‘non-signal’ improvements for intersections of Main/9th and Walnut/9th.  Addition of TIP description in Implementation Section of Chapter 6 (initially deleted from Policies)  Correction of oversight, recommend upgrade of the functional classification for Olympic Avenue between Puget Drive and Main Street from local to collector based on observation of how the roadway functions Mayor Haakenson requested further clarification on the impact of upgrading the classification of Olympic Avenue, whether it increased the availability of funding for sidewalks, etc. Ms. Barnes answered because Edmonds is a built-up community, when consultants or City staff review the function of the street system, the intent is to have the classifications reflect the function the roadway is serving. Criteria in the Plan are used to determine whether there are roadways whose function should be changed based on observation. On Olympic Avenue, there was no intention to upgrade what was happening on the road but to have the classification match the function the road is currently serving. Factors on Olympic Avenue include traffic volume, connection between a park and school, non-motorized pedestrian traffic, the ¾ mile length, etc. She noted the amount of traffic on the road versus the number of residents on the road indicate drivers are using the road for mobility versus just for local access. She explained a collector was a 50/50 mix between local access and through traffic. She emphasized this was a guideline and the City was not required to adopt their recommendation. The primary implication of adopting the recommended change was the number of potential funding sources for the proposed sidewalk. Classification as a collector is one of the minimum qualifications for certain sources of state and federal funds for the sidewalk. She emphasized the roadway would function the way it functioned regardless of the classification. The sidewalk was the only improvement proposed on Olympic Avenue; there was no proposed widening or increased capacity. Mayor Haakenson commented the residents would likely agree it was not a local road due to the volume of traffic. He summarized there were no improvements proposed other than the sidewalk as a result of changing the classification from local to collector but it would allow the City to apply for more grants for the sidewalk. If the local classification remained, there were less opportunities for grant funding. If the City were successful in obtaining grant funds for a sidewalk on Olympic Avenue, Councilmember Plunkett questioned if the roadway would also need to be improved at the time sidewalks were installed. Public Works Director Noel Miller answered the roadway may need to be widened slightly to ensure proper lane widths. Packet Page 8 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett referred to sidewalks being installed on 76th, observing the roadway was being improved in that location. Mr. Miller agreed there were slight improvements such as a slight widening. Councilmember Plunkett observed the widening would require additional property. Mr. Miller responded the existing right-of-way width was sufficient. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was enough right- of-way to add lanes. Mr. Miller answered there was not enough for additional lanes, but enough to accommodate a sidewalk. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was an example of a street where sidewalks had been installed and the street not also improved. Mr. Miller referred to the sidewalk on 76th between Olympic View Drive and Meadowdale Beach Drive where there are ups and downs in the road profile. Mayor Haakenson referred to sidewalks being installed on Caspers Street. Mr. Miller answered significant roadway improvements were not necessary and speeds were low enough from a sight distance standpoint that the road would not need to be re-profiled. On 220th, the road needed to be re-profiled as part of that project. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing the classification of the road to a collector affected speeds. Ms. Barnes advised the range of speed limits on a collector was 25-30 mph and the range of speed limit on a local street was 15-25 mph. Councilmember Plunkett asked if it was anticipated the speed limit would be increased. Ms. Barnes answered no. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing the classification would necessitate changing the speed limit. Mr. Miller answered it would not. Councilmember Plunkett asked how a collector differed from a local street other than the speed limit. Mr. Hauss referred to Table 3-6 on page 3-21 of the Plan that illustrates typical roadway cross-sections, advising that issue was also addressed in Question 1 of the responses to questions. He summarized the requirements were nearly the same; the primary difference was the minimum right-of-way for a collector was 55 feet versus 33 feet for a local street. Olympic Avenue is already 60 feet wide for most of this section and in one section it is 80 feet wide. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out according to that table a local street is 2 lanes; a collector could be 2-3 lanes, roadway width for a local is 22 feet; a collector could be as much as 35 feet; sidewalk width on a local is 5 feet, sidewalk width on a collector could be 5-10 feet. Mr. Hauss clarified in the draft plan the sidewalk width for both local and collector streets is 7 feet. With regard to speed, Edmonds does not have any 15-20 mph speed limits; the speed is 25 mph on local streets and 25-30 mph on collectors. He reiterated the classification would increase the grant funding opportunities for sidewalks and would make the roadway eligible for overlay using federal stimulus funds. Councilmember Orvis commented this was not the only proposed reclassification, observing there were several other recommendations on page 3-7. He observed people purchased their home on a local street, traffic began shortcutting through the neighborhood and instead of traffic calming, the solution appeared to be reclassifying the roadway. Ms. Barnes agreed a decision could be made to redesign the road or install a measure to discourage traffic. Their observation is that the roadway is functioning as a collector, serving some mobility function. Changing the classification of the roadway would not change the way it is functioning. Councilmember Orvis asked whether it would be difficult to obtain funding for traffic calming on a collector. Ms. Barnes agreed it would be, pointing out the option was to implement design measures to force it to function like a local access road or recognize the function it was serving now and classify it as a collector. Staff’s recommendation is to have the roadway’s classification reflect its function. She assured the classification did not generate more traffic. If the Council wanted to calm/mitigate traffic on Olympic Avenue, Council President Wilson anticipated an expensive study would be required to determine the best method. There was also the possibility that the Council would reject the strategy the consultant developed as has happened in the past. He clarified there were no plans to widen Olympic Avenue regardless of its classification, the only improvement was better sidewalks; there were no plans to add lanes and the change in classification would assist the City in Packet Page 9 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 7 obtaining grant funds for sidewalks. He looked forward to sidewalks as he frequently walks on that street with his two young children. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Lane Sealy, Edmonds, resident on Olympic Avenue, recalled talking with Mayor Haakenson last year about reducing speeds on Olympic Avenue which he anticipated would also reduce traffic volumes. Although Mayor Haakenson had speed limit alert flags installed, excessive vehicle speeds and traffic volumes persist. He disagreed with information in the Plan that Olympic Avenue provided direct connection between the downtown area via Main Street and north Edmonds, pointing out there were existing arterials routes that provide that connection. To the statement in the Plan that Olympic Avenue provides a direct connection to Yost Park, he clarified the Park could be accessed from Olympic Avenue but not the parking lot. To the statement that Olympic Avenue provides a connection to Edmonds Elementary, he questioned reclassifying a street that provided access to an elementary school, envisioning the goal should instead be to minimize traffic volumes and speeds near an elementary school. He summarized the reason drivers were using Olympic Avenue in a manner other than intended was because there were no traffic mitigating devices. Lora Petso, Edmonds, thanked the Council and staff for the changes made to the Plan. She expressed concern with using the business license fee as a possible funding source and with postponing discussion of the impact of Firdale Village, Edmonds Crossing, Pt. Wells, etc. With regard to Olympic Avenue, she pointed out the best solution may not be what staff and the consultant recommend. She pointed out many of the residents on Olympic Avenue who use the right-of-way for parking would lose their parking if a sidewalk were installed. She pointed out there was already a sidewalk on one side of Olympic Avenue. She also questioned whether the notice for this item was adequate as it did not include notice of the proposed reduction in level of service as required by GMA. Don Hall, Edmonds, a resident on Olympic Avenue, opposed the change in classification to a collector. He recalled circulating a petition in their neighborhood to request a 3-way stop at Daley and Olympic Avenue to reduce speeds. He anticipated a sidewalk on the other side of the roadway would encourage more speeding. He thanked the Mayor for the additional 25 mph speed limit signs and the radar sign provided by the Police Department. He noted drivers slow down when the police are there doing enforcement but it is temporary. He reiterated the request for a 3-way stop at Daley and Olympic Avenue. He recalled when the Everett Herald interviewed an Edmonds police officer, the officer said the police do not stop drivers unless they are traveling 11 miles over the speed limit. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, referred to Item 6 in the Plan that states adjust references to Edmonds Crossing multimodal plan; no City expenditures are proposed, the item is retained as a long term project. She relayed a comment made by Natalie Shippen that the ferry system’s public position on the future of its terminal in Edmonds is clearly stated in its long term draft plan 2030; scenario A assumes that the Edmonds terminal will remain in its current location; an allowance of $26 million is included to enhance the multimodal connection; and Plan B is unchanged from Plan A. She questioned whether the Washington State Ferries were being truthful with the City Council and objected to what appeared to be a placeholder until 2030. She suggested the City require Unocal to cleanup the site and begin discussing how the property could be used to the City’s advantage. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed the statement in the Plan that Olympic Avenue was a route to Yost Park was incorrect. He recalled the sidewalk on one side of Olympic Avenue was installed due to the school; other locations with a single sidewalk include 80th, 84th and 88th. He hoped the same recommendation to change the classification to a collector would not be made for those streets simply because they had a sidewalk on only one side. Next, he recalled there was a requirement for an EIS due to increased traffic and parking associated with the ferry terminal and train station. He suggested the Packet Page 10 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 8 addition of 300 condominiums in the same area should also require an EIS. He also objected to the $800,000 estimate in the Plan for traffic signals and $2 million for the Five Corners traffic circle. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Hauss explained the Transportation Committee ranked the sidewalk project as one of the primary walkway projects in the City. He clarified the recommendation was not to add a new sidewalk on the west side of the street; the recommendation was to upgrade the existing rolled curb to a six-inch vertical curb which makes it more difficult for vehicles to enter the sidewalk than a rolled curb. Mr. Hauss explained the traffic calming program states collector streets are not eligible for traffic calming. However, on streets such as 220th, radar feedback signs have been effective at reducing speeds. If the classification of Olympic Avenue were upgraded to collector, the roadway would not be eligible for traffic calming devices but radar feedback signs could be installed to reduce speeds. With regard to installing a 3-way stop on Olympic Avenue at Daley Street, he explained a stop sign was not a solution to reducing speeds and it did not meet the volume or accident history warrants in the Manual of Uniformed Traffic Control Devices for a stop sign. Councilmember Bernheim referred to language on page 5-13 of the Plan that states the City is a partner in the Edmonds Crossing project and the preferred alternative would relocate the station near Pt. Edwards which would include traffic circulation in downtown Edmonds. He questioned the adherence to the Edmonds Crossing Plan which has been postponed indefinitely. Ms. Barnes answered the Transportation Plan considers what will happen through 2025; therefore, the transportation improvements identify traffic and non-motorized issues during that timeframe. Because funding for Edmonds Crossing is not secure, it was not feasible to base planning for future improvements on the traffic it would generate. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Transportation Plan anticipated substantial improvements in the current ferry system such as the ferry holding lanes, incorporating ferry passengers into the downtown streetscape, etc. Ms. Barnes responded the Plan considered projected ferry ridership that was provided by PSRC and vehicle modeling reflected the additional traffic generated by the ferry. She summarized there was a risk of over-design if the Plan reflected projects that would not be constructed during planning horizon. The reference to the EIS is simply because the project may be in the City’s future and if the Edmonds Crossing becomes a reality, it should be reflected in the next update. The intent of the Plan was to acknowledge projects such as Edmonds Crossing that are on the City’s radar as well as have a financed improvement plan that reflects what was anticipated to be built in the planning timeframe. Council President Wilson acknowledged the primary issue on Olympic Avenue was speed. He asked how to ensure that a future sidewalk project would include radar feedback signs. Mr. Hauss answered the radar feedback signs could be incorporated into the project such as was done with the Puget walkway project. The City received substantial grant funding for that sidewalk as well as the radar feedback signs. Council President Wilson recalled the Puget/Caspers/9th walkway project was the top rated project in the State. He asked how long it had been the City’s top rated project before funding had been obtained. Mr. Hauss advised the application was submitted in spring 2006 and a grant was awarded in spring 2007. Design was begun but construction was delayed awaiting additional funding because the bid amounts were significantly higher than the estimates; another grant for the project was obtained this year. Council President Wilson assumed one of the major differences between the Puget/Caspers/9th walkway project and the Olympic Avenue sidewalk project was traffic volumes. He asked if there were other differences that would make Olympic Avenue less competitive for grant funding. Mr. Hauss commented it would be much more difficult to obtain grant funding if Olympic Avenue were classified as a local street. He recalled the City’s grant application for a pedestrian improvement on 80th Avenue West was Packet Page 11 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 9 rated the lowest of nearly 100 projects because it was a local street. That was one of the reasons for upgrading Olympic Avenue to a collector in this Plan. Council President Wilson asked the cost of installing radar feedback signage. Mr. Miller estimated $10,000-$15,000 each. Council President Wilson asked the funding source for installing two radar feedback signs in the next two years. Mr. Miller answered a better economic climate that would provide increased REET funds. Councilmember Peterson asked whether Olympic Avenue was on the cusp between a local and collector street or were the traffic patterns well into the characteristics of a collector. He questioned if traffic mitigation could return Olympic Avenue to the characteristics of a local street. Ms. Barnes answered it was solidly into the function of a collector which did not necessarily mean there could not be a strategy to encourage drivers to behave in another manner. The Plan does include a traffic calming program, however, it is currently unfunded. She commented Olympic Avenue had several characteristics such as its length that attracted more vehicular traffic. She clarified changing the classification to collector was not an indication the City wanted to increase traffic volumes, the characteristics of Olympic Avenue were such that it already attracted higher volumes. She reiterated one of the functions of a collector was to provide access, unlike the primary function of an arterial which was mobility. Councilmember Peterson asked what traffic mitigation/slowing measures could be installed to discourage traffic. Ms. Barnes answered the City was trying to get away from speed humps/bumps as a potential mitigation measure but other methods such as traffic circles, narrowing, etc. were possibilities to break up the length of the road. She did not anticipate traffic mitigation/calming would be a low cost solution due to the ¾ mile length of the roadway. Councilmember Peterson asked whether a roadway needed to be a collector to obtain Safe Routes to Schools grant funds. Mr. Hauss answered the City’s Safe Routes to Schools grant for sidewalks on 80th Avenue was unsuccessful due to 80th Avenue’s classification as a local street. Councilmember Orvis asked if Transportation Benefit District funds could be used to fund traffic calming and/or sidewalks. Mr. Miller answered the funds were currently limited to operations and maintenance. Councilmember Orvis pointed out use of the funds could be amended in the future. Councilmember Orvis recalled during the Transportation Plan update in 2003 Maplewood Drive was upgraded to an arterial. He asked if the City had received any state or federal funds for improvements since the upgrade. Mr. Hauss answered no. In reference to Ms. Petso’s concern, Council President Wilson asked whether the public hearing had been properly noticed. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Growth Management Hearings Board requires changes in levels of service to be noticed. The notice provides that there were changes in levels of service on state routes and references adoption of a Traffic Calming Program. However, the notice did not clearly indicate there were changes in the levels of service for local streets. He recommended continuing the public hearing and providing a corrected notice. Council President Wilson asked how speed bumps/humps impacted the Fire Department’s ability to respond. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg answered any impedance in the roadway hampered their response. Councilmember Plunkett observed the axles of fire trucks were longer than automobiles. Chief Tomberg agreed some traffic impedances were designed so that wheels did not touch them. He pointed out the impedances also impacted aid units, police units, Fire Department cars. He reiterated anything that impeded their rapid response increased their response time. Packet Page 12 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 10 Councilmember Wambolt asked if the effectiveness of radar feedback signs diminished as their use increased. He pointed out there was a significant amount of speeding in the City and in his opinion the only solution was more police officers assigned to traffic control. He recalled 20 years ago there were radar traps throughout the City but now they were very rare. Mr. Hauss answered radar feedback signs were used in many jurisdictions and were very effective. He suggested staff compare speed study information on 220th before and after the installation of the radar feedback signs. He pointed out police enforcement of speeds was periodic; the radar feedback signs were permanent devices. His observation was that many people braked when the radar feedback sign indicated they were exceeding the speed limit. Mayor Haakenson suggested testing photo radar on Olympic Avenue. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE 2002 TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO OCTOBER 20, 2009. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson requested staff provide an estimate for one radar feedback signage northbound on Olympic Avenue and one southbound and to fund the cost up to $30,000 from REET. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2010-2015) AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this public hearing was not subject to the same constraints as the previous item. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss advised this was a continuation of the public hearing held on August 4, 2009. RCW 35.77.010 requires that the City update the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annually. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, the Puget Sound Regional Council and adjacent jurisdictions. The 2009 Transportation Plan was used to develop the TIP. The TIP identifies transportation projects in the next six years along with cost estimates and projected funding such as local, federal and state grants, and the Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The TIP assumes a $40 increase in the current $20 TBD fee to fund operations and maintenance. The $40 increase, which requires voter approval, would be implemented in 2013. The only change made to the TIP since the August 4 public hearing was to the project cost of 196th @ 80th intersection improvement, which was increased to $889,000 instead of $789,000. He relayed staff’s recommendation to approve the Six-Year TIP and adopt the Six-Year TIP resolution. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented one of his pet peeves is improving people movement between the downtown retail area and the marina/Port area. He referred to an advertisement for an electric tram manufactured by the Electric Car Company in Long Beach, California. He anticipated the tram would travel up Railroad Avenue, up Main Street, up 5th and down Dayton. The trams vary in size from 11 - 14 passengers. The suggested retail price is $17,500 and it has a 50 mile range with a 22 mph maximum speed limit. He suggested this as an environmentally friendly way to move people between downtown and the waterfront so that they could spend more money. He hoped the current Plan did not preclude something like a tram in the future. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with the estimated expenditures of $800,000 each for signals at Walnut and James Streets as well as $2 million for a roundabout at Five Corners. He recommended the traffic signal at 196th/88th be eliminated from the Plan due to the hazards created by large trucks stopping on a hill. Packet Page 13 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 11 Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2010-2015) AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION NO. 1207. Council President Wilson voiced his concern with the policy decision in the Plan and the TIP that the Council would adopt a $100 TBD fee. Although that was the Transportation Committee’s and the Walkway Committee’s recommendations, he did not support that as a source for funding transportation projects nor did he have a better alternative. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 7. WORK SESSION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT OFFER. PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SNYDER REGARDING OPTIONS FOR FIRE SERVICE REGIONALIZA- TION. City Attorney Scott Snyder reviewed elements of the following three options for providing fire service: Contracting for Service  Formation - Requires only approval of Fire District Board and City Council.  Personnel - Impact bargaining is required prior to final decision with all affected bargaining units.  Governance - Fire District provides service under day-to-day contract. City Council establishes level of service and pays accordingly. Any increase in level of service necessitates increased payment.  Tax/Finance - No new taxes or increased charges. The City uses available revenue and any savings are attributable to economies of scale and elimination of duplication. Annexation to Fire District  Formation - Approval required by Fire District Board, the City Council, the City Voters and the Fire District Voters. Potential for appeal to the Boundary Review Board.  Personnel - All personnel transfer to Fire District. Impact bargaining required prior to the Council’s portion of the decision with all affected bargaining units.  Governance - By Fire District. The City Council would have no role in the provision of fire services. Citizens would vote for Fire District Commissioners.  Tax/Finance - Property tax increment available to City, limited by $3.60 per $1,000 assessed valuation (Chapter 84.55 taxing limitations). City, citizens and businesses pay Fire District for fire protection service to City plant through voter approved benefit charges.  Cities cannot establish their own Fire Districts. Regional Fire Authority (RFA)  Formation - Planning Committee formed with three members from the City and Fire Districts that form the RFA. Single vote on the Plan by voters within the boundaries of proposed RFA. 50% majority vote required, some funding options require a 60% majority vote.  Personnel - All personnel transfer to the RFA under the same Collective Bargaining Agreement terms unless other provisions negotiated. Impact bargaining and negotiation regarding Civil Service System required.  Governance - By Board of RFA. Composition determined by Planning Committee, comprised of elected officials from the jurisdictions that established the RFA. Packet Page 14 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 12  Tax/Finance - Funded by benefit charges on personal and real property, collected by County Treasurer. Benefit charges are voter approved, 60% majority every six years. Three voter approved $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation excess property tax levies available.  Timing - approximately two years. Mr. Snyder advised the other significant issue is withdrawal. The proposed contract has a ten year notice rolling provision for withdrawal [Note: this was corrected later in the meeting to five years]. An RFA can be ended and the parties can withdraw; although the procedure for withdrawal from an RFA is not well addressed by the State statute and getting employees and assets back from the RFA if it contained more than two parties could be a complex process. He noted one of the advantages of the contract was, although it was a slow withdrawal period, it had well established parameters for how employees and assets were returned. Council President Wilson commented his goal for Mr. Snyder’s presentation was to provide options for regionalizing fire service. He asked what lessons Mr. Snyder had learned in his experience with other municipalities. Mr. Snyder responded he had been involved in one reverse annexation, Poulsbo to Kitsap County Fire District 10. The negotiation with the union and the asset transfer were the most time consuming. The reverse annexation served the purpose of freeing revenue for the city and there have been no comments in the community in the ten years following the transfer. He commented 49 cities in Washington have done reverse annexation; the majority before there was an RFA option available. Council President Wilson asked if there were any buyer’s remorse or downstream contractual issues in the reverse annexation. Mr. Snyder answered the main fire station remained in Poulsbo. The only thing residents noticed was the name on the trucks changed. Councilmember Bernheim commented the options Mr. Snyder presented were alternatives to the current City-operated fire department. He asked how fire service was provided in the other larger cities in Washington State. Mr. Snyder answered he did not know and offered to forward an AWC link that lists all the Fire Districts and Fire Departments in the State. He suggested reverse annexation was more common in Eastern Washington. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any pattern regarding the type of cities that utilized certain types of fire protection. Mr. Snyder answered the RFA was a new tool and had not had an opportunity to function. Councilmember Wambolt asked for clarification regarding the notice requirement to withdraw from the Fire District 1 contract. He recalled after five years, there was a two year notice requirement. Mr. Snyder agreed. Council President Wilson asked about termination of the Fire District 1 contract if an RFA were formed. Mayor Haakenson responded Chief Tomberg has forwarded proposed language to the Fire District’s attorney and has not yet had a response. Council President Wilson suggested adding a requirement for an annual meeting between the Fire District 1 Commission and the City Council. Chief Tomberg advised the contract included an annual meeting between the Mayor, Chair of the Fire District 1 Board and Fire Chief. Council President Wilson clarified his intent was not a contract management meeting but an opportunity for the Council to have a discussion with the Commission to ensure the City’s and the Fire District’s interests were aligned. Mayor Haakenson agreed language regarding an annual meeting between the Fire District 1 Commission and the City Council would be added to the contract. Council President Wilson asked what impacts Initiative 1033, which will limit cities’ ability to increase revenue to the General Fund beyond inflation, would have on the City’s ability to fund the contract. Mayor Haakenson commented the Council planned to consider a resolution regarding I-1033 at a future Packet Page 15 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 13 Council meeting. In his opinion if I-1033 passed, “we might as well just close the doors to the City.” The City would be better off on a contract basis than operating its own Fire Department because a contract guarantees fire service; with the City’s own Fire Department, passage of I-1033 could require the closure of fire stations or worse. He emphasized the impacts of I-1033 would be very detrimental to city services throughout the State. Council President Wilson observed short term the City was better off with the contract due to the savings as well as weathering the impacts of I-1033 should it pass. In the long term, he feared the cost of public safety inflation would outpace inflation. He anticipated it would be difficult to ask voters to fund fire service if the City was not providing the service via its own Fire Department. Council President Wilson explained via the contract, the City would pay 75% of the Fire Marshal position and 100% of the Fire Inspector position and housed both in City Hall. He asked why the contract was not structured to retain them as City employees. Chief Tomberg answered it was to maintain a coherent fire service mission a portion of which is fire prevention. Another issue would be the chain of command and the priority of their mission. Mr. Snyder pointed out if they were retained as City employees, the City would still have the cost of negotiating with them as a bargain unit. Chief Tomberg commented the contract was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace and Brier contract and that was how those positions were handled in their contract. He summarized the priority and focus of prevention was best retained as part of the Fire Department. Council President Wilson asked if a Fire District 1 representative would attend appropriate Council meetings to respond to questions regarding fire service. Mayor Haakenson anticipated they would. Chief Tomberg advised the Fire Marshal and Inspector would remain in their current offices. On Wednesday mornings the City holds an expanded staff meeting with all directors and other division leaders. Another meeting follows with Community Development, Development Services and Public Works staff. He proposed the Fire Marshal attend that meeting to address and/or refer issues that arise. Mayor Haakenson advised the purpose of housing the Fire Marshal in City Hall was to approve building plans, etc. Council President Wilson inquired about the Public Safety boat, Marine 16. Chief Tomberg responded Marine 16 was acquired via a grant that required it be a County asset and respond to fire, EMS or law enforcement rescues when requested and available. Ownership and title to the boat was given to the City and will remain with the City. When Fire District 1 uses the boat for training or emergency response, they will pay for the fuel the same as they do now. The only vehicle replacement aspects of the boat are the motors. The boat is addressed in the Interlocal Agreement and the exhibits. If an agency wants to add something to the boat, they pay for it themselves; if an item serves both fire and law enforcement purposes, they split the cost. Whoever is driving the boat when an accident occurs pays for the repairs. The City has owned the boat for approximately two years and the current system has worked well. Council President Wilson clarified the boat was currently funded in the budget 50% by fire and 50% by law enforcement. He asked if the 50% cost of Marine 16 had been deducted from projected savings. Chief Tomberg advised the cost was not significant and included only fuel and funds set aside annually to replace the motors. He suggested Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer provide a cost estimate. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the City’s portion of the Fire Marshal and the Fire Inspector were included in the budget. Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to Exhibit C, advising the costs were included in the fire contract of $6.2 million: $130,566 for the Inspector and $121,669 for the Fire Marshal. Councilmember Bernheim provided several observations:  The proposed contract maintains the current level of service and eliminates any opportunities the City had via its own Fire Department to improve levels of service. Under the contract, labor Packet Page 16 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 14 increases are passed on; if Fire District 1 negotiates a great contract for the fire personnel, the City has no choice other than to pay the increase which he viewed as a loss of control.  Should such an important issue, contracting for fire service, be the subject of a public vote?  Recalling the lack of intergovernmental cooperation when negotiating for the purchase of property with the Edmonds School District, will the same be true with Fire District 1 in the future?  What is the remedy for non-performance of Fire District 1 such as lengthy response times?  What advisory role have the current Fire Department employees had in the proposed contract? What is their feeling about joining a larger scale operation with a more corporate environment with more resources, larger economies of scale and possibly more opportunities for professional development versus working for a small town Fire Department with local control and input and working one-on-one with the chief and other employees?  Concern with long term costs of contracting for Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, road maintenance, etc. Council President Wilson asked why the contract proposed that Fire District 1 pay the City for the asset transfer over four years? Mayor Haakenson said the contract could be revised to have the payment in one lump sum. Council President Wilson preferred to have the payment at one time. Mr. Hines explained in speaking with Foster Pepper, the payment was spread over four years to allow repayment of the bond debt associated with the stations over the same four years. If the funds were received at one time, it was possible the entire bond debt associated with the stations would need to be repaid at the same time. Council President Wilson anticipated paying the bond debt with the funds received from the asset transfer. Mayor Haakenson explained the bonds were refinanced recently and there may be prepayment penalties. Council President Wilson questioned the present value of $8.2 million versus the amount with four years of compounded interest. Mr. Hines offered to provide further details. Councilmember Wambolt asked staff to comment on Fire District 1 cost escalations. Chief Tomberg suggested Councilmember Bernheim’s questions be directed to the Mayor and City Manager of Mountlake Terrace and Mayor of Brier when they meet with the Council. The agreement also includes performance clauses, dispute resolution procedures, etc. He summarized the City continuing to operate its own Fire Department would be expensive. He urged the Council to consider the starting point with Fire District 1 of $6.2 million. He acknowledged Fire District 1 would negotiate cost of living increases that the City would pay, the same as the City did with its own Fire Department. He concluded the City got much more via contracting with Fire District 1. Councilmember Plunkett commented uniform labor costs were a function of State law such as firefighters could not strike and the City must use comparables. Chief Tomberg pointed out there is also binding arbitration. Mr. Snyder referred to language in the contract that requires the use of comparables. He pointed out a larger unit would have higher comparables because it would be compared to larger organizations. Councilmember Plunkett summarized Fire District 1 would use comparables the same as the Edmonds City Council and either an agreement was reached with regard to comparables or it was resolved with the use of an arbitrator. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT OFFER George Murray, Edmonds, liked the City Council’s discussion regarding contracting with Fire District 1 but objected to Mayor Haakenson’s presentation which seemed like a sales pitch because it did not address the negatives. His involvement with three mergers revealed the only ones that benefited from the merger were senior executives. He questioned how Fire District 1 could operate their Fire Department cheaper than the Edmonds Fire Department, particularly when most of the $6 million cost were labor- associated costs. He requested the Finance Director provide a comparison of the cost under the Edmonds Fire Department versus Fire District 1’s costs. He feared the proposed contract was a low-ball estimate Packet Page 17 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 15 and there would be a large increase in future years. He was also concerned with the loss of control and how the contract could be unwound. With the potential of I-1033, he pointed out the City could better manage expenses with its own Fire Department. He questioned the Fire Department’s endorsement of some City Council candidates. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Fire Department did not endorse candidates, the firefighters union has endorsed some candidates. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, asked, 1) what was the best long term arrangement for the community, 2) what was the best long term arrangement for the firefighters, and 3) if the proposed contract was the best for the community and the firefighters, what was the appropriate value and financial terms for the contract? He recognized the benefits of consolidation to minimize duplication of resources and saving money, noting it was usually followed by a redistribution of resources that reflect redundancy and to improve overall efficiency of the larger unit. Under this contract Fire District 1 will be allowed to redistribute firefighters to other stations which he acknowledged may or may not impact fire service in Edmonds as Fire District 1 focuses on maintaining the best service over a broader area. He requested more specifics regarding the process to modify or withdraw from the contract, assuming it would be easier to reverse the contract if the capital transfer was a separate transaction from the contract. He was also concerned with the presentation of the contract as an alternate to the levy, noting if it was a good deal, it should be a good deal in both good and bad financial times. He was concerned with selling capital assets in a depressed market based on current valuation. He was concerned the current schedule did not allow sufficient public hearings after all the information had been presented. Lora Petso, Edmonds, questioned the proposed $800,000 savings. She did not feel the City was receiving full value for its assets if the money were not provided in a lump sum payment. She was concerned the City could not easily withdraw from the contract, and that the contract did not adequately protect response times. With regard to the proposed savings, she questioned the inclusion of $580,000 in overhead items in Tab 3, pointing out the savings included a portion of the Council, the City Clerk, etc. She anticipated once more data regarding the EMS levy was available, the proposed savings would disappear. She anticipated the City would lose $1 million if payment for the assets was accepted over four years. With regard to withdrawal, she pointed out the contract cannot be terminated for at least five years; however, the proposal was to spend the money received from the sale of assets on operating expenses, leaving no money to repurchase assets if that became necessary. She pointed out the City’s only recourse to longer response times was to meet with the Fire District 1 Board. She urged the Council to include a mechanism for addressing longer response times with Fire District 1. She also suggested the City consider forming a Fire District with Woodway. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, agreed with Dr. Senderoff’s concerns with piecemeal public comments as information regarding the Fire District 1 contract was presented. The discounted cash flow analysis she conducted revealed the City would lose $1 million - $2 million. She pointed out the itemization of minutia as attractive assets in the contract, yet the furnishings inside the fire stations were not itemized. She suggested separating the real estate transaction from the contract for fire service. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, observed the contract was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace contract. However, in the Mountlake Terrace contract, the city retains the EMS transport fee versus the Edmonds contract in which Fire District 1 collects the transport fees. He pointed out Mukilteo had 2 fire stations with a $4 million annual budget, Mountlake Terrace 1 fire station with a $2 million annual budget, and Edmonds has 3 fire stations with a $6 million budget and 1 of the fire stations serves Esperance and Woodway. Ray Martin, Edmonds, recalled the City’s taxes were low 40 years ago compared to today’s taxes. He anticipated the additional cost to Edmonds taxpayers in the first five years of the contract would be $1 Packet Page 18 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 16 million - $2 million. He was not convinced the City would save a great deal long term via the contract. He pointed out the options provided by Mr. Snyder did not include retaining the City’s existing Fire Department. He urged the Council to think seriously about this before making a decision. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff provide a written response to the questions raised by Ms. Petso and Ms. Buckshnis. Mayor Haakenson advised staff would provide responses at the next meeting. Council President Wilson expressed interest in the termination clause and how the City could withdraw if the contract was not workable. To Ms. Petso’s question about the $580,000 savings in overhead, he explained there was a distinction between the cost of fire service and what the City would save; a percentage of the Council, Human Resources, legal, etc. was currently allocated to the Fire Department. Those costs would continue to be incurred but would not be costs associated with the Fire District 1 contract. Although his preference would be to form a Fire District which allows voters to pay taxes to an organization they approved, that option was not part of this discussion. Council President Wilson observed the contract could only be terminated in five years with the exception of a material breach. He asked that the RFA termination clause be included as a reason for termination before five years. To Dr. Senderoff’s concern that public hearings were being held prior to presenting all the information, Council President Wilson assured the Council would take all the time it needed to make a decision and any Councilmember could request additional meetings. To Mr. Murray’s concerns, Council President Wilson acknowledged he has also been working though his skepticism over how Fire District 1 could provide fire service less expensively than the Edmonds Fire Department. He was finding the numbers added up and he was getting to a place where he was increasingly comfortable with the proposed contract. To the question of how Fire District 1 operated more cheaply, Council President Wilson commented in his opinion Fire District 1 was going to subsidize Edmonds operations which was clearly a financial benefit to Edmonds in the short term. He noted the hypothetical considerations regarding I-1033 applied whether the City had its own Fire Department or contracted with Fire District 1. He assured he would not support placing the funds from the sale of the assets into the General Fund. He wanted to ensure those funds were available in the event the City wanted to withdraw from the contract and buy back the stations and equipment. Councilmember Wambolt stated he would not support placing the funds from the sale of the assets into the General Fund. With regard to Ms. Petso’s comments regarding overhead expenses, he explained those were overhead expenses associated with the current Fire Department and would be eliminated via the Fire District 1 contract. To Mr. Martin’s comment that this was creating a new tax, he assured this was not an RFA and did not create a new taxing authority. The contract with Fire District 1 would be paid by the City via revenues it currently collected. With regard to the assets within the station, he agreed that needed further explanation. With regard to withdrawal, although there were clauses that addressed withdrawal, he questioned how that could be practically accomplished. If there was any possibility that there would need to be a withdrawal, he did not favor moving forward with the contract. Councilmember Plunkett observed a lot of governmental entities had windfalls and most placed a portion of it in a permanent fund that generated earnings. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, referred to the notice of application for development of the former Safeway property and explained a rezone was required if a property owner wanted to use their land in a manner Packet Page 19 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 17 that was not currently allowed. In this case it was a change from BC to CG and CG2 which includes a height increase from 25 feet to 60 -75 feet. She referred to Section 20.40.010 that contains factors the Planning Board must consider in their review of a rezone request, 1) whether the proposal is consistent with the long range Comprehensive Plan, 2) the potential impacts on the existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed development, 3) whether there had been any changes that would necessitate the rezone, and 4) the impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. The City’s code also requires applicants to submit a SEPA checklist. The SEPA checklist in file number R20090042 submitted by ESC Associates contains several out-of-date studies including a soils study from July 1980, a geotechnical investigation completed in 1991, and a site assessment completed in 1991. The City’s Best Available Science Report published November 11, 2004 chides the City Planner for relying solely on reports and studies submitted by applicants. In this case the reports are outdated which should make the application incomplete. She pointed out this affected the due diligence the Planning Division and Board must undertake to determine whether to accept or deny the application. She pointed out the need to consider drainage problems. She encouraged the public to make a written request to become a party of record by emailing lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us or submitting a letter to Planner Kernen Lien at City Hall referencing file number R20090042. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, explained she and two other Edmonds citizens met with Kernen Lien in the City’s Planning Department on August 24 to discuss ESC Associates’ application for a contract rezone on the Antique Mall/old Safeway property. They were told notification of the application would be made on August 28. She pointed out this application requests the current zone, BC with a 25 +5 foot height limit, be changed to CG with a 60 foot height limit and CG2 with a 72 foot height limit. According to Mr. Lien, the Planning Department would review the application and forward their recommendation to the Planning Board; at least one public hearing before the Planning Board was required and the Planning Board could hold additional public hearings. Following the Planning Board’s review, they will forward a recommendation to the Council and the Council will review the application as a closed record review. Ms. Bloom posed the following questions: 1) will there be a public hearing on this application before the City Council, 2) how will citizens be notified of public hearings regarding this application, 3) what is a party of record and how does a person become a party of record in order to speak before the Planning Board or City Council, 4) what is the deadline to establish oneself as a party of record, 5) what is a Type IVB quasi judicial application and why is the application a Type IVB, 6) is this an application for contract rezone only and not a project the applicants plan to build themselves, and 7) where can citizens easily find answers to these questions on the City’s website. She advised the application materials were available on the City’s website via Quick Links and Online Permits. The permit number is PLN20090042. At Mayor Haakenson’s suggestion, Ms. Bloom provided her list of questions to the City Clerk. Council President Wilson requested staff prepare and distribute written responses to Ms. Bloom’s questions. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the open public review was before the Planning Board and notice would be published as well as posted on the City’s website. In order to become a party of record, a person needed to submit written comments or oral testimony to the Planning Board prior to their final deliberation. Ms. Bloom asked the date of the Planning Board’s final deliberation. Mayor Haakenson invited Ms. Bloom to call him and he would determine when the matter was scheduled on the Planning Board’s agenda. George Murray, Edmonds, asserted notification for application R20090042 for the former Safeway property was inadequate. He explained a letter of completeness was issued on August 28, 2009 by City staff and notice published in the Everett Herald as well as posted on the property and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius. Only 47 notices were mailed and he questioned whether anyone read the legal notices in the Everett Herald whose circulation in Edmonds was approximately 2400. Further, the boards on the site had no information until September 10 or 12. He displayed the notice and questioned Packet Page 20 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 18 the wording it contained. He requested the City publish information in plain English in the Edmonds Beacon and the Enterprise to inform citizens how they could be involved in the process. Joanne Green, Edmonds, thanked the Mayor for meeting with them regarding the house under construction at 523 Alder. She explained the work order was lifted on the home and the developer began Monday morning blocking the line of sight from the second floor of the adjacent building. She pointed out since construction began the developer has done nothing to mitigate the damage to his neighbors. She expressed concern with Mayor Haakenson’s response that the neighbors should have expected this. She suggested the lesson learned from this was that the Planning Department and the City believe a 3-story house on a 40 foot-wide lot was acceptable. She obtained a list of properties this developer owns in Edmonds and planned to visit the neighbors to inform them that a 3-story house on a 40-foot wide lot could be coming to their neighborhood soon. Bill Green, Edmonds, referred to the house under construction at 523 Alder as “the ugliest building you’ve ever seen in your life.” He implored the Council to consider the City’s regulations to prevent this occurring elsewhere in the City. He explained with the housing boom that followed WWII, some cities had zoning, some did not and some had spot zoning. The spot zoning was declared invalid by the courts and each city was required to develop a general plan prior to zoning. He worked in numerous cities throughout the United States, and most established 25-foot height limits to accommodate two stories and a peaked roof. However, in Edmonds the height limit was 25 feet plus and could reach 30-31 feet. He urged the Council to keep Edmonds as “Edmonds” which may mean changing rules or interpreting them differently. He concluded although the house may add $500,000 to the City’s tax base, it would lower the assessed valuation of the adjacent properties’ value by $1 million. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commended the presence of Engel’s Pub in Edmonds, rated the Best Blue’s Bar by the Washington Blues Society. As a fan of the blues, he used to travel to Seattle to visit blues clubs but now can find blues locally at Engel’s Pub. He referred to the movie, “Cadillac Records,” the story of Chess Records which popularized blues music. He suggested citizens watch the movie and visit Engel’s Pub to hear some great blues music on Wednesday and Saturday nights. Jan Darcy, Edmonds, relayed the comments of a young woman outside her condominium regarding the building at 523 Alder who asked, “Is your City Council asleep to allow that massive, ugly building on such a small space here in Edmonds?” She thanked the Councilmembers who supported their efforts to enforce the code, make the builder adhere to the code and to question the practices of the Building Department with regard to code violations. She expressed concern with Mayor Haakenson’s patronizing attitude and trivializing the impact of the building on their view. She needs to move to be near her son but was unable to sell her condominium as prospective buyers’ comments had expressed concern about the ugly building next door. She obtained an inspection dated September 10, 2009 indicating the height of the building had been increased. After being told by staff that further appeal would require a challenge in Supreme Court, she concluded it was fruitless to try to be a good citizen and attempt to reign in the blatant misinterpretation of the City’s code that seems to be interpreted any way a builder wants regardless of how detrimental it was to Edmonds’ citizens. She was hopeful the group that was working to clarify the code would be successful. Ray Martin, Edmonds, questioned if he was a party of record. He pointed out $6600 had been contributed by the developer to Council campaigns. He was opposed to any increase in the current maximum 30-foot height. With regard to Olympic Avenue, he pointed out the Council did nothing to help the residents. He suggested rather than the radar feedback signs, installing a school zone crosswalk which required a 20 mph speed limit, or installing traffic cameras which are allowed in a school zone. He suggested once the traffic cameras slowed speed on Olympic Avenue, they could be moved to the school zone on 76th Avenue. He also suggested the Police Department establish periodic speed traps on Olympic Avenue. Packet Page 21 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 19 COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the removal of striping on SR 104 that reopened Paradise Lane and Edmonds Way to traffic. He was pleased the Council awarded the bid for the Senior Center entrance. Next, he commented on the proposed rezone of the former Safeway/Antique Mall property, and urged the public to submit comments on the SEPA review. He concluded the City would not have its current financial problems if the Mayor’s salary had been remained lower. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Snyder to respond to Ms. Bloom’s question regarding why the application was a contract rezone, why it was quasi judicial and why it was a closed record review before the City Council. Mr. Snyder responded it was a contract rezone because that was what the applicant submitted; the applicant had the choice of a development agreement or a contract rezone. In a contract rezone, the applicant offers to limit their use of the zone in an effort to address the criteria Ms. Bloom enumerated. It was quasi judicial with a closed record review before the Council because that was required by State law. Mayor Haakenson reiterated it was a closed record review before the Council due to State law, not because the Council chose that process. Mr. Snyder emphasized anyone who wished to address the Council at the closed record review needed to participate at the Planning Board level either by submitting written comment or providing testimony to the Planning Board. Council President Wilson suggested scheduling a 5-10 minute informational presentation to describe the Planning Board and City Council process with regard to the application, how citizens can be involved in the process, etc. Mr. Snyder suggested providing an outline of the process on the City’s website. He advised the review schedule was currently unknown until the notice periods concluded and decisions were made with regard to the SEPA declaration. He offered to confer with staff regarding providing procedural information to the Council and citizens. Councilmember Plunkett complimented the citizens who raised procedural questions regarding the application for the old Safeway site. He clarified the citizens wanted to know how and where they could get involved to ensure they were not left out of the process. He agreed posting information on the City’s website would be an excellent method for providing that information. Councilmember Bernheim referred to Mr. Snyder’s indication that the public could speak to the Council during a closed record review. Mayor Haakenson clarified the public could speak at the Planning Board public hearing and parties of record may speak during the Council’s closed record review. Mr. Snyder explained when there was an appeal to the Council, input from parties of record was limited to written correspondence. A rezone is a combined legislative-quasi judicial decision forwarded to the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Board. Parties of record have an opportunity to address the Council during a closed record review. Councilmember Bernheim clarified a member of the public may become a party of record via submitting written comments to the Planning Board or by providing testimony to the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting in the past, citizens could sign in to become a party of record; that has changed to require submittal of written or oral comments. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the SEPA determination deadline. Mr. Snyder explained after the SEPA checklist is submitted, the responsible City official makes a Determination of Significance, Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. Because that decision has not yet been made, it is difficult to provide a chronology of dates. Mayor Haakenson advised the SEPA deadline is August 28. Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Council President Wilson’s suggestion to provide information to the public to avoid “making this as difficult as possible” for people to participate in this extremely important project. Mr. Snyder responded Washington courts have held that specific notice regarding a Packet Page 22 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 20 project is not required; the City will follow its adopted procedures. He agreed it was important to identify the steps in the process and provide dates that were known but there was risk associated with the Council providing gratuitous notice. He agreed it was a complex process and this would be the first application under the new code procedures. In response to Mr. Martin’s suggestions regarding Olympic Avenue, Mayor Haakenson assured he has met with residents on Olympic Avenue several times in recent years and Olympic Avenue has more radar enforcement than any other street in the City. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment about the Mayor’s salary, Mayor Haakenson suggested even with every penny he has been paid in the last ten years, the City would be in the same financial situation. In response to Ms. Darcy and Ms. Green’s comments regarding the building at 523 Alder, Council President Wilson commented he was surprised and shocked at how the code was being interpreted and that a building was allowed to be constructed with a roofline that was later found to be illegal. He acknowledged even if the code had been followed, views from the adjacent building would have been impacted. He expressed appreciation for Councilmember Bernheim and Orvis’ involvement in this issue. He advised a meeting was scheduled in the future to review roof issues. He thanked Ms. Darcy and Ms. Green for their effort to identify these issues. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION RELATED TO FOUR (4) SWEET GUM TREES LOCATED AT 5TH AVENUE SOUTH & DAYTON STREET. Mayor Haakenson explained the Council was provided a report from the City Arborist as well as an independent arborist and Councilmembers were asked to examine the condition of the trees themselves including one that is bolted together and another that is rotting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO REMOVE THE TWO SWEET GUM TREES ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND THE TWO TREES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DAYTON & 5TH. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the Council placed a moratorium on the removal of these trees with full knowledge of the sidewalk condition. The new information is the City Arborist said the trees are unsafe. He expressed concern that because the independent arborist knew the prior findings and what staff wanted, he/she was likely to reach the same conclusion. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the four trees were unsafe. He asked if the four replacement trees had been purchased and what size they were. Public Works Director Noel Miller relayed Parks Maintenance Supervisor Rich Lindsay had reserved four 3-inch caliper October Glory Maples at a nursery. The root ball of those trees should fit because the planter areas in this location are bigger than the standard tree well in the sidewalk. Councilmember Wambolt reiterated his question if the four trees were unsafe? Mayor Haakenson referred to sections 4.0 and 4.1 of the arborist report that states there is the potential for failure of one form or another of these trees. As previously discussed, the report included bark that can develop between the co-dominant leaders can cause failure of one of them at anytime. The arborist also circled the areas of damage in Figures 1 and 2 of the exhibits. Councilmember Bernheim anticipated this issue would not have arisen had the tree replacement program been more robust in the past. He referred to studies that indicate shoppers are willing to pay more and go out of their way to shop in a tree-lined small town village; however, the City was not promoting downtown shopping by the type of trees that being used to replace mature trees. He disagreed with the overall tree management downtown with regard to the sidewalks, preferring to remove the sidewalk and Packet Page 23 of 385 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 21 evaluate the roots before removing trees. The value of the City’s mature trees justified the cost of repairing the sidewalk or installing flexible sidewalks to accommodate the trees. With regard to the tree species recommended, he anticipated the Maple tree would create similar problems with the sidewalk. He announced a free 3-hour workshop “Persuasion and the Benefits of Urban Trees” in Tacoma on October 21. Councilmember Bernheim summarized without clear evidence regarding the safety of the trees, he did not support their removal. Councilmember Peterson agreed it was important to have a discussion about the Street Tree Plan in the future. He pointed out one of the trees was bolted together. Mr. Miller advised the bolted tree was small enough and was being held together sufficiently that it did not create a safety issue. Councilmember Peterson asked which of the four trees presented a safety issue such as a branch breaking and falling. Mr. Miller answered the arborist’s report stated as the trees get larger, the likelihood of a branch breaking off increases. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was not a branch breaking off; the trunk of the tree was splitting. Mr. Miller displayed photographs of the October Morning Glory trees in front of the Bank of Washington, pointing out the new trees would be significant size in ten years and they were a better tree long term for this area. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, BERNHEIM, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS. Councilmember Wambolt reported on the August 21 and September 4 Port Commission meetings where the Commission began working on the 2010 budget by reviewing moorage costs and a cost recovery analysis. The Commission approved the purchase of a new F150 truck for their Security Department. They approved the Economic Development budget of $30,000 for 2010. The consultants studying the redevelopment of Harbor Square property, LMN Architects, will present their report to the Commission in October. Councilmember Orvis reported the Health Board has been discussing H1N1 vaccinations. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Plunkett referred to a September 15 memo from Mayor Haakenson regarding Yost Pool that states given the success of Yost Pool in 2009, staff recommends continuing the same schedule in 2010. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Packet Page 24 of 385 AM-2525 2.C. Approval of claim checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Debbie Karber Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent Department:Finance Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #114249 through #114363 dated September 24, 2009 for $1,059,880.19, and #114364 through #114534 dated October 1, 2009 for $289,015.39. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2009 Revenue: Expenditure:$1,348,895.58 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $1,348,895.58 Attachments Link: Claim cks 9-24-09 Link: Claim cks 10-1-09 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Finance Debra Sharp 10/01/2009 12:00 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 12:33 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 01:37 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:13 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Started On: 10/01/2009 11:18 Packet Page 25 of 385 Form Started By: Debbie Karber  Started On: 10/01/2009 11:18 AM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 26 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114249 9/24/2009 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101001603 M5Z34 CAL GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.38 M5Z34101010783 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 56.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 5.34 M5Z34101997323 CARBON MONOXIDE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 380.53 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.81 Total :524.76 114250 9/24/2009 001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC IN102363 INV#IN102363 ED0200 EDMONDS PD ROLLS OF 2010 FILE LABELS 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 71.70 Freight 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 5.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 7.37 Total :84.94 114251 9/24/2009 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 2052 TREE TOPPING/YOST PARK TOP ALDERS AND REMOVE BROKEN SECTION OF 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 350.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 33.25 Total :383.25 1Page: Packet Page 27 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114252 9/24/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4472128 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 91.66 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.71 Total :100.37 114253 9/24/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4496514 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 84.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 7.98 Total :92.03 114254 9/24/2009 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 76534 OPS SUPPLIES helmet decals 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 20.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 1.92 Total :22.17 114255 9/24/2009 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST October 2009 OCTOBER 2009 AWC PREMIUMS 10/09 Fire Pension AWC Premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 3,824.50 10/09 Retirees AWC Premiums 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 24,886.70 10/09 Gaydos AWC Premiums 001.000.510.526.100.230.00 1,188.13 10/09 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 303,986.48 Total :333,885.81 114256 9/24/2009 002079 BANK & OFFICE INTERIORS 435408 INV#435408,SALES ORDER #247472 EDMONDS P 2Page: Packet Page 28 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114256 9/24/2009 (Continued)002079 BANK & OFFICE INTERIORS STEEL BOOK SHELVES- GANNON 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 208.02 STEEL WALL CHANNELS - GANNON 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 106.20 STEEL BOOK SHELVES-ADMIN ASST 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 208.02 STEEL WALL CHANNELS-ADMIN ASST 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 106.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 59.71 Total :688.15 114257 9/24/2009 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0002692 E8GA.Services thru 08/21/09 E8GA.Services thru 08/21/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 170.65 E8GB.Services thru 08/21/090002700 E8GB.Services thru 08/21/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 17,364.58 Total :17,535.23 114258 9/24/2009 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14104217 General Stormwater Services General Stormwater Services 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 39.00 E4FE.Services thru 05/21/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 12,475.75 Breske Appeal and Plan Review 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 348.00 E4FE.Services thru 07/23/0914107831 E4FE.Services thru 07/23/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 348.00 Breske Appeal and Plan review 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 1,840.50 Total :15,051.25 114259 9/24/2009 072855 BROWN DOG PRODUCTIONS 104 DATA ENTRY 1136 CARDS 3Page: Packet Page 29 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114259 9/24/2009 (Continued)072855 BROWN DOG PRODUCTIONS Data Entry 1136 Cards 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,183.25 Total :1,183.25 114260 9/24/2009 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1015226 E9CA.Posting of Addenda E9CA.Posting of Addenda 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 15.25 E9HA.Odor Control Bid Posting 412.400.656.594.380.650.00 237.25 Sr. Center Addendum/Bid Tab Posting 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 2.50 Total :255.00 114261 9/24/2009 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL11297 KAYAKING TOUR MARINA BEACH BIRDING KAYAK TOUR~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 361.62 Total :361.62 114262 9/24/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY148434 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 68.94 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 8.21 ALS SUPPLIESLY148435 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 68.94 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 8.21 4Page: Packet Page 30 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114262 9/24/2009 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY ALS SUPPLIESLY148436 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 22.98 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.84 Total :233.62 114263 9/24/2009 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11574 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11574 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 28.00 Total :28.00 114264 9/24/2009 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-908 E9GA.Services thru 08/28/09 E9GA.Services thru 08/28/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 32,048.40 Total :32,048.40 114265 9/24/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460512809 UNIFORMS Stn. 17 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 119.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.38 OPS UNIFORMS460512828 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.85 OPS UNIFORMS460514959 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 120.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.47 5Page: Packet Page 31 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114265 9/24/2009 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORMS460514960 Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 21.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 2.01 Total :399.63 114266 9/24/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7291 INV#7291, CUST #45 EDMONDS PD NEXTEL PHONES-NARCS 07/09 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.40 INV#7292, CUST#45 EDMONDS PD7292 NEXTEL PHONES-NARCS 08/09 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.40 INV#7313 EDMONDS PD - NARCOTICS SGT7313 NARCOTICS SGT. APRIL-JUNE 2009 104.000.410.521.210.510.00 9,522.32 Total :9,635.12 114267 9/24/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7288 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS EDMONDS PORTION OF MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 001.000.640.576.800.510.00 33,761.42 Total :33,761.42 114268 9/24/2009 065313 CITY OF RENTON 9/28/09 CLASS HIGH SPEED MOTORS CERT - ROTH, HARBINSON HIGH SPEED MOTORS - ROTH 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 50.00 HIGH SPEED MOTORS - HARBINSON 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 50.00 Total :100.00 114269 9/24/2009 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 100127 1-218359-279832 2203 N 205th St 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 14.03 Total :14.03 114270 9/24/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2106653 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 6Page: Packet Page 32 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114270 9/24/2009 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS LINERS, TOILET TISSUE, SOAP, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,393.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 132.36 Total :1,525.63 114271 9/24/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2425 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION HINGES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 120.23 Total :120.23 114272 9/24/2009 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY11669 MINI EXPLORER SAFARI MINI EXPLORER SAFARI~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 72.80 Total :72.80 114273 9/24/2009 072903 CONROY, DENNIS AND SARA 3-01018 RE: #4221-1447381 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund #4221-1447381~3-01018 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 164.31 Total :164.31 114274 9/24/2009 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM11644 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #11644 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 58.80 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #11648 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 73.50 IRISH DANCE 13+~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00 Total :384.30 114275 9/24/2009 065752 DAPHNE R SCHNEIDER & ASSOC None Mediation Services Mediation Services 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 500.00 Total :500.00 114276 9/24/2009 070958 DAVIS INOTEK INSTRUMENTS LLC 3238535 52849 7Page: Packet Page 33 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114276 9/24/2009 (Continued)070958 DAVIS INOTEK INSTRUMENTS LLC CALIBRATION BACKFLOW GAGE 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 62.00 Total :62.00 114277 9/24/2009 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES 9/22/09 Overpayment for LEP/sick leave buy back Overpayment for LEP/sick leave buy back 001.000.410.521.220.110.00 298.16 Total :298.16 114278 9/24/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-3030 MINUTE TAKING 9/1-9/15 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 222.00 Total :222.00 114279 9/24/2009 070336 DOSSETT, MICHAEL 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER FEE Puget Sound Birdfest Speaker fee 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 180.00 Total :180.00 114280 9/24/2009 071393 DRUCK INC 98716 CIT312 PRESSURE TRANSMITTER 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,129.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.39 Total :1,133.39 114281 9/24/2009 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YS092209 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:~ 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 469.00 Total :469.00 114282 9/24/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP CITY WATER WWTP CITY WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 259.06 8Page: Packet Page 34 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114282 9/24/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION WWTP CITY WATER6-01130 WWTP CITY WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63 WWTP CITY WATER6-01140 WWTP CITY WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 1,302.56 Total :1,587.25 114283 9/24/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,563.67 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,070.15 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,019.72 WATER6-00425 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 294.67 MINI PARK6-00475 MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,334.02 CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,184.38 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,009.90 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 563.22 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 165.20 9Page: Packet Page 35 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114283 9/24/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,823.41 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 278.98 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 438.73 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 161.83 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,333.42 SIERRA PARK6-04450 SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,226.49 BALLINGER PARK6-07775 BALLINGER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 174.09 YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,266.27 YOST PARK POOL6-08525 YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,784.03 Total :21,692.18 114284 9/24/2009 071719 EDNETICS INC 47592 CISCO SYSTEMS 5508 SERIES WIRELESS 10Page: Packet Page 36 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114284 9/24/2009 (Continued)071719 EDNETICS INC Cisco Systems 5508 Series Wireless310-00127 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 2,379.26 Cisco Systems 5508 Series Wireless310-00127 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2,379.26 Cisco Systems 5508 Series Wireless310-00127 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2,379.24 Cisco Systems 5508 Series Wireless310-00127 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 2,379.26 Cisco Systems 5508 Service Agreement310-00127 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 249.60 Cisco Systems 5508 Service Agreement310-00127 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 249.60 Cisco Systems 5508 Service Agreement310-00127 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 249.60 Cisco Systems 5508 Service Agreement310-00127 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 249.60 Cisco Aironet Public Safety Outdoor310-00127 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 386.45 Cisco Aironet Public Safety Outdoor310-00127 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 386.45 Cisco Power Injector IT310-00127 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 225.18 Cisco Transceiver Module 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 235.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 292.30 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 254.84 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 254.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 292.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 21.83 11Page: Packet Page 37 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :12,864.641142849/24/2009 071719 071719 EDNETICS INC 114285 9/24/2009 072893 ESCOBAR, SONIA ESCOBAR0915 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT LESS EXTRA 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 250.00 Total :250.00 114286 9/24/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1572106 17983 PIPE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 832.93 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 79.13 179831572813 ADAPTER/PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 199.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.92 179831574775 UNION/PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 143.19 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.60 Total :1,286.97 114287 9/24/2009 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER11076 QIGONG CORRECTION AMOUNT FOR QIGONG #11076 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 42.00 Total :42.00 114288 9/24/2009 061410 GRCC/WETRC 103167 840037410 TRAINING/NORDQUIST 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 20.00 Total :20.00 114289 9/24/2009 072900 GUTTMAN, BURTON C 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER Puget Sound Birdfest Speaker 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00 12Page: Packet Page 38 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :60.001142899/24/2009 072900 072900 GUTTMAN, BURTON C 114290 9/24/2009 072905 HILL, HEATHER 134247 REFUND SPAY/NEUTER REFUND INV#134247 SPAY/NEUTER REFUND IMP#7682 001.000.000.343.930.000.00 50.00 Total :50.00 114291 9/24/2009 072869 HINES, JR, LORENZO 9/21/09 Hours worked (9/14 - 9/18/09), $60/hour Hours worked (9/14 - 9/18/09), $60/hour 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 2,520.00 Total :2,520.00 114292 9/24/2009 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1040303 0205 LAFARGE PORTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.48 02051045499 WANDS, NOZZLE, BRUSH, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.79 02053045033 POSTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.12 02054044765 SUPPLIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 36.97 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.51 13Page: Packet Page 39 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114292 9/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 02058097378 HINGES, ADAPTERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.37 020594079 BOLTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.14 02059597800 BATTERIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 89.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.46 0205FCH-003426802 LATE CHARGE 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 20.00 Total :318.11 114293 9/24/2009 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20434 E8GC.Services thru 08/29/09 E8GC.Services thru 08/29/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 152.00 E4GA.Services thru 08/29/0920447 E4GA.Services thru 08/29/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 120.00 Total :272.00 114294 9/24/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80337496 Lease/copies for DSD PRO907EX~ Lease/copies for DSD PRO907EX~ 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00 Lease/copies Eng MPC6000~80337505 Lease/copies Eng MPC6000~ 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48 14Page: Packet Page 40 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,270.481142949/24/2009 070042 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 114295 9/24/2009 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 5853575 C/A 768328 PR1-2 City Phone Service thru 9/11/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 824.71 Total :824.71 114296 9/24/2009 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E3JC.Pmt 3 E3JC.Pmt thru 08/31/09 E3JC.Pmt thru 08/31/09 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 31,180.13 E3JC.Retainage Pmt 3 412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -1,423.75 Total :29,756.38 114297 9/24/2009 066032 J BOZEAT & ASSOCIATES LLC J3019/A C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT 412.400.656.594.380.650.00 18,034.00 Freight 412.400.656.594.380.650.00 279.04 9.5% Sales Tax 412.400.656.594.380.650.00 1,739.74 Total :20,052.78 114298 9/24/2009 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 444004 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,489.98 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 331.55 Total :3,821.53 114299 9/24/2009 065056 JOHNSON, TROY 09162009 MONITOR FOR ECON DEV COMMISSION 091609 Monitor for Economic Dev Commission 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 114300 9/24/2009 072902 JOURNEY LINES INC 31873 PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST BUS RENTAL 15Page: Packet Page 41 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114300 9/24/2009 (Continued)072902 JOURNEY LINES INC Puget Sound Birdfest bus rental for 001.000.240.513.110.450.00 348.30 Total :348.30 114301 9/24/2009 062477 KEEP POSTED 13396 WRITE ON THE SOUND ADVERTISING ADVERTISING FOR WRITE ON THE SOUND 123.000.640.573.100.440.00 112.00 Total :112.00 114302 9/24/2009 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0709-109214 E9HA.Services thru 06/30/09 E9HA.Services thru 06/30/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 11,506.75 E9HA.Services thru 06/30/09 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 2,000.00 E8GC.Services thru 07/31/090809-108246 E8GC.Services thru 07/31/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 3,651.50 E9HA.Services thru 07/31/090809-109214 E9HA.Services thru 07/31/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 8,883.68 Total :26,041.93 114303 9/24/2009 016600 KROESENS INC 98389 OPS UNIFORMS JS boots 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 216.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 20.60 16Page: Packet Page 42 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114303 9/24/2009 (Continued)016600 KROESENS INC UNIFORMS98484 Hoover bunker boots 001.000.510.526.100.250.00 303.00 Hunter day boots 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 205.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.250.00 28.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 19.47 OPS UNIFORMS98895 DO boots 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 139.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.21 Total :945.87 114304 9/24/2009 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN KRUCKEBERG11291 BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR GARDEN TOUR #11291 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 52.50 Total :52.50 114305 9/24/2009 069868 LEE, JUSTIN 9-18-09 MILEAGE FOR TRAINING @ LAKEWOOD PD MILEAGE TO/FM EDMONDS TO LAKEWOOD; 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 105.05 Total :105.05 114306 9/24/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102206 Letterhead (2500). Letterhead (2500). 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 269.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 25.63 Total :295.43 114307 9/24/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102323 Letterhead stock replacement 17Page: Packet Page 43 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114307 9/24/2009 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS Letterhead stock replacement 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 62.63 Total :62.63 114308 9/24/2009 019583 MANPOWER INC 19269408 Temp for Linda Ross 9/11/09 Temp for Linda Ross 9/11/09 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 81.15 Total :81.15 114309 9/24/2009 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 36124456 123106800 WALL/BENCH CABINET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 99.92 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 29.84 12310680037056184 POLYETHYLENE SHEET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 112.43 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 77.81 12310680037061682 CHANNEL BRACKET/HINGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 104.10 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.52 12310680037156084 PIPE FITTINGS/CONNECTING PLATE/COUPLING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,617.05 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 135.44 12310680037452475 WASTE CONTAINER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.92 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.82 18Page: Packet Page 44 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,193.851143099/24/2009 020039 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 114310 9/24/2009 071287 MEARNS, ALAN 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER FEE Puget Sound Birdfest Speaker fee 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 114311 9/24/2009 072904 MEISNER, PETER AND CHERYL 8-47925 RE: 09-5069FC UTILITY REFUND UB Refund #09-5069FC~8-47925 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 60.85 Total :60.85 114312 9/24/2009 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 95565 131 PROPANE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 40.62 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.86 Total :44.48 114313 9/24/2009 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES 258309 13465 BOD STANDARD/DESICCANT 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 264.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 27.10 Total :291.10 114314 9/24/2009 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-007846 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 183.47 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-009600 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 Total :373.34 114315 9/24/2009 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 664 PB Minutetaker 9/9/09 mtg. PB Minutetaker 9/9/09 mtg. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 368.00 19Page: Packet Page 45 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114315 9/24/2009 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN ADB minutetaker for 9/16/09 mtg000 00 667 ADB minutetaker for 9/16/09 mtg 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 160.00 Total :528.00 114316 9/24/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 334521 INV#334521 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD PURELL HAND SANITIZER 8OZ 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 27.48 HP LASERJET CART. Q6511A 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 124.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 11.79 INV#341079, ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS P341079 MOBILE 2 TIER FILE CART 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 79.13 HANGING FOLDERS-LEGAL 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 19.14 HANGLING FOLDERS-LETTER 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 30.86 CD ROM ENVELOPE HOLDERS 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 75.90 CDR 700MB 52X 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 289.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 12.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 34.68 Total :707.23 114317 9/24/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 278603 RETURN ORIGINAL INV #099933 20Page: Packet Page 46 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114317 9/24/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Return archive boxes 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -52.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -4.99 RETURN ORIGINAL INV #588184278672 Return Seat Cushion 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -32.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -3.13 Archive boxes; post it tabs; desk pads;310371 Archive boxes; post it tabs; desk pads; 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 146.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 13.95 Total :67.16 114318 9/24/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 186035 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 186.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 17.74 Total :204.53 114319 9/24/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 380861 Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 50.33 Calendar for Diane Cunningham381019 Calendar for Diane Cunningham 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 12.16 Total :62.49 114320 9/24/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 072198 COPY PAPER 21Page: Packet Page 47 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114320 9/24/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 8 1/2 X 11 COPY PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 232.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 22.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES111574 COLORED COPY PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 39.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.76 BATTERIES258163 AA BATTERIES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES388231 TAPE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.76 Total :326.74 114321 9/24/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 677731 AUG-09 ITEMIZED LEGAL FEES Aug-09 Itemized Legal Fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 9,682.76 ECDC Rewrite 2006-2007 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1.00 AUG-09 RETAINER677735 Aug-09 Retainer 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 20,179.30 Total :29,863.06 114322 9/24/2009 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACIFICNWFLOAT11284 GOLD PANNING RAFT ADVENTURE GOLD PANNING RAFT ADVENTURE~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 306.15 22Page: Packet Page 48 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :306.151143229/24/2009 071402 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS 114323 9/24/2009 071362 PEACHTREE BUSINESS PRODUCTS P199661200018 PARKING TAGS 2010 Parking Permits 121.000.340.517.900.310.00 795.00 Total :795.00 114324 9/24/2009 071983 PICKELBALL STUFF LLC 10017 PICKLEBALL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES FOR PICKLEBALL LEAGUE 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 82.00 Freight 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 8.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 8.64 Total :99.59 114325 9/24/2009 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP 212862 GRAFFITI WIPES GRAFFITI WIPES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 349.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.61 Total :364.61 114326 9/24/2009 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100sp09 POSTAGE METER LEASE Lease 8/30 to 9/30 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00 Total :866.00 114327 9/24/2009 072898 PUGET SOUND BIRD OBSERVATORY 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER Puget Sound Birdfest Speaker fee 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 114328 9/24/2009 072894 REBER, JESSICA REBER0914 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 37.00 23Page: Packet Page 49 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :37.001143289/24/2009 072894 072894 REBER, JESSICA 114329 9/24/2009 072892 RIMAYANTI, DALE RIMAYANTI0914 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total :500.00 114330 9/24/2009 072901 RW MORSE COMPANY 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER Puget Sound Birdfest Speaker fee 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 114331 9/24/2009 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 9/21/09 OT from sick leave buy back not bought OT from sick leave buy back not bought 001.000.410.521.220.110.00 88.31 Total :88.31 114332 9/24/2009 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 589871 INV#589871 - CUST#0001733 - EDMONDS PD FED-LE13200-CF BUCK/TACTICAL 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 304.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 28.97 Total :333.86 114333 9/24/2009 071660 SARVEY AUDUBON SOCIETY 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER FEE Puget Sound Birdfest Speaker fees 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 375.00 Total :375.00 114334 9/24/2009 072802 SCIENCE EXPRESS LLC SCIENCEEXPRESS11588 PRESCHOOL SCIENCE CLUB PRESCHOOL SCIENCE CLUB~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.20 Total :67.20 114335 9/24/2009 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 137277 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 24Page: Packet Page 50 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114335 9/24/2009 (Continued)061482 SEA-WESTERN INC gloves 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 455.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 10.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 44.19 Total :509.31 114336 9/24/2009 072899 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY 2009 Birdfest PUGET SOUND BIRDFEST SPEAKER Puget Sound Birdfest speaker 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 114337 9/24/2009 072895 SISNEROS, DENISE SISNEROS0911 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 57.00 Total :57.00 114338 9/24/2009 036955 SKY NURSERY 276660 SEEDS SEEDS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.22 LIBRARY TERRACE/STATUE BED277627 PLANTS FOR LIBRARY TERRACE/STATUE BED 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 178.10 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.92 PLANTINGS @ WADE JAMES THEATRE281126 PLANTS FOR WADE JAMES THEATRE 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 621.36 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 59.03 25Page: Packet Page 51 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114338 9/24/2009 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY PERLITE434151 PERLITE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 43.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.17 Total :938.27 114339 9/24/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 237010287 958-001-000-8 SNO PUD 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 20,077.27 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,204.64 Total :21,281.91 114340 9/24/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2450016544 UTILITY BILLING 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 71.82 PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP2470011830 PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 100.89 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER3430013627 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 442.02 UTILITY BILLING3570014369 8030 185TH ST SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 110.20 Total :724.93 114341 9/24/2009 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 633 Q4-09 SERVICES Q4-09 Services 001.000.390.528.600.510.00 202,617.19 Q4-09 Services 411.000.654.534.800.510.00 5,332.03 Q4-09 Services 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 5,332.03 26Page: Packet Page 52 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :213,281.251143419/24/2009 065910 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 114342 9/24/2009 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000230308 SOLID WASTE CHARGES 54129 SOLID WASTE CHARGES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,015.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 36.54 Total :1,052.00 114343 9/24/2009 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2009127 INV#2009127 EDMONDS PD 62.92 BOOKINGS FOR 08/09 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,836.46 617.00 HOUSING DAYS FOR 08/09 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 37,704.87 Total :43,541.33 114344 9/24/2009 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO October 2009 OCTOBER 2009 STANDARD INSURANCE October 2009 Standard Insurance 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 19,529.35 Total :19,529.35 114345 9/24/2009 072906 STREICHAN, CLAUDIA STREICHAN11703 BACK TO SCHOOL SNACKS BACK TO SCHOOL NUTRIENT-DENSE ENERGY 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 45.00 Total :45.00 114346 9/24/2009 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 43323 Investigatory services Investigatory services 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 2,523.50 Total :2,523.50 114347 9/24/2009 072772 T E BRIGGS CONSTRUCTION CO E6DB.Pmt 4 E6DB.Pmt 4 thru 08/31/09 E6DB.Pmt 4 thru 08/31/09 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 124,174.59 E6DB.Retainage Pmt 4 112.200.000.223.400.000.00 -6,028.78 27Page: Packet Page 53 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :118,145.811143479/24/2009 072772 072772 T E BRIGGS CONSTRUCTION CO 114348 9/24/2009 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 68 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 252.00 Total :252.00 114349 9/24/2009 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE TRUAX0918 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~ 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 145.00 Total :145.00 114350 9/24/2009 062693 US BANK 3306 W/S VIDEO / ELECTRONICS / PAINT W/S-VIDEO 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 30.10 ELECTRONICS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 61.31 PAINT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 188.75 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 160.49 Total :440.65 114351 9/24/2009 062693 US BANK 9399 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD Misc recorded documents 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 134.00 Recording of Utility Liens 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 93.00 Recording of Utility Liens 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 93.00 Total :320.00 114352 9/24/2009 062693 US BANK 3538 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS 28Page: Packet Page 54 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114352 9/24/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK POPSICLES FOR JC RECOGNITION 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 37.50 OFFICE SUPPLIES & 2010 CALENDAR 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 60.38 REFRESHMENTS FOR HICKMAN PARK DEDICATION 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.12 THERMAL PAPER ROLL 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 37.22 INK CARTRIDGES FOR POOL OFFICE 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 29.55 POOL FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 9.84 DAYCAMP SENIORS SKATE FEES 001.000.640.575.530.490.00 88.00 SIGN HOLDERS, PAPER 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 87.55 DAYCAMP - REUSABLE WRISTBANDS 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 84.45 POSTCARDS FOR WOTS EXHIBIT 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 140.16 RUG FOR MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 370.00 DYE FOR DAYCAMP 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 76.25 Total :1,074.02 114353 9/24/2009 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 00230 POSTAGE FOR CITY METER Postage for City Meter250-00230 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00 Total :8,000.00 114354 9/24/2009 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 885365 391128 29Page: Packet Page 55 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114354 9/24/2009 (Continued)064423 USA BLUE BOOK TRANSDUCER 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 37.25 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.54 Total :52.29 114355 9/24/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE Police T1 Line 9/10-10/10/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 375.97 Total :375.97 114356 9/24/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712 0423 03 0260 1032797592 07 AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.06 Total :56.06 114357 9/24/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE FS #20-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 51.12 Total :51.12 114358 9/24/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 107.82 YOST POOL425-775-2645 YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 17.57 Total :125.39 114359 9/24/2009 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL F1000009 TRAINING MISC PH,TH,BMc,CS 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 400.00 Total :400.00 30Page: Packet Page 56 of 385 09/24/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 12:10:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114360 9/24/2009 072897 WHITTAKER, KARA 2009 Birdfest BIRDFEST KEYNOTE SPEAKER Puget Sound Birdfest Keynote Speaker 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 150.00 Total :150.00 114361 9/24/2009 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON11287 TIETON WHITEWATER RAFTING TRIP TIETON WHITEWATER RAFTING~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 236.72 Total :236.72 114362 9/24/2009 071631 WILLIAMS, SUE WILLIAMS11705 KNITTING 101 KNITTING 101~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114363 9/24/2009 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 909 SEPTEMBER 09 RETAINER September 09 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00 Total :11,330.00 Bank total : 1,059,880.19115 Vouchers for bank code :front 1,059,880.19Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report115 31Page: Packet Page 57 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114364 9/28/2009 072926 WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE Wetland Escrow Escrow payment for 939 Main Street Escrow payment for 939 Main Street 126.000.390.594.750.610.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 114365 10/1/2009 064622 A.I.R. EMISSIONS 90906 Units 31 & 106 Emission Testing and Units 31 & 106 Emission Testing and 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 524.00 Total :524.00 114366 10/1/2009 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 273118 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 63.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.01 Total :69.26 114367 10/1/2009 063819 ADKINS, LESLIE ADKINS1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER CRITIQUE A GROUP MODEL~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114368 10/1/2009 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 09-490 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 Total :334.00 114369 10/1/2009 072471 AGIEWICH, REBECCA AGIEWICH1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER BLOGGING 101~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114370 10/1/2009 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101048232 M5Z34 1Page: Packet Page 58 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114370 10/1/2009 (Continued)066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC CARBON MONOXIDE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 380.53 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.81 Total :435.84 114371 10/1/2009 071916 ALEXANDER, CATHERINE ALEXANDER1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER CRAFTING THE SHORT STORY~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114372 10/1/2009 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001127978 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 119.07 Total :119.07 114373 10/1/2009 065568 ALLWATER INC 092409039 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 26.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67 Total :27.47 114374 10/1/2009 001528 AM TEST INC 55657 SAMPLE TESTING SAMPLE TESTING 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 480.00 Total :480.00 114375 10/1/2009 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0926 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM & ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 Total :105.00 114376 10/1/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4484382 21580001 2Page: Packet Page 59 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114376 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 91.82 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.72 21580001655-4496517 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 91.82 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.72 Total :201.08 114377 10/1/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4305649 Street/Storm Uniform Svc Street/Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33 3Page: Packet Page 60 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114377 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW Mats655-4476682 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.75 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 2.85 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 2.85 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.27 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.27 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.27 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.27 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.28 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 2.85 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 2.85 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 2.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.07 Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4484380 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84 4Page: Packet Page 61 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114377 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW Mats655-4488893 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64 Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4488894 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33 5Page: Packet Page 62 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114377 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Fleet Uniform Svc655-4488895 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.43 Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4496515 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84 6Page: Packet Page 63 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114377 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW Mats655-4500976 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64 Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4500977 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33 7Page: Packet Page 64 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114377 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Fleet Uniform Svc655-4500978 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.43 Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4508743 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84 8Page: Packet Page 65 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114377 10/1/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW Mats655-4513284 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64 Total :320.19 114378 10/1/2009 072517 ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTING LLC 2009-42-1 Tree Condition Evaluation and Impact Tree Condition Evaluation and Impact 111.000.653.542.710.410.00 600.00 Total :600.00 114379 10/1/2009 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 107623 BEARINGS 9Page: Packet Page 66 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114379 10/1/2009 (Continued)070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY BEARINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 113.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 132.17 Total :245.17 114380 10/1/2009 071120 ASHLAND INC 92804074 441142 POLYMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 4,250.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 403.75 Total :4,653.75 114381 10/1/2009 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.87 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.10 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.08 Total :37.35 114382 10/1/2009 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 36.08 Total :36.08 114383 10/1/2009 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 52094 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 10Page: Packet Page 67 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114383 10/1/2009 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.83 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.83 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 36.94 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 118.44 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 118.43 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.51 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS52190 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 32.30 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 32.30 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 32.41 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 108.42 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 108.42 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.08 Total :681.05 11Page: Packet Page 68 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114384 10/1/2009 071348 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC 15546 Classico Homes.Detention Vault Review Classico Homes.Detention Vault Review 001.000.000.245.900.620.00 173.08 Total :173.08 114385 10/1/2009 071984 BLAISDELL, MOLLY BLAISDELL1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER MARKET WISE~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 PUBLISHING PANEL~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 50.00 Total :180.00 114386 10/1/2009 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 761055-01 INV#761055-01 EDMONDS PD - TRYKAR NAMETAGS FOR TRYKAR 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.71 Total :19.71 114387 10/1/2009 069085 BOND, KATHRYN BOND1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER BEYOND THE CARPOOL~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114388 10/1/2009 072923 BREMELO PRESS LLC SHERMAN1004 WOTS PRESENTER ARTIST TALK 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00 Total :100.00 114389 10/1/2009 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 128069 Unit 680 - Upholstry repair Unit 680 - Upholstry repair 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 275.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 23.37 Total :298.37 114390 10/1/2009 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14110341 C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT 12Page: Packet Page 69 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114390 10/1/2009 (Continued)066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT 412.400.656.594.380.650.00 51,842.95 Total :51,842.95 114391 10/1/2009 072855 BROWN DOG PRODUCTIONS 105 DATA ENTRY Data Entry 1136 cards 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,183.25 Total :1,183.25 114392 10/1/2009 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE11537 PRENATAL YOGA PRENATAL YOGA #11537 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 261.80 Total :261.80 114393 10/1/2009 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 90829576 Street - Cement Street - Cement 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 321.96 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 30.58 Total :352.54 114394 10/1/2009 065171 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC 31479 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLEX LICENSE Implementation Services for Aug-09 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 65.63 Implementation Services for Aug-09 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 65.63 Implementation Services for Aug-09 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 65.63 Implementation Services for Aug-09 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 65.61 Total :262.50 114395 10/1/2009 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 353747 Sewer - LS 9 - Repair and Maint of 13Page: Packet Page 70 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114395 10/1/2009 (Continued)003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC Sewer - LS 9 - Repair and Maint of 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 1,995.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 189.57 Total :2,185.08 114396 10/1/2009 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC QDM6409 Spare & Replacement disks for storage Spare & Replacement disks for storage 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 599.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 57.00 Total :656.95 114397 10/1/2009 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS 9417856062 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 360.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 34.20 Roadway - Asphalt9417865439 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 503.56 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 47.84 Roadway - Asphalt9417873677 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 323.56 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.74 Water - Asphalt9417903422 Water - Asphalt 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 171.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.31 Total :1,487.91 14Page: Packet Page 71 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114398 10/1/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 148662 2954000 GRINDING WHEEL/WELDING GLOVES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 53.31 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.06 Total :58.37 114399 10/1/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY ly 148676 Water - Carbon Diox fill Water - Carbon Diox fill 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.01 Total :23.11 114400 10/1/2009 070792 CH2O 175255 Yost Park/Fac Maint Split - CH2O Liquid Yost Park/Fac Maint Split - CH2O Liquid 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 424.32 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 73.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.28 Total :544.95 114401 10/1/2009 072473 CHANCE, MEGAN CHANCE1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER DEVELOPING CHARACTERS~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 160.00 Total :160.00 114402 10/1/2009 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 21124061 INV#21124061 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 337.05 Total :337.05 114403 10/1/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460517644 UNIFORMS 15Page: Packet Page 72 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114403 10/1/2009 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 119.26 Stn. 17 - OPS 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 119.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 11.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.33 OPS UNIFORMS460517665 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.85 OPS UNIFORMS460519771 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 120.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.47 UNIFORMS460519772 Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 21.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 2.01 Total :530.09 114404 10/1/2009 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 15148411 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 607.12 Total :607.12 114405 10/1/2009 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I09002112 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 972.00 Total :972.00 16Page: Packet Page 73 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114406 10/1/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS w2097434 FAC - Control Cable FAC - Control Cable 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.20 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.30 MCH - 24V Chargerw2099324 MCH - 24V Charger 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 485.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.08 Fac Maint - TT, Liners, Towelsw2106692 Fac Maint - TT, Liners, Towels 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 397.12 FAC - ECO Roll Towels 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 109.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.16 Fac Maint - Linersw2106692-1 Fac Maint - Liners 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 56.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.35 Fac Maint - Finish, Filters, Covers,w2108290 Fac Maint - Finish, Filters, Covers, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 501.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.65 Fac Maint - Mag Eraser, Cleaner,w2110619 Fac Maint - Mag Eraser, Cleaner, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 636.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 60.45 Total :2,420.41 17Page: Packet Page 74 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114407 10/1/2009 071918 COBURN, RANDY SUE COBURN1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER THE MAGIC OF SECRETS IN FICTION~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114408 10/1/2009 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0924 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 384.00 Total :384.00 114409 10/1/2009 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 21483 Sewer - Switches and Lines for LS's Sewer - Switches and Lines for LS's 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 443.36 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.24 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 39.93 Total :488.53 114410 10/1/2009 005965 CUES INC 312762 Sewer - Hex Screws Assort Sewer - Hex Screws Assort 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 53.52 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.19 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.58 Total :64.29 114411 10/1/2009 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 145084 INV#145084 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATION/1834 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.91 Total :81.91 114412 10/1/2009 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2010-BA0024058 BA0024058 18Page: Packet Page 75 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114412 10/1/2009 (Continued)006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY BIOSOLIDS PERMIT 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 693.00 Total :693.00 114413 10/1/2009 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES 9/28/09 Overpayment of time loss - AK25539 (9/1 Overpayment of time loss - AK25539 (9/1 001.000.410.521.220.110.00 1,233.52 Total :1,233.52 114414 10/1/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-3032 MINUTE TAKING 09/22 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 438.00 Total :438.00 114415 10/1/2009 072909 DUCKLER, MERRIDAWN DUCKLER1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER PLOT 101: DUDE! WHERE'S MY STORY?~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 256.00 FICTION JUDGE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00 Total :356.00 114416 10/1/2009 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 13526 FS 17 - Supplies FS 17 - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.52 Total :17.51 114417 10/1/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.84 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 204.95 19Page: Packet Page 76 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114417 10/1/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION LIFT STATION #123-07525 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 62.75 LIFT STATION #153-07709 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80 LIFT STATION #43-09350 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 66.83 LIFT STATION #103-09800 LIFT STATION #10 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 36.05 LIFT STATION #93-29875 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,125.91 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE6-02736 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE6-02737 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 148.57 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 510.23 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER6-02825 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,301.57 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)6-02875 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 25.63 20Page: Packet Page 77 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114417 10/1/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER6-02925 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,372.09 Fire Station #166-04127 Fire Station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 853.91 fire sprinkler-FS #166-04128 fire sprinkler-FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65 Public Works Bldg6-05155 Public Works Bldg 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 140.93 Public Works Bldg 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 535.55 Public Works Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 535.55 Public Works Bldg 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 535.55 Public Works Bldg 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 535.55 Public Works Bldg 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 535.53 21Page: Packet Page 78 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114417 10/1/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Public Works Fire Detector6-05156 Public Works Fire Detector 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 1.83 Public Works Fire Detector 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 6.94 Total :11,666.46 114418 10/1/2009 071719 EDNETICS INC 47570 CISCO SMARTNET 1 YR EXTENDED SERVICE Cisco Smartnet 1 yr Extended Service310-00128 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 5,326.72 Cisco Smartnet 1 yr Extended Service310-00128 001.000.310.518.870.480.00 1,978.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 506.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.870.480.00 187.92 Total :7,998.76 114419 10/1/2009 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU17807 Water - Supplies - Gorilla Glue, Water - Supplies - Gorilla Glue, 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.04 22Page: Packet Page 79 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114419 10/1/2009 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY Sewer - TV Truck SuppliesWAMOU17814 Sewer - TV Truck Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.20 Total :25.85 114420 10/1/2009 009880 FEDEX 9-343-02951 Delivery Services for return & repairs Delivery Services for return & repairs 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 56.00 Total :56.00 114421 10/1/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0228590 Water Inventory - ~ Water Inventory - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,532.06 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 145.55 Total :1,677.61 114422 10/1/2009 072768 FIRE TRAINING & TESTING 09-0021 TRAINING MISC Officer Dev. Academy 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 900.00 Total :900.00 114423 10/1/2009 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 8310917 Connect Cable for ONS Port - PD 2nd Ave Connect Cable for ONS Port - PD 2nd Ave 001.000.410.521.100.480.00 351.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.480.00 33.39 6 mo Mitel Software Service & Support9290901 6 mo Mitel Software Service & Support 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 4,860.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 461.70 Total :5,706.59 23Page: Packet Page 80 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114424 10/1/2009 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 110760 Traffic - SR104 & Paradise Lane - Traffic - SR104 & Paradise Lane - 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 145.27 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 13.80 Total :159.07 114425 10/1/2009 071311 FORMS AND FILING INC 136855A INV#136855A CUST#8151 EDMONDS PD MANILA END TAB FOLDERS - 11PT 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 277.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 55.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 31.55 Total :363.66 114426 10/1/2009 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE11523 DRAWING & WATERCOLOR CLASSES BEGINNING DRAWING #11523 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 539.00 WATERCOLOR #11527 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80 Total :1,031.80 114427 10/1/2009 072910 GONZALEZ, ANN GONZALEZ1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER ARE YOU A NANO NOVELIST?~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114428 10/1/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9052959328 PS - V Belts PS - V Belts 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 110.33 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.16 24Page: Packet Page 81 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114428 10/1/2009 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER Fac Maint - Mach Screw Kit, Lube9052959336 Fac Maint - Mach Screw Kit, Lube 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.38 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.15 Water - HD Mats9074989410 Water - HD Mats 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 81.15 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.70 Total :234.87 114429 10/1/2009 012233 GRAYBAR 942844172 Supplies for PD 2nd Ave Evidence Rm Supplies for PD 2nd Ave Evidence Rm 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 467.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 44.42 Total :511.96 114430 10/1/2009 072911 GURUNG, BRENDA GURUNG1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER THE BIG 3: MARKETING, CONFIDENCE & NEW 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114431 10/1/2009 012560 HACH COMPANY 6406287 Water Quality Supplies - Nylon Syringe Water Quality Supplies - Nylon Syringe 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 364.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 26.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 37.14 Total :428.09 114432 10/1/2009 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 9362137 Storm - Pipe - - 242nd Tile Job 25Page: Packet Page 82 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114432 10/1/2009 (Continued)071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD Storm - Pipe - - 242nd Tile Job 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 849.96 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 80.75 Total :930.71 114433 10/1/2009 072907 HECHTMAN AYERS, LANA HECHTMAN1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER CHATTING ABOUT CHAPBOOKS~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 POETRY JUDGE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00 PUBLISHING PANEL~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 50.00 Total :306.00 114434 10/1/2009 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 20909 E8FD.Services thru 08/28/09 E8FD.Services thru 08/28/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 13,526.03 E9FB.Services thru 08/28/0920929 E9FB.Services thru 08/28/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 6,581.24 Total :20,107.27 114435 10/1/2009 069565 HI-TECH EVS INC 130011 Unit 476 - Limit Switch Unit 476 - Limit Switch 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 276.36 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.58 Total :284.94 114436 10/1/2009 072869 HINES, JR, LORENZO 9/30/09 Hours worked 9/21 - 9/25/09 (34.25 Hours worked 9/21 - 9/25/09 (34.25 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 2,055.00 Total :2,055.00 114437 10/1/2009 069952 HUGHES, HOLLY HUGHES1002 WRITE ON THE SOUND POETRY WORKSHOP 26Page: Packet Page 83 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114437 10/1/2009 (Continued)069952 HUGHES, HOLLY TEACHING WORKSHIP ON POETRY 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 459.00 Total :459.00 114438 10/1/2009 070742 HURLEY, DAN HURLEY1002 WRITE ON THE SOUND WORKSHOP WRITE ON THE SOUND PRE-COFERENCE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 510.00 Total :510.00 114439 10/1/2009 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20395 E8GC.Services thru 08/29/09 E8GC.Services thru 08/29/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 112.00 E8GC.Services thru 08/29/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 112.00 E8GC.Services thru 08/29/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 112.00 Total :336.00 114440 10/1/2009 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 360002986724 C/A 360000657091 Aug & Sept-09 Basic e-commerce hosting 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 69.90 C/A 360000764828360002992333 Aug & Sept-09 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 69.90 C/A 430001405909440010113510 Aug & Sept-09 P&R Directory Listing 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 250.50 Total :390.30 114441 10/1/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80400661 INV#80400661 ACCT#467070-1005305A3 27Page: Packet Page 84 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114441 10/1/2009 (Continued)070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES RENT-UPSTAIRS COPIER C4080I 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 13.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 33.63 Total :387.62 114442 10/1/2009 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 753228 Fleet - SL20X Flashlight Fleet - SL20X Flashlight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 129.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 12.35 Total :142.30 114443 10/1/2009 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E4GA.Pmt 6 E4GA.August Progress Pmt E4GA.August Progress Pmt 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 58,318.56 E4GA.Retainage 6 412.300.000.223.400.000.00 -2,662.95 Total :55,655.61 114444 10/1/2009 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 445624 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,588.59 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 340.92 Total :3,929.51 114445 10/1/2009 072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0064776 E7AD.Services thru 08/02/09 E7AD.Services thru 08/02/09 112.200.630.595.440.410.00 5,118.85 E7AD.Services thru 08/30/090065172 E7AD.Services thru 08/30/09 112.200.630.595.440.410.00 1,417.25 28Page: Packet Page 85 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :6,536.1011444510/1/2009 072199 072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 114446 10/1/2009 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD11643 PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY #11643 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 184.80 Total :184.80 114447 10/1/2009 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 409028 IS & EPD - Storm Lock IS & EPD - Storm Lock 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 109.50 IS & EPD - Storm Lock 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 109.50 Freight 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 2.97 Freight 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 2.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 10.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 10.68 Fire Dept - ASA Core409281 Fire Dept - ASA Core 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 99.98 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 5.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 9.99 FS 20 - Push Button Mortise Lock410088 FS 20 - Push Button Mortise Lock 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 850.50 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 9.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 81.69 Total :1,303.06 29Page: Packet Page 86 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114448 10/1/2009 072912 KEITH, DOUG KEITH1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER THE ART OF PICTURE BOOK ILLUSTRATION~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114449 10/1/2009 065225 KEMPTON, GLORIA KEMPTON1004 WOTS PRESENTER YOU CAN GET PUBLISHED: 5 KEYS 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 CRITIQUES 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 150.00 Total :280.00 114450 10/1/2009 070641 KIRCHNER, BHARTI KIRCHNER1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER A GAME PLAN FOR MAGAZINE ARTICLES~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114451 10/1/2009 072913 KOVAR, VINCENT KOVAR1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER RIGHTING THE CRAFT~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114452 10/1/2009 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 25594 Geotech Services.Thuesen Wall/Reidy Shed Geotech Services.Thuesen Wall/Reidy Shed 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 2,327.50 Total :2,327.50 114453 10/1/2009 072914 LAUGHTLAND, AMANDA LAUGHTLAND1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER FOUND POETRY~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114454 10/1/2009 018140 LEIN, JONATHAN 0283 CONFERENCE/TRAVEL/LEIN CONFERENCE/TRAVEL/LEIN 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 631.88 Total :631.88 30Page: Packet Page 87 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114455 10/1/2009 072915 LINN, CRYSTAL LINN1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER WRITE FROM THE HEART~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114456 10/1/2009 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 24010 2795 HVAC MAINTENANCE 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 564.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 53.67 Total :618.64 114457 10/1/2009 060909 MACHADO, DAVID L 9/28/09 Time loss paid for 8/13 - 8/15/09, not Time loss paid for 8/13 - 8/15/09, not 001.000.410.521.220.110.00 462.57 Total :462.57 114458 10/1/2009 019583 MANPOWER INC 19297640 Temp for Ross 9/18/09 Temp for Ross 9/18/09 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 56.81 Total :56.81 114459 10/1/2009 072916 MAYER, BOB MAYER1002 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER WRITING THE NOVEL~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 486.00 THRILLERS~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :616.00 114460 10/1/2009 072917 MCCORD, JENNIFER MCCORD1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER MAKING THE MOST OF YOUR CONFERENCE~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 PUBLISHING PANEL 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 50.00 Total :180.00 114461 10/1/2009 072918 MCDONALD, BRIAN MCDONALD1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER 31Page: Packet Page 88 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114461 10/1/2009 (Continued)072918 MCDONALD, BRIAN KEYNOTE SPEECH~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 114462 10/1/2009 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 37591960 123106800 SUMP PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 147.10 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.40 12310680037622375 SPRAY NOZZLE/PIPE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 302.92 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.13 12310680037781634 STAINLESS STEELSPRING/DRILL BIT/PIPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 134.73 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.46 12310680038104093 THREADED ROD/PADLOCK/PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 104.22 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.55 Total :733.51 114463 10/1/2009 063773 MICROFLEX 00018789 Jun-09 Tax Audit Program Jun-09 Tax Audit Program 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 86.24 Total :86.24 114464 10/1/2009 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 57247 PW - Wood Supplies 32Page: Packet Page 89 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114464 10/1/2009 (Continued)020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC PW - Wood Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.77 Total :54.97 114465 10/1/2009 072223 MILLER, DOUG DMILLER0924 GYM MONITOR FOR VOLLEYBALL @ ECC GYM MONITOR FOR 4 ON 4 VOLLEYBALL @ ECC 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 39.00 GYM MONITORMILLER0930 GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 90.00 Total :129.00 114466 10/1/2009 072492 MOLINA, NILDA MOLINA11555 ZUMBA ZUMA #11555 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 439.60 Total :439.60 114467 10/1/2009 072908 NANO MARKETING GROUP LLC DARBOUS1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER TECHNOLOGY TURNER 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114468 10/1/2009 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0411617-IN Fleet - Filter Inventory Fleet - Filter Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 89.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.45 Fleet - Filter Inventory0412100-IN Fleet - Filter Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 92.08 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.75 33Page: Packet Page 90 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114468 10/1/2009 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM Fleet - Filter Inventory0412710-IN Fleet - Filter Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 72.27 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 6.87 Total :277.44 114469 10/1/2009 063207 NESS, STEVEN 510-1354 Tuition Reimbursement (4/11 - 5/31/09) Tuition Reimbursement (4/11 - 5/31/09) 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 1,053.00 Total :1,053.00 114470 10/1/2009 070788 NETRIVER INC 9282009 WEBHOST FOR BIRDFEST WEBSITE 4TH QUARTER Webhost for Puget Sound Birdfest 4th 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 35.85 Total :35.85 114471 10/1/2009 070788 NETRIVER INC 46686 Domain Name cityofedmonds.net renewal Domain Name cityofedmonds.net renewal 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 14.95 Domain Name cityofedmonds.org renewal 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 14.95 Total :29.90 114472 10/1/2009 072700 NETWORK HARDWARE RESALE LLC 267451 CATALYST 6500/CISCO 7600 SUP 720 Catalyst 6500/Cisco 7600 Sup 720 Incl310-00126 001.000.310.518.870.350.00 14,780.00 Freight310-00126 001.000.310.518.870.350.00 200.00 Total :14,980.00 114473 10/1/2009 065767 NORTHEND RENTAL & CONSTRUCTION 86737 Rental of Duct Rodder/PD 2nd Ave Rental of Duct Rodder/PD 2nd Ave 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 150.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 14.25 34Page: Packet Page 91 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :164.2511447310/1/2009 065767 065767 NORTHEND RENTAL & CONSTRUCTION 114474 10/1/2009 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 5526 260 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 148.31 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,561.17 Total :1,709.48 114475 10/1/2009 071332 OAKLEY, JANET OAKLEY1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER PUTTING HISTORY IN HISTORICAL FICTION~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 160.00 Total :160.00 114476 10/1/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 351000 INV#351000 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD PURELL SANITIZER 2 LITER BOTTLE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 32.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.11 INV#405256 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD405256 HP LASTERJET Q5942X DETECTIVES 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 223.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 21.26 INV#405257 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD405257 MONITOR STAND-ADJUSTABLE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 21.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.04 INV#451054 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD451054 HP TONER S192298A - COMPAAN 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 109.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.44 Total :424.82 35Page: Packet Page 92 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114477 10/1/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 462729 Office Supplies - Mayor's Office Office Supplies - Mayor's Office 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 263.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 25.02 Office Supplies - Mayor's Office464687 Office Supplies - Mayor's Office 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 58.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 5.57 Total :352.60 114478 10/1/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 445524 2010 Calendars - Finance 2010 Calendars - Finance 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 108.78 2010 Calendars - IT 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 10.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 10.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1.01 Pen & pen refills/Labels/Calendars473445 Pen & pen refills/Labels/Calendars 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 53.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 5.12 Labels473597 Labels 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 9.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 0.94 Total :200.57 114479 10/1/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 414120 OFFICE SUPPLIES 36Page: Packet Page 93 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114479 10/1/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 83.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.96 Total :91.75 114480 10/1/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 325598 PW - Office Supplies -CopierPrinting 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 22.11 PW - Office Supplies -CopierPrinting 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 232.74 Water - Battery supplies325726 Water - Battery supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 29.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.82 Water - Battery Supplies328489 Water - Battery Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 23.74 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.25 Total :313.36 114481 10/1/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 378881 Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 21.01 Office Supplies DSD477767 Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 201.41 Total :222.42 114482 10/1/2009 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 870760 B/W copy overage fee (3127) 37Page: Packet Page 94 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114482 10/1/2009 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION B/W copy overage fee (3127) 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 14.19 B/W copy overage fee (3127) 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 14.19 B/W copy overage fee (3127) 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 14.19 B/W copy overage fee (3127) 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 14.19 Color copy overage fee (605) 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 16.29 Color copy overage fee (605) 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 16.29 Color copy overage fee (605) 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 16.29 Color copy overage fee (605) 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 16.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 2.90 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 2.90 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 2.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 2.88 Total :133.49 114483 10/1/2009 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011188068 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.45 Total :158.67 114484 10/1/2009 072919 PENNE, ANTHEA A.S.PENNE1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER 38Page: Packet Page 95 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114484 10/1/2009 (Continued)072919 PENNE, ANTHEA A.S. WRITING CREATIVE NONFICTION~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 281.00 Total :281.00 114485 10/1/2009 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 178649 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.23 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.23 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.23 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.24 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I178807 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14 Water - Radix return postage178893 Water - Radix return postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 17.49 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I178958 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm Dept of L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14 39Page: Packet Page 96 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :43.6611448510/1/2009 071811 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 114486 10/1/2009 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax 411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371 Fire Boat - Fuel 511.000.657.548.680.320.00 504.44 Total :2,170.40 114487 10/1/2009 069089 POTTER MLP, MARY LANE POTTER1003 WRITE ON SOUND PRESENTER THE ART OF DESCRIPTION:~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114488 10/1/2009 069029 PR DIAMOND PRODUCTS INC 0010124-IN Water - Turbo Blade Water - Turbo Blade 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 172.00 Asphalt/Green Concrete Blade 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 207.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.00 Water- Pipe Cutting Blade0010290-IN Water- Pipe Cutting Blade 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 193.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.00 Water - Returned Turbo Blade0010733-CM Water - Returned Turbo Blade 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -172.00 Total :423.00 114489 10/1/2009 072920 PRITCHARD, PAT PRITCHARD1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER SETTING GOALS & GETTING ORGANIZED 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 40Page: Packet Page 97 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114490 10/1/2009 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 70921 INV#70921 EDMONDS PD TSR X26 DIGITAL POWER MAG 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 329.50 TSR X26 EXTENDED DPM 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 189.75 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 50.28 Total :579.48 114491 10/1/2009 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC alarm monitoring for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 194.25 MCC2010551 24 hour alarm monitoring MCC 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.00 alarm monitoring for Library2422756 alarm monitoring for Library 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 187.35 PW ALARM MONITORING730531 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 22.05 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 22.05 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 19.29 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 24.81 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.03 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 11.02 Total :593.85 114492 10/1/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 41Page: Packet Page 98 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114492 10/1/2009 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 176.35 Total :176.35 114493 10/1/2009 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 59527 INV#59527 EDMONDS PD #09-3630 TOWING 2005 FORD F150 B21448L 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 150.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 14.25 Total :164.25 114494 10/1/2009 071335 RHAMEY, RAY RHAMEY1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER CRAFTING A KILLER FIRST PAGE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 280.00 Total :280.00 114495 10/1/2009 072921 ROSENBERG, GIGI ROSENBERG1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER WRITING TRUE STORIES 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 230.00 NONFICTION JUDGE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00 Total :330.00 114496 10/1/2009 072922 RUSCH, ELIZABETH RUSCH1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER FREELANCE & WINNING QUERY LETTER~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 438.00 Total :438.00 114497 10/1/2009 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2242137 Street - Large Letter Stamps Street - Large Letter Stamps 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 46.00 Freight 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 30.28 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 7.25 42Page: Packet Page 99 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :83.5311449710/1/2009 033550 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 114498 10/1/2009 072521 SAVAGE, JENNIFER SAVAGE11540 CARDIO KICKBOXING CARDIO KICKBOXING #11540 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 147.00 Total :147.00 114499 10/1/2009 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 09-2944 Unit 31 - Vacuum Tube, Vactor Hose End, Unit 31 - Vacuum Tube, Vactor Hose End, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,194.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 113.43 Total :1,307.43 114500 10/1/2009 071341 SHORTRIDGE, JENNIE SHORTRIDGE1004 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER QUESTION EVERYTHING~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114501 10/1/2009 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1091818 INV#1091818 EDMONDS ANIMAL CONTROL DOG LICENSE APPLICATIONS 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 240.21 Freight 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 13.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 24.09 Total :277.70 114502 10/1/2009 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-206438 Unit 477 - Surf Mounted Steel Unit 477 - Surf Mounted Steel 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.88 43Page: Packet Page 100 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114502 10/1/2009 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Fleet Shop Tool - Steel14-206461 Fleet Shop Tool - Steel 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 15.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 1.46 Total :26.98 114503 10/1/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2070015082 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 101.21 SIGNAL LIGHT2330012283 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.39 LIFT STATION #22410016253 LIFT STATION #2 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 41.24 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE2440024129 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 107.29 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg2480017397 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 312.38 LIFT STATION #42540012560 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 331.15 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER2670022181 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,667.98 SIGNAL LIGHT2790022228 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.53 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR2880027277 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 30.89 44Page: Packet Page 101 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114503 10/1/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 SIGNAL LIGHT3350014902 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.35 SIGNAL LIGHT3710011507 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.77 LIBRARY3720012057 LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,207.56 LIFT STATION #123850011440 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 263.23 LIFT STATION #154070022027 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.39 LIFT STATION #114130026596 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.72 SIGNAL LIGHT4210013902 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.11 STREET LIGHT4320012174 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 377.57 SIGNAL LIGHT4330014129 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 134.32 45Page: Packet Page 102 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114503 10/1/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Public Works4840011953 Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 72.58 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 275.82 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 275.82 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 275.82 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 275.82 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 275.80 SIGNAL LIGHT5360023807 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 15.64 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,660.43 CITY HALL5410010689 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,495.69 LOG CABIN5500019350 LOG CABIN 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 80.26 Total :15,564.76 114504 10/1/2009 037723 SNO CO VISITOR INFO CENTER Edm09 Contract from 1/09 - 6/09 Contract from 1/09 - 6/09 120.000.310.575.420.440.00 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 114505 10/1/2009 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 43222 Rubber stamp DSD Rubber stamp DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 33.04 46Page: Packet Page 103 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :33.0411450510/1/2009 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 114506 10/1/2009 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 76533 Water Dept - Vaccines Water Dept - Vaccines 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 197.00 Total :197.00 114507 10/1/2009 064996 SPARTAN MOTORS CHASSIS INC IN00408090 Unit 477 - Switch Unit 477 - Switch 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.67 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.69 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.73 Total :20.09 114508 10/1/2009 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 97403 E6DA.Roberts thru 08/15/09 E6DA.Roberts thru 08/15/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 2,307.50 E6DB.Roberts thru 08/15/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,170.00 E6DA/Roberts Mileage thru 08/15/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 66.00 E6DA.Roberts thru 08/29/0997715 E6DA.Roberts thru 08/29/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 2,112.50 E6DA.Roberts Mileage thru 08/29/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 27.50 E6DA.Roberts thru 09/05/0997877 E6DA.Roberts thru 09/05/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 3,331.25 E6DA.Rboerts Mileage thru 09/05/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 33.00 47Page: Packet Page 104 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114508 10/1/2009 (Continued)069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC E6DA.Roberts thu 09/12/0998036 E6DA.Roberts thu 09/12/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,300.00 E3JB.Roberts thru 09/12/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 130.00 E6DA.Roberts Mileage thru 09/12/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 33.00 E6DA.Roberts thru 09/19/0998189 E6DA.Roberts thru 09/19/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,072.50 E8GC.Roberts thru 09/19/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 75.83 E8GC.Roberts thru 09/19/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 75.83 E8GC.Roberts thru 09/19/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 75.84 E6DA.Roberts Mileage thru 09/19/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 28.60 Total :11,839.35 114509 10/1/2009 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2849513 Water/Sewer - Blue Spray Paint, Green Water/Sewer - Blue Spray Paint, Green 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 279.80 Water/Sewer - Blue Spray Paint, Green 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 279.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 26.58 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.58 48Page: Packet Page 105 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114509 10/1/2009 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC Water/Sewer - 16" HD Street Broom2851830 Water/Sewer - 16" HD Street Broom 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 44.76 Water/Sewer - 16" HD Street Broom 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 44.76 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.25 Water/Sewer - Green Spray Paint,2855666 Water/Sewer - Green Spray Paint, 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 160.09 Water/Sewer - Green Spray Paint, 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 160.09 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.21 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.20 Total :1,061.37 114510 10/1/2009 065298 STEVENS HEALTHCARE 510-8620 ALS MISC Medic run review 001.000.510.526.100.490.00 300.00 Total :300.00 114511 10/1/2009 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1951626 Old PW - Elect Supplies Old PW - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.46 Sr Center - Elect Supplies1955363 Sr Center - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 54.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.15 49Page: Packet Page 106 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114511 10/1/2009 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY PW - Elect Supplies1958399 PW - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 71.25 Library - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 88.84 Pump St - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.36 Sr Center - Elect Supplies1959738 Sr Center - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.00 Street - Elect Supplies 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 12.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.47 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 1.21 PS - Elect Supplies1963760 PS - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 221.80 FS 16 - Elect Suppleis 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.23 FS 20 - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.71 Unit 477 - Elect Supplies1973810 Unit 477 - Elect Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 91.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.68 50Page: Packet Page 107 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114511 10/1/2009 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY Fishing Pier - Elect Supplies1973811 Fishing Pier - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 85.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.08 Unit 477 - Elec Supplies1984249 Unit 477 - Elec Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 186.51 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.72 Fishing Pier - Elect Supplies1984250 Fishing Pier - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 74.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.12 Total :1,106.08 114512 10/1/2009 063816 STURGIS, KENT STURGIS1004 WOTS PRESENTER PUBLISHING PANEL MODERATOR 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 114513 10/1/2009 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10866785 HEX CAP SCREW HEX CAP SCREW 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 200.76 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.74 10032318881212 CAP SCREW/HEX NUT/ROUTER BIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 267.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.40 51Page: Packet Page 108 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :520.3111451310/1/2009 040917 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 114514 10/1/2009 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 49159 Sewer - 21 Work T's Sewer - 21 Work T's 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 175.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 16.65 Total :191.90 114515 10/1/2009 067375 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC T066120 E9FB.Services thru 08/22/09 E9FB.Services thru 08/22/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 615.00 Total :615.00 114516 10/1/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1667225 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3752 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.88 NEWSPAPER ADS1667229 10/06 Public Hearing 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.84 Total :92.72 114517 10/1/2009 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 264604 FAC - Tee Keys, Deep Stem Guards FAC - Tee Keys, Deep Stem Guards 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 29.60 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.56 Total :40.97 114518 10/1/2009 072469 THOMAS, KIM THOMAS1003 WRITE ON THE SOUND ASSISTANCE ON SITE OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR WRITE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 350.00 Total :350.00 114519 10/1/2009 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 101741 SR Center - Repairs to Elevator Doors ( 52Page: Packet Page 109 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114519 10/1/2009 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR SR Center - Repairs to Elevator Doors ( 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,855.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 176.24 Total :2,031.24 114520 10/1/2009 068322 TRANE 91123087 PS - 2nd Qrt Svc Agreement beginning PS - 2nd Qrt Svc Agreement beginning 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 297.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 28.22 Total :325.22 114521 10/1/2009 072925 UDE, WAYNE UDE1004 WOTS PRESENTER WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH 1ST & CAN'T WITH 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 174.00 Total :174.00 114522 10/1/2009 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8312257 Water Quality - Norprene Tube Assemblies Water Quality - Norprene Tube Assemblies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 115.50 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.19 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.98 Total :131.67 114523 10/1/2009 062693 US BANK 3348 PW - WA Prof Lic for N Miller PW - WA Prof Lic for N Miller 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 116.00 53Page: Packet Page 110 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 54 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114523 10/1/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK King Salmon Marine - Unit M16 - Water3363 King Salmon Marine - Unit M16 - Water 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 138.81 Schaeffer Mfg- Shop Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 207.25 Hydra Power Sys - Unit 476 - Suppleis 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 92.39 Guardian - Old PW Monthly Security3405 Guardian - Old PW Monthly Security 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00 Coast Prod - FAC - 7" Impeller w/band 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.70 Benson Ind - PS - Birch Wood Door 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 339.45 Bulger Safe & Lock - PS - Lock 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 49.28 Guardian Sec - Old PW Monthly Security 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00 Sewer - National Safety Return Postage3546 Sewer - National Safety Return Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 8.14 Office Max - Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 166.41 Total :1,259.43 114524 10/1/2009 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS S0298897I INV#S0298897I EDMONDS PD PAGERS 09/27/09 - 10/26/09 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 167.41 Total :167.41 114525 10/1/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 9/16-10/16/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 409.72 54Page: Packet Page 111 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 55 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114525 10/1/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOCOM425-DH0-0667 Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 375.97 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 280.00 Total :1,065.69 114526 10/1/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM LIBRARY SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.96 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.96 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 94.11 TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.53 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.52 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.14 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 70.69 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 57.96 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 57.96 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 81.99 55Page: Packet Page 112 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 56 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114526 10/1/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 160.41 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 297.90 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.66 Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & UB 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.70 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 42.77 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.51 PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133 Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total :1,288.27 114527 10/1/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 49.78 56Page: Packet Page 113 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 57 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114527 10/1/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST FS #16 FRAME RELAY425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 356.85 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Total :653.63 114528 10/1/2009 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0797154394 C/A 671247844-00001 57Page: Packet Page 114 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 58 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114528 10/1/2009 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Service-Bldg 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 119.31 Cell Service-Eng 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 190.50 Cell Service Fac-Maint 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 135.08 Cell Service-Fire OPS 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 177.00 Cell Service-Fire Admin 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 35.40 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.14 Cell Service Parks Maint 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 60.67 Cell Service-PD 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 727.76 Cell Service-Planning 8/13-9/12/09 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.24 Cell Service-PW Street 8/13-9/12/09 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.24 Cell Service-PW Storm 8/13-9/12/09 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 114.32 Cell Service-PW Water 8/13-9/12/09 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 74.12 Cell Service-PW Sewer 8/13-9/12/09 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 65.10 Cell Service-PW Fleet 8/13-9/12/09 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.12 Cell Service-WWTP 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.86 Total :1,818.86 114529 10/1/2009 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 42705 INV#42705 - EDMONDS PD - CASE#06-3640 58Page: Packet Page 115 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 59 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 114529 10/1/2009 (Continued)067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC TOWING 2002 BMWX5 324ZAE 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 Total :173.01 114530 10/1/2009 045912 WASPC 2009-001098 INV#DUES 2009-001098 - GANNON/EDMONDS PD ASSOCIATE DUES/GANNON 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 75.00 INV#DUES2009-00171-EDMONDS PD/LAWLESS2009-00171 ASSOCIATE DUES/J.LAWLESS 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 75.00 Total :150.00 114531 10/1/2009 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6662 INV#6662 EDMONDS PD AUDIOVOX CAR CHGR ADAPTER 001.000.410.521.100.350.00 27.90 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.350.00 6.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.350.00 3.28 Total :37.81 114532 10/1/2009 072924 WHITE, STEVE WHITE1003 WOTS PRESENTER SPEAK UP! WRITING GOOD DIALOGUE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 114533 10/1/2009 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON11288 WHITEWATER RAFTING TIETON WHITEWATER RAFTING~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 118.36 Total :118.36 114534 10/1/2009 070123 WOODARD, MARCIA WOODARD1002 WOTS WORKSHOPS TEACHING WRITE ON THE SOUND WORKSHOP 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 357.00 59Page: Packet Page 116 of 385 10/01/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 60 11:14:35AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :357.0011453410/1/2009 070123 070123 WOODARD, MARCIA Bank total :289,015.39171 Vouchers for bank code :front 289,015.39Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report171 60Page: Packet Page 117 of 385 AM-2514 2.D. Claim for Damages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Linda Hynd Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Ray Lankford and Vince Petosa (amounts undetermined), and Patricia Dorgan ($800.00). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Ray Lankford 454 Woodridge Drive Port Ludlow, WA 99365 (amount undetermined) Vince Petosa 17707 Talbot Road Edmonds, WA 98026 (amount undetermined) Patricia Dorgan 5808 178th Place SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 ($800.00) Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Lankford Claim for Damages Link: Petosa Claim for Damages Link: Dorgan Claim for Damages Packet Page 118 of 385 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2009 11:57 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/30/2009 01:45 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2009 02:02 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd  Started On: 09/18/2009 03:04 PM Final Approval Date: 09/30/2009 Packet Page 119 of 385 Packet Page 120 of 385 Packet Page 121 of 385 Packet Page 122 of 385 Packet Page 123 of 385 Packet Page 124 of 385 Packet Page 125 of 385 Packet Page 126 of 385 AM-2519 2.E. BNSF Double Track Utilities Upgrade Bid Authorization Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Conni Curtis Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Authorization to call for bids for the BNSF double track utilities upgrade project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Staff to advertise for bids for the BNSF double track utilties upgrade project. Previous Council Action In June, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. for design services for the BNSF double track utilities upgrade project. Narrative In April 2008, the City was informed by BNSF that the double tracking project along the Edmonds waterfront would require improvements to several City utility pipelines that cross beneath the railroad tracks. The work will upgrade the existing pipelines so they withstand the additional weight imposed by the future second track. The project will also replace an existing watermain at Brackett's Landing North Park and add a new watermain in James Street between Sunset Avenue and Railroad Street to improve the water system and fire flow service. This work was added to the project because of the close proximity to the utility crossings at Main and Dayton Streets. In June 2008, Council awarded a contract to KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. for design of the project. Design is nearing completion and Staff is ready to call for bids to construct the project. The project costs are being funded by the 412 Utility Fund. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 10/01/2009 11:26 AM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 10/01/2009 01:30 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:12 PM APRV Packet Page 127 of 385 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:12 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 02:28 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:52 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis  Started On: 09/30/2009 12:55 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 128 of 385 AM-2522 2.F. BHC Addendum No. 4 for Lift Station 2 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Conni Curtis Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with BHC Consultants, LLC. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with BHC Consultants, LLC with respect to the Lift Station 2 rehabilitation project. Previous Council Action On July 26, 2005, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (now BHC Consultants, LLC) for Lift Stations 2 & 13 Design Services. On January 6, 2006, Addendum No. 1 was signed with regard to survey and topographic mapping. On April 25, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 2 to the Lift Stations 2 & 13 professional services agreement. On December 20, 2008, Addendum No. 3 was signed with regard to geological investigation required for the new location for Lift Station 2. Narrative On July 26, 2005, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with BHC, LLC for the preliminary design of the Lift Station 2 rehabilitation/Lift Station 13 elimination project. During the course of preliminary design, it was determined that Lift Stations 2 and 13 should be separated into two independent construction contracts. The Lift Station 13 elimination project was designed and constructed in 2008. Lift Station 2 is located adjacent to Shell Creek near Melody Lane and is inaccessible to maintenance vehicles. The current station has been in operation for over 40 years and has exceeded its expected useful life since replacement parts are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. The City wants to relocate the station away from the creek to improve maintenance access to the station and reduce the risk of a sewer overflow entering Shell Creek. Design and construction of Lift Station No. 2 has been delayed due to negotiations with the property owner on the location of the new station. These issues have been resolved and a location for the lift station has been mutually agreed upon. The design phase is underway and additional Packet Page 129 of 385 services are required to complete the environmental review and permitting, bid documents and bidding assistance, along with construction services. The additional fee for these services is $226,830 and a detailed scope and budget are shown in the attached Addendum No. 4. Construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2010. The costs related to this project are being funded by the 412 Utility Fund. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: BHC Addendum No. 4 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 10/01/2009 12:42 PM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 10/01/2009 01:30 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:12 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 02:28 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:52 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis  Started On: 09/30/2009 04:02 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 130 of 385 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 1 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 2 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 3 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 4 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 5 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 6 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 7 o f 3 8 5 AM-2515 2.G. Odor Control Improvement Project Bid Opening Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Report on bids opened on September 14, 2009 for the Odor Control Improvement Project and award to Prospect Construction, Inc., for the amount of $1,410,312, including sales tax. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to award contract for the Odor Control Improvement Project and award to Prospect Construction, Inc., for the amount of $1,410,312, including sales tax. In addition, appropriate up to $833,589 from the 2009 ending cash of the sewer portion of the Fund 411 Combined Utility Fund and transfer this amount to Fund 414 Treatment Plant Capital Reserve. Previous Council Action City Council approved the current CIP plan, which included the Odor Control Improvement Project. City Council approved the 2009-2010 budget, which included the Odor Control Improvement Project. Staff met with the Community/Development Services Committee and the Finance Committee on August 12, 2008 to discuss need for the project. On August 18, 2008, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for qualifications for the design of the Odor Control Improvement Project. On January 20, 2009, City Council authorized an agreement with Brown & Caldwell to design the Odor Control Improvement Project. Narrative An evaluation of the Odor Control System at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant was performed by a consulting engineer in 2007, which provided a report summarizing their recommendations for reducing odor emissions from the plant. A detailed construction design by the City's consultant Brown and Caldwell was performed in 2009 based upon the evaluation and input from staff. Once design was complete, staff advertised the project for construction, although the City policy of obtaining City Council authorization Packet Page 138 of 385 before advertising was inadvertantly omitted. Staff checked with the City's legal adviser who confirmed that the advertising process was legal, although irregular to standard practice. The lowest responsive bid was from Prospect Construction, Inc, in the amount of $1,410,312. The bid was within approximately 8% of the engineer's estimate of $1.3 million. The contractor's references are positive and staff recommends awarding the contract to Prospect Construction, Inc. Project Funding This project will be funded in accordance with an Agreement with other participating agencies that share capacity in the plant. This agreement specifies that Edmonds share of capital projects is limited to approximately 51%. Edmonds share of capital projects for the Treatment Plant is paid from the sewer utility fund. There are adequate funds to pay for this project due to the recent retirement of construction bonds from the Treatment Plant construction in 1988. The 2009 budget shows bond proceeds of $800,000 for this project. Since there is sufficient ending cash of $3.4 million in the sewer component of the Fund 411 Combined Utility, the Finance Director chose to use ending cash rather than issuing debt to pay for Edmonds share of the project expenses. Now that debt financing is not being used, Council needs to appropriate the fund transfer between utility funds The estimate for the project was $736,000 in early 2008 when the budget was developed. Since that time, the design was completed and the scope increased in order to provide odorous air containment and treatment for all tanks during summer months when odor issues are the strongest. Increasing the scope of the project caused the cost for the project to increase also. The total project cost, including a 10% contingency, is $1,641,343, of which Edmonds share is $833,589. The project cost is based on the following: Contractor $1,410,312 Contingency @10% $141,031 Construction Management $90,000 TOTAL $1,641,343 The net cost to Edmonds for the project is projected to be $833,589. The source of the funds is ending cash from the sewer utility fund. It is expected that only about 10% of the funds will be spent in 2009, with the balance being spent in 2010. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Bid results Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Public Works Noel Miller 10/01/2009 01:40 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:12 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 02:28 PM APRV Packet Page 139 of 385 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:52 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho  Started On: 09/25/2009 03:47 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 140 of 385 Q U A N T I T Y U N I T S UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1. 0 $1 , 4 6 0 , 2 5 0 $1 , 4 6 0 , 2 5 0 $1 , 2 9 5 , 7 8 7 $1 , 2 9 5 , 7 8 7 $1 , 7 1 4 , 6 5 5 $1 , 7 1 4 , 6 5 5 $1 , 5 2 2 , 4 0 0 $1 , 5 2 2 , 4 0 0 $1,501,664 $1,501,664 Su b t o t a l $1 , 4 6 0 , 2 5 0 Su b t o t a l $1 , 2 9 5 , 7 8 7 Su b t o t a l $1 , 7 1 4 , 6 5 5 Su b t o t a l $1 , 5 2 2 , 4 0 0 Subtotal $1,501,664 9. 5 % T a x $1 3 8 , 7 2 4 9. 5 % T a x $1 2 3 , 1 0 0 9. 5 % T a x $1 6 2 , 8 9 2 9. 5 % T a x $1 4 4 , 6 2 8 9.5% Tax $142,658 TO T A L $1 , 5 9 8 , 9 7 4 TO T A L $1 , 4 1 8 , 8 8 7 TO T A L $1 , 8 7 7 , 5 4 7 TO T A L $1 , 6 6 7 , 0 2 8 TOTAL $1,644,322 UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E UN I T P R I C E TO T A L P R I C E Wi t h d r e w b i d Wi t h d r e w b i d $1 , 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 $1 , 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 $1 , 2 8 7 , 9 5 6 $1 , 2 8 7 , 9 5 6 $1 , 3 8 7 , 6 0 0 $1 , 3 8 7 , 6 0 0 Su b t o t a l Wi t h d r e w b i d Su b t o t a l $1 , 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 Su b t o t a l $1 , 2 8 7 , 9 5 6 Su b t o t a l $1 , 3 8 7 , 6 0 0 9. 5 % T a x $1 2 9 , 6 7 5 9. 5 % T a x $1 2 2 , 3 5 6 9. 5 % T a x $1 3 1 , 8 2 2 TO T A L N/ A TO T A L $1 , 4 9 4 , 6 7 5 TO T A L $1 , 4 1 0 , 3 1 2 TO T A L $1 , 5 1 9 , 4 2 2 BI D D E R S N A M E BI D D E R S N A M E Sack construction Co Ga r y H a r p e r C o n s t r u c t i o n Ha r b o r P a c i f i c Pr o s p e c t C o n s t r u c t i o n An t h o n y C o n s t r u c t i o n OD O R C O N T R O L P R O J E C T Aw a r d C o n s t r u c t i o n I n c . Tr i a d M e c h a n i c a l I n c MK B C o n s t r u c t o r s TE K C o n s t r u c t i o n I n c Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 1 of 38 5 AM-2498 2.H. Include the Great Northern Railway Section Foreman’s House on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Kernen Lien Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance designating the Great Northern Railway Section Foreman’s House located at 1011 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the Official Zoning Map with an “HR” designation. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The Foreman's House, located at 1011 2nd Avenue South, was nominated for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places in 2009 (Exhibit 2) and the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission subsequently received the property owners' written consent (Exhibit 5) for listing the property. The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place the Foreman's House on the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on August 13, 2009 and concluded that the site is eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 4). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Link: Exhibit 3 - Excerpt from BOLA Report Link: Exhibit 4 - Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 08-13-2009 Link: Exhibit 5 - Property Owners Authorization Link: Exhibit 6 - Forman's House Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report Form Routing/Status Packet Page 142 of 385 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2009 11:18 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2009 11:28 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 03:43 PM APRV Form Started By: Kernen Lien  Started On: 09/15/2009 04:10 PM Final Approval Date: 09/29/2009 Packet Page 143 of 385 0006.90000 kpl 09/15/2009 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY SECTION FORMAN’S HOUSE AT 1011 2ND AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION., AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the residence constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House for its personnel located at 1011 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is potentially eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on August 13, 2009, to consider the eligibility of the Forman’s House for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the Section Forman’s House be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation; and {kpl/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 144 of 385 WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of the ECDC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The residence at 1011 2nd Ave South Edmonds, Washington 98020, which was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Forman’s House for its personnel, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant. Section 2. The Community Services Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation. This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: {kpl/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 145 of 385 BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________ PUBLISHED: ________ EFFECTIVE DATE: ________ ORDINANCE NO. _____ {kpl/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 146 of 385 {rwc/00006.900000/} - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 6th day of October, 2009, 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, DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY SECTION FORMAN’S HOUSE AT 1011 2ND AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION, 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 October, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 147 of 385 Packet Page 148 of 385 Packet Page 149 of 385 Packet Page 150 of 385 Packet Page 151 of 385 Packet Page 152 of 385 Packet Page 153 of 385 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 13, 2009 Page 3 THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER ANTTILA SECONDED THE MOTION. Council Member Plunkett said he appreciates the spirit in which Mr. Stoulil brought his property forward for inclusion on the Register. He suggested this would help build the inventory, making the designation more prestigious and sought after. Vice Chair Vogel added that he is excited to see such a high level of interest come from a private property owner; this shows that historic preservation is gaining momentum. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILTY OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY FOREMAN’S HOUSE LOCATED AT 1011 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS- 6) (FILE NUMBER HPC-09-100) Mr. Lien reviewed the staff report, which describes the significant features of the home. He noted that the house is situated in a residential neighborhood just south of City Park, and the neighborhood consists of a mix of homes with approximately half of the homes being constructed during the first half of the twentieth century. He referred to the designation criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing nominations and noted the application would be consistent with the following:  Criteria 1 – Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s house for its personnel. It was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street.  Criteria 2 – Has integrity. The building largely retains its original appearance; however, there has been a single-story rear addition that is sheltered by an extension of the back roof slope.  Criteria 3 – Age at least 50 years old, or had exceptional importance if less than 50 years old. The BOLA Report states the house was constructed in 1917, but the Snohomish County website indicates it was built in 1906. In either instance, the structure is more than 50 years old.  Category a – Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. The house was originally constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House. Speculating that the arrival of the Great Northern Railroad would bring economic boom to the city of Edmonds, the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company purchased the site of the City from George Brackett for $36,000. Although the railroad arrived in 1891, the boom did not materialize and other events drove the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company into bankruptcy. George Brackett foreclosed and took back ownership of the town.  Category d – Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. The house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House.  Category g – Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. The house was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street. In 1958 it was moved to a site on Dayton Street where it served as a single-family residence. The house was saved when the Dayton Street site was developed because of its historic significance and moved to its current location in 1978. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission find that the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. He recommended the property be listed as proposed. Commissioner Bauer inquired if the existing siding is original, and the applicant, Donald Nicholson, answered affirmatively. Ms. Nicholson added that the house is not as beautiful as many of the other historic homes in Edmonds, but there is a great history behind it. She said she encouraged her husband to nominate the property to benefit the City of Edmonds. Packet Page 154 of 385 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 13, 2009 Page 4 Vice Chair Vogel suggested that the story behind this structure would be a great subject for the next edition of THE PRESERVATIONIST. Commissioner Waite pointed out that the staff report indicates the house is clad in a rustic type V-groove shiplap siding rather than d\Dutch beveled siding as indicated by the property owner. He agreed to visit the structure and provide an accurate description of the siding materials. He said it is important that information related to the house is recorded correctly. COMMISSIONER BAUER MOVED THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1011 – 2ND AVENUE SOUTH (FILE HPC-09-10) MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND FORWARD THE NOMINATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMITTEE REPORTS Registration Committee Commissioner Anttila reported that the Registration Committee unable to meet this past month. They intend to get together again in early September or late August. She suggested the Registration Committee should meet jointly with the Education and Outreach Committee to talk about the appropriate approach for meeting with property owners who have not responded to the Commission’s invitation to add their property to the Register. Education and Outreach Committee Vice Chair Vogel reported that Chair Eccleshal has forwarded a draft of the next edition of THE PRESERVATIONIST for the Commission’s review and approval, and he invited the Commissioners to submit their comments and recommendations. The International Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) Building is the featured article. He said he was able to locate a picture of the IOOF’s float in the 4th of July Parade of 1904, and he would incorporate the picture into the article. He noted that a link to the Commission’s website and past issues of THE PRESERVATIONIST was added to the latest edition. In addition, the website was updated. COMMISSIONER KEREGE MOVED THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE VICE CHAIR VOGEL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLISHING THE SEPTEMBER EDITION OF THE PRESERVATIONIST. COMMISSIONER BAUER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission agreed it would be appropriate to feature the newly nominated Great Northern Railway Section Foreman’s House in the next edition of THE PRESERVATIONIST. Preservation Planning Committee The Preservation Planning Committee did not provide a report. OTHER REPORTS Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society There was no report from the Edmonds South Snohomish Historical Society. NEW BUSINESS Improving the Visibility of Plaques The Commission discussed that because the plaques are so small, they are difficult to see from the street when they are posted on the side of a structure. They discussed possible options for improving their visibility, such as posting them on the fence or on a free-standing post close to the street. They also discussed ideas for displaying more information about the historic structures. It was suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the Commission to ask for funding from the Packet Page 155 of 385 Packet Page 156 of 385 Foreman's house HistPres designation staff report.doc Page 1 Meeting Date: August 13, 2009 Agenda Subject: Application for designation of the Great Northern Railway Section Forman’s House as eligible for inclusion in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Property Information Site Name/Location: 1011 2nd Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax Account #: 00582000300202 Township 27 Range 03E Section 26 ¼ Sec NE ¼-¼ Sec Construction date: 1917 (1906?) Owner/Applicant Information Person(s) Nominating Site: Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Property Owner: Donald Nicholson Report Summary Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments City of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Designation Staff Report Packet Page 157 of 385 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments 1. Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds… This house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House for its personnel. The house was originally located on the east side of the track near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street. 2. Has integrity… The building largely retains its original appearance; however, there has been a single story rear addition that is sheltered by an extension of the back roof slope. 3. Age at least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less than 50 years old… The BOLA report states the house was constructed in 1917, while the Snohomish County website indicates the house was built in 1906. In either instance, the structure is more than 50 years old and meets this designation criteria. 4. Falls into at least one of the following designation categories: Designation Category a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. This house was originally constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House for its personnel. Speculating that the arrival of the Great Northern Railroad would bring economic boom to the City of Edmonds, the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company purchased the site of the City from George Brackett for $36,000. Although the railroad arrived in 1891, the boom did not materialize and other events drove the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company went into bankruptcy, George Brackett foreclosed and took back ownership of the town. b. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Packet Page 158 of 385 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments c. Is an outstanding work of a designer, builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art. d. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. This house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House for its personnel. e. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological information related to history or prehistory. g. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. The house was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot, on a site just north of Dayton Street. In 1958, it was moved to a site on Dayton Street where it served as a single- family residence. The house was saved when the Dayton Street site was developed because of its historic significance and moved to its current location 1978. h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person. i. Is a cemetery which derives its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events or cultural patterns. j. Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site. Packet Page 159 of 385 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments k. Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical, the designation shall include description of the boundaries of categories. Significant Features 1. Shape: The house is 1½ stories in a simple rectangular form, with a steeply pitched side-gable roof and symmetrical front facade. 2. Roof and Roof Features: The roof is steeply pitched side gable style with asphalt/composition shingles. 3. Openings (entries, etc.): Tall double hung windows are placed on either side of the main entry, with single sash windows located directly above at the upper level. Side walls feature similar double-hung windows. The windows and panel-type front door are replacements, with interior inserts recalling original divided-lite sash patterns. 4. Projections: Simple 4x4 posts support the shed roof of the front porch and the railing are made of painted 2x4s. The original brick chimney extends about three feet above the peak of the roof, while a newer metal chimney protrudes from the middle of the front side of the roof. 5. Trim & secondary features The house includes corner board trim and non-original water table trim. Flower boxes are located under the two first story windows on the front of the house. 6. Materials: The house is clad with a rustic type V-groove shiplap siding. 7. Setting: The house is situated in a residential neighborhood just south of City Park. The neighborhood consists of a mix of homes with approximately half of the homes being contracted during the first half of the twentieth century. 8. Materials at close range N/A 9. Craft details: N/A 10. Individual rooms/spaces: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination. 11. Related spaces or sequences: N/A 12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination Packet Page 160 of 385 13. Surface finishes & materials: N/A 14. Exposed structure: N/A Forman’s House at its original location (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum) Packet Page 161 of 385 Foreman’s House when located on Dayton Street (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum) View of west façade from 2nd Avenue South (Photo from BOLA report) Packet Page 162 of 385 View of north façade. The single story addition is visible at the rear of the house. (Photo from BOLA report) Notes on historic register nominations: Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible for the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed in the register with owner’s consent. According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission. Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register. Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation. * Edmonds Community Development Code Packet Page 163 of 385 AM-2499 2.I. Include Residence at 533 3rd Ave. S. on Edmonds Register of Historic Places Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Kernen Lien Time:Consent Department:Planning Type: Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance designating the residence located at 533 3rd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the Official Zoning Map with an “HR” designation. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The residence located at 533 3rd Avenue South was nominated for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places in 2009 (Exhibit 2) and the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission subsequently received the property owners' written consent (Exhibit 4) for listing the property. The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place the residence on the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on August 13, 2009 and concluded that the site is eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 5). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Link: Exhibit 3 - Excerpt from BOLA Report Link: Exhibit 4 - Property Owners Authorization Link: Exhibit 5 - Historic Preservation Commission Minute 08-13-2009 Link: Exhibit 6 - 533 3rd Avenue South Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2009 11:18 AM APRV Packet Page 164 of 385 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2009 11:28 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 03:43 PM APRV Form Started By: Kernen Lien  Started On: 09/16/2009 08:30 AM Final Approval Date: 09/29/2009 Packet Page 165 of 385 0006.90000 kpl 09/15/2009 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE AT 533 3rd AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION., AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the residence at 533 3rd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is potentially eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on August 13, 2009, to consider the eligibility of the residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the residence be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation; and {kpl/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 166 of 385 WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of the ECDC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The residence 533 3rd Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant. Section 2. The Community Services Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation. This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER {kpl/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 167 of 385 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________ PUBLISHED: ________ EFFECTIVE DATE: ________ ORDINANCE NO. _____ {kpl/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 168 of 385 {rwc/00006.900000/} - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 6th day of October, 2009, 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, DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE AT 533 3rd AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION, 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 October, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 169 of 385 Packet Page 170 of 385 Packet Page 171 of 385 Packet Page 172 of 385 Packet Page 173 of 385 Packet Page 174 of 385 Packet Page 175 of 385 Packet Page 176 of 385 Packet Page 177 of 385 DRAFT September 10th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES August 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Vogel called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 4:35 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 – 5th Avenue North. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Larry Vogel, Vice Chair Jennifer Anttila (arrived at 4:37 p.m.) Sue Bauer (arrived at 4:45 p.m.) Daniel Kerege Eric Norenberg Larry Vogel Steve Waite Michael Plunkett (arrived at 4:55 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Planner, Planning and Development Services Karin Noyes, Recorder COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Andy Eccleshall, Chair Christine Deiner-Karr Alan Macfarlane READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ANTTILA MOVED THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2009 AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 533 THIRD AVAENUE SOUTH FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) (FILE NUMBER HPC-09-35) Mr. Lien reviewed the staff report and noted that the property owners have signed the authorization form that would allow the property to be listed on the Register. He described the significant features of the structure and noted that it is situated in a residential neighborhood just east of City Park. The neighborhood consists of a mix of homes, the majority being constructed during the latter half of the twentieth century. He referred to the designation criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing nominations for the Register and noted the application would be consistent with the following: Packet Page 178 of 385 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 13, 2009 Page 2  Criteria 1 – Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house is associated with the residential growth of Edmonds and is a good example of the Craftsman bungalow residential design.  Criteria 2 – Has integrity. The building retains its original appearance.  Criteria 3 – Age at least 50 years old, or had exceptional importance if less than 50 years old. The house was constructed in 1921.  Category b – Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The house is a good example of the Craftsman bungalow residential design, which was a popular residential design of the time. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission find the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features, not including the garage. He recommended the property be listed as proposed. Ryan Stoulil, property owner, explained that while he and his wife are interested in having the property listed on the Register, they are planning an addition and are interested in learning more about how the designation might impact their future plans. He said it is his understanding that if the property is listed on the Register, the addition would require Commission approval. He requested more information about what this process would involve. He also questioned if it would be possible to remove the house from the Register at some point in the future if he was unable to obtain Commission approval to move forward with the planned addition. He said he would likely opt out of the tax incentive, since they would be taxed retroactively if they were to remove the house from the Register. The Commissioners clarified that the property owner would not be required to apply for the tax incentive, and he would retain the ability to remove his house from the Register at any point in the future. The Commission and staff reviewed the process for obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. It was emphasized that if his property were listed on the Register, the Commission would be eager to assist him with his plans to add on. Commissioner Bauer pointed out that the City is a newly formed Certified Local Government (CLG), and no one on the Register has asked for a certificate of appropriateness. She asked what kind of drawings would be required for the Commission’s review. Mr. Lien explained that the Commission would review the drawings that are submitted as part of the building permit, which would include views from all four elevations. The Commission agreed it would be appropriate to conduct pre-application meetings with property owners to review rough sketches of the proposal and provide a preliminary recommendation, but the actual certificate of appropriateness could not be issued until formal drawings have been submitted to the Commission for review. Commissioner Waite inquired if the detached garage would be part of the designation. Mr. Lien answered that it was not included in the application or the evaluation. Mr. Stoulil said he would not be opposed to including the garage since they don’t have any plans to alter it at this time. Mr. Lien advised that the BOLA report only identified the significant features on the house. Mr. Lien cautioned that the Commission should not forward the application to the City Council unless they are sure the owner wants to be on the Register. Commissioner Bauer observed that the ordinance does not have a placeholder in the process flow for someone who is undecided. Mr. Stoulil emphasized that it would be an honor to have his house listed on the Register. However, if he is unable to obtain a certificate of appropriateness to move forward with his planned addition or if his ability to obtain financing became impeded as a result of being on the Register, he may decide to withdraw the property. He is ready to place his property on the Register with the understanding that he can opt out at any time. Commissioner Waite inquired if the southern porch was added after the house was built. Mr. Stoulil answered that it is the original porch, but he enclosed it to form a mud room rather than an open porch. The footprint was not changed. COMMISSIONER WAITE MOVED THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 533 – 3RD AVENUE SOUTH (FILE HPC-09-35) MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION ON Packet Page 179 of 385 DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 13, 2009 Page 3 THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER ANTTILA SECONDED THE MOTION. Council Member Plunkett said he appreciates the spirit in which Mr. Stoulil brought his property forward for inclusion on the Register. He suggested this would help build the inventory, making the designation more prestigious and sought after. Vice Chair Vogel added that he is excited to see such a high level of interest come from a private property owner; this shows that historic preservation is gaining momentum. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILTY OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY FOREMAN’S HOUSE LOCATED AT 1011 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS- 6) (FILE NUMBER HPC-09-100) Mr. Lien reviewed the staff report, which describes the significant features of the home. He noted that the house is situated in a residential neighborhood just south of City Park, and the neighborhood consists of a mix of homes with approximately half of the homes being constructed during the first half of the twentieth century. He referred to the designation criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing nominations and noted the application would be consistent with the following:  Criteria 1 – Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s house for its personnel. It was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street.  Criteria 2 – Has integrity. The building largely retains its original appearance; however, there has been a single-story rear addition that is sheltered by an extension of the back roof slope.  Criteria 3 – Age at least 50 years old, or had exceptional importance if less than 50 years old. The BOLA Report states the house was constructed in 1917, but the Snohomish County website indicates it was built in 1906. In either instance, the structure is more than 50 years old.  Category a – Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. The house was originally constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House. Speculating that the arrival of the Great Northern Railroad would bring economic boom to the city of Edmonds, the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company purchased the site of the City from George Brackett for $36,000. Although the railroad arrived in 1891, the boom did not materialize and other events drove the Minneapolis Realty and Investment Company into bankruptcy. George Brackett foreclosed and took back ownership of the town.  Category d – Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. The house was constructed by the Great Northern Railroad as the Section Foreman’s House.  Category g – Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. The house was originally located on the east side of the tracks near the present day depot on a site just north of Dayton Street. In 1958 it was moved to a site on Dayton Street where it served as a single-family residence. The house was saved when the Dayton Street site was developed because of its historic significance and moved to its current location in 1978. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission find that the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. He recommended the property be listed as proposed. Commissioner Bauer inquired if the existing siding is original, and the applicant, Donald Nicholson, answered affirmatively. Ms. Nicholson added that the house is not as beautiful as many of the other historic homes in Edmonds, but there is a great history behind it. She said she encouraged her husband to nominate the property to benefit the City of Edmonds. Packet Page 180 of 385 533 3rd Avew S HistPres designation staff report.doc Page 1 Meeting Date: August 13, 2009 Agenda Subject: Application for designation of the residence at 533 3rd Avenue South as eligible for inclusion in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Property Information Site Name/Location: 533 3rd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax Account #: 00409600100600 Township 27 Range 03E Section 26 ¼ Sec NE ¼-¼ Sec Construction date: 1921 Owner/Applicant Information Person(s) Nominating Site: Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Property Owner: Ryan Stoulil PO Box 841 Edmonds, WA 98020 Report Summary Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the criteria for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features, not including the garage. Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments City of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Designation Staff Report Packet Page 181 of 385 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments 1. Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds… This house is associated with the residential growth of Edmonds and is a good example of the Craftsman bungalow residential design. 2. Has integrity… The building retains its original appearance. 3. Age at least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less than 50 years old… The house was constructed in 1921. 4. Falls into at least one of the following designation categories: Designation Category a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. b. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. House is a good example of the Craftsman bungalow which was a popular residential design of the time. c. Is an outstanding work of a designer, builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art. d. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. e. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological information related to history or prehistory. Packet Page 182 of 385 Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments g. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person. i. Is a cemetery which derives its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events or cultural patterns. j. Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site. k. Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical, the designation shall include description of the boundaries of categories. Significant Features 1. Shape: The house is 1½ stories in a rectangular form is covered by a bracketed front-gabled roof. 2. Roof and Roof Features: The roof is medium pitched bracketed front gable style with asphalt/composition shingles. 3. Openings (entries, etc.): Most windows are one-over-one light sash. A smaller attic window in the front gable end has an eight-light upper sash. In addition to the front entrance, a side entrance on the south side is sheltered by an extension of the roof slope. 4. Projections: Projecting from the northern half of the west facade is an entrance porch with a shed roof supported by corner piers. The porch features parge-coated piers supporting multiple post supports and exposed trellis-like double roof framing and outriggers. Packet Page 183 of 385 5. Trim & secondary features N/A 6. Materials: The house is sheathed with wood shingles installed in an overlaid pattern. 7. Setting: The house is situated in a residential neighborhood just east of City Park. The neighborhood consists of a mix of homes with the majority of the homes being constructed the during the latter half of the twentieth century. 8. Materials at close range N/A 9. Craft details: N/A 10. Individual rooms/spaces: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination. 11. Related spaces or sequences: N/A 12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination 13. Surface finishes & materials: N/A 14. Exposed structure: N/A View of west façade from 3rd Avenue South (Photo from BOLA report) Packet Page 184 of 385 View of west facade from 3rd Avenue South (Photo from Snohomish County website) View of south facade and garage. (Photo from BOLA report) Packet Page 185 of 385 Notes on historic register nominations: Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible for the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed in the register with owner’s consent. According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission. Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register. Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation. * Edmonds Community Development Code Packet Page 186 of 385 AM-2518 2.J. City Code Chapter 3.10, Emergency Reserve Finance Fund Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Submitted For:Mayor Haakenson Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2912, and amending the provisions of the Edmonds City Code to add a new Chapter 3.10, Emergency Reserve Finance Fund. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Adopt the ordinance. Previous Council Action On April 21, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1199. The title reads: Resolution of the Edmonds City Council to Clarify the Use of the Emergency Finance Reserve Fund. The resolution adopted the policy that the funds in the Emergency Finance Reserve Fund shall only be accessed in the case of extreme natural or manmade disaster, or other calamity, and that a revenue shortfall shall not alone be enough to justify use of such funds. The resolution further directed staff to prepare an ordinance to amend the previous City ordinance to reflect the new policy of the City of Edmonds. Narrative Attached are the following documents: •Ordinance 2912, adopted 01/19/1993, redefining and broadening the purposes for which the Emergency Reserve Fund has been established. •Excerpt of the 04/21/2009 City Council Minutes - Agenda Item 8, Emergency Funds discussion. •Resolution 1199, adopted 04/21/2009 - Clarifying the use of the Emergency Finance Reserve Fund. •Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance 2912, amending the provisions of the Edmonds City Code to add a new Chapter 3.10, Emergency Reserve Finance Fund. Fiscal Impact Attachments Packet Page 187 of 385 Link: Ordinance 2912 Link: Excerpt of the 04-21-09 Council Minutes Link: Resolution 1199 Link: Proposed Ordinance - Emergency Reserve Finance Fund Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 04:38 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/29/2009 04:45 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 05:00 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 09/29/2009 04:30 PM Final Approval Date: 09/29/2009 Packet Page 188 of 385 Packet Page 189 of 385 Packet Page 190 of 385 Packet Page 191 of 385 Packet Page 192 of 385 Packet Page 193 of 385 Packet Page 194 of 385 Packet Page 195 of 385 Packet Page 196 of 385 Packet Page 197 of 385 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 5/4/09 R:5/12/09gjz ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2912, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.10 EMERGENCY RESERVE FINANCE FUND, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City maintains an Emergency Reserve Finance Fund, established pursuant to in Ordinance No. 2912 for the purpose of maintaining fiscal resources to address unanticipated emergencies including declines in federal and other revenue, as well as emergencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to both clarify and limit the purposes for which the fund may be used to true catastrophic emergencies such as earthquakes or other natural or man made disasters, pursuant to the authorization established by RCW 35A.33.120 as a restriction on the Mayor’s statutory ability to make transfers between individual appropriations within any fund, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 2912 is hereby repealed. Section 2. The Edmonds City Code is hereby amended by the adoption of a new Chapter 3.10 Emergency Reserve Finance Fund to read as follows: {WSS727597.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 198 of 385 Chapter 3.10 3.10.010 Emergency Reserve Finance Fund In accordance with the authorization of RCW 35A.33.120, funds placed in the Emergency Reserve Finance Fund shall be used only in cases of true catastrophic emergencies such as earthquake or other natural or man-made disasters, No transfer from this fund shall occur without the express consent of the Edmonds City Council in the form of a budget appropriation, an authorizing ordinance or an expenditure authorized pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.33.080 and .090. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS727597.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 199 of 385 {WSS727597.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, 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, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2912, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.10 EMERGENCY RESERVE FINANCE FUND, 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 ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 200 of 385 AM-2523 2.K. Pancreatic Cancer Proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Proclamation in honor of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, November 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative More than 36,000 Americans will die of pancreatic cancer in 2009, 710 of whom live in Washington State. Pancreatic cancer will afflict more than 37,000 Americans this year, 75% of whom will die within one year of their diagnosis, and 95% of whom will die within five years. With no early detection methods and no cure available at this time, the number of people being diagnosed and lost to pancreatic cancer is rapidly rising. Unfortunately, there have been no significant improvements in early detection, treatment methods, or survival rates in the last 30 years. The Federal Government invests less money in pancreatic cancer research than it does in any of the other leading cancer killers (see attached chart). The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network is the first and only national patient advocacy organization that serves the pancreatic cancer community in Edmonds and nationwide by focusing its efforts on public policy, research funding, patient services, and public awareness and education related to developing effective treatments and a cure for pancreatic cancer. The Mayor urges everyone to increase their awareness of the disease and join in the effort to find a cure. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proclamation Link: Funding Chart Link: Cover Letter Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status Packet Page 201 of 385 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 09:50 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 10:11 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:13 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl  Started On: 10/01/2009 08:27 AM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 202 of 385 Packet Page 203 of 385 Research into Pancreatic Cancer, the 4th Leading Cancer Killer, continues to be the Least-Funded Among the Top 5 Cancer Killers Current federal funding levels for pancreatic cancer have rendered scientific progress for this disease fatally slow. Pancreatic cancer research is no more advanced than breast cancer research was in the 1930s – we have little understanding of the disease’s causes, no early detection methods, few effective treatments and dismal survival rates. Low Funding Precludes Scientific Progress 95% of pancreatic cancer patients die within 5 year of their diagnosis – a percentage that has remained largely unchanged for the last 30 years. Pancreatic Cancer Action Network National Headquarters | 2141 Rosecrans Ave. Suite 7000 | El Segundo, CA 90245 | Tel: 877.272.6226 Government Affairs Office | 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 600 South | Washington, DC 20004 | Ph: 202.742.6699 | Fx: 202.742.6518 www.pancan.org Packet Page 204 of 385 September 30, 2009 Dear Mayor Gary Haakenson, As your constituent, I am writing on behalf of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network and the more than 36,000 Americans who will die of pancreatic cancer in 2009, 710 of whom live in Washington State. Pancreatic cancer will afflict more than 37,000 Americans this year, 75% of whom will die within one year of their diagnosis, and 95% of whom will die within five years. With no early detection methods or cure available at this time, the number of people being diagnosed and lost to pancreatic cancer is rapidly rising. My personal story attests to this. In just the last five short years, I have lost my dearly beloved husband, Buck, three additional family members (no familiar genetic link), several friends and, currently have numerous friends fighting for quality & quantity of life as pancreatic cancer Survivors. Not only is pancreatic cancer the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States, it is the deadliest, with the lowest survival rate of any major cancer. Further, there has been little improvement in the survival rates over the last thirty years. We need your help to shine a spotlight on this disease and finally make progress in developing treatments and early detection tools. By issuing a Snohomish County proclamation supporting the observance of November as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, you can help us to raise awareness in our community. I have attached a draft of the proclamation text for your review. I am happy to provide additional official Pancreatic Cancer Action Network material, including pancreatic cancer facts and statistics and National Cancer Institute (NCI) funding information, upon request. Please contact me at 360-981-3409, or my email address at joanmabbutt@comcast.net with any questions. I look forward to working with you to issue a proclamation that will recognize November as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month and bring much needed attention to this deadly disease. If you willing to sponsor this proclamation, please send 3 copies to my address below. If possible, we would like to have your signed proclamation no later than October 15, 2009 so that we may feature it at our first Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Walk on November 1, 2009. Thank you for your interest in this important issue. Sincerely, Ms. Joan M. Mabbutt Edmonds, WA Education & Outreach Volunteer Coordinator Puget Sound Affiliate Pancreatic Cancer Action Network www.pancan.org Packet Page 205 of 385 AM-2516 3. Edmonds Business Story: Ruth Johnson-Pirie, Sweet and Swedish Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President D.J. Wilson Time:10 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Edmonds Business Story: Ruth Johnson-Pirie, Sweet and Swedish. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Ruth Johnson-Pirie, Sweet and Swedish, will be making a presentation. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 03:43 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/29/2009 03:48 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/29/2009 03:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman  Started On: 09/29/2009 09:52 AM Final Approval Date: 09/29/2009 Packet Page 206 of 385 AM-2529 4. Report on Fire District 1 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:30 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Report on Fire District 1: Brier Mayor Bob Colinas; Mountlake Terrace Mayor Jerry Smith; Mountlake Terrace Mayor Pro Tem Laura Sonmore; Mountlake Terrace City Manager John Caulfield. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information only. Previous Council Action Narrative Brier Mayor Bob Colinas, Mountlake Terrace Mayor Jerry Smith, Mountlake Terrace Mayor Pro Tem Laura Sonmore, and Mountlake Terrace City Manager John Caulfield will be present this evening to discuss Fire District 1. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:12 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 02:28 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:52 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 10/01/2009 02:08 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 207 of 385 AM-2532 5. Public Comment on the Fire District 1 Contract Offer Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Public comment on the Fire District 1 contract offer. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative This is an opportunity for the public to address the City Council regarding the Fire District 1 contract offer. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 03:35 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 03:37 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 03:39 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 10/01/2009 03:33 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 208 of 385 AM-2530 6. Initiative Measure 1033 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:20 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Consideration of whether to adopt a motion or resolution in support or opposition to Initiative Measure 1033. Public comments will be received both pro and con to the initiative. The ballot title for the initiative reads as follows: Initiative Measure No. 1033 concerns state, county and city revenue. This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Receive public comment both pro and con to the Initiative. Consider adoption of the attached proposed resolution. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The following documents are attached for consideration: Exhibit 1: Secretary of State / General Election Voters Guide Information on Initiative 1033 Exhibit 2: Analysis of Initiative 1033 prepared by Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines Exhibit 3: Spreadsheet Estimating Impacts of Initiative 1033 Exhibit 4: State of Washington Office of Financial Management Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 1033 Exhibit 5: Proposed Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Fiscal Impact Attachments Packet Page 209 of 385 Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Secretary of State General Election Voters Guide - Initiative 1033 Link: Exhibit 2 - L. Hines Analysis Link: Exhibit 3: Spreadsheet Estimating Impacts of Initiative 1033 Link: Exhibit 4: OFM Fiscal Impact Statement Link: Exhibit 5: Proposed Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/02/2009 11:19 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/02/2009 11:19 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/02/2009 11:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 10/01/2009 02:24 PM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2009 Packet Page 210 of 385 Elections Text Mode English | Español | 中文 Elections Menu 2009 General Election Voters' Guide Search Expand all State Measures View all Initiative Measure 1033 concerns state, county and city revenue Referendum Measure 71 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners Legislative Judicial Initiative Measure 1033 Initiative Measure No. 1033 concerns state, county and city revenue. This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Should this measure be enacted into law? [ ] Yes [ ] No The Official Ballot Title and the Explanatory Statement were written by the Attorney General as required by law. The Fiscal Impact Statement was written by the Office of Financial Management as required by law. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the content of arguments or statements (WAC 434-381-180). Fiscal Impact Statement Fiscal Impact through Calendar Year 2015 Initiative 1033 limits annual growth of state, city and county general fund revenue to the rate of inflation and population growth. General fund revenues exceeding this limit must be used to reduce the following year’s state, city or county general fund property tax levy. The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education; social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015. General Assumptions The initiative is set on a calendar year (CY) basis. CY 2010 revenue limit is calculated as follows: CY 2009 General Fund Revenue × (1 + 2009 % Change Population) × (1 + 2009 % Change Inflation) CY 2010 general fund revenues that exceed the CY 2010 revenue limit will be transferred into new “Lower Property Tax Accounts” for the state, counties and cities. The first transfer(s) into the new accounts will occur in CY 2011. The first property tax levy to be reduced by the initiative is the 2011 levy, which is collected in CY 2012. Thus, funds will be transferred from the new “Lower Property Tax Accounts” into state, county and city general funds in CY 2012 to account for any reduction in 2011 levies. State Revenue Estimate - Assumptions The initiative defines state general fund revenue as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees and other governmental charges received by state government that are deposited into any fund subject to the state’s expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025. For CY 2009 and CY 2010, state general fund revenues are General Fund – State revenue estimates from the June 2009 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council converted from a fiscal- year basis to a calendar-year basis. The following state revenue sources, totaling less than $30 million annually, have been excluded from these estimates: Sales and income from property. Contributions and grants. Grant and loan repayments. Indirect and prior cost recoveries. Unclaimed property. Charges for publications and documents. Interest and investment earnings. State general fund revenues for CYs 2011–15 are estimated to grow, on average, by the Ballot Title Full Text Packet Page 211 of 385 change in real per capita personal income plus change in inflation plus change in population, adjusted for revenue elasticity. This methodology is consistent with prior long-term revenue forecasts produced by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and results in an average annual growth rate of 4.8 percent. State general fund revenues are reduced by the amount required to be transferred into the Budget Stabilization Account created under Article 7, Section 12, of the Washington State Constitution. The initiative defines inflation as the annual percentage change in the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption for the United States as published on or about March 27 each calendar year by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and reported by OFM. Inflation estimates for CY 2009 and CY 2011 are from the June 2009 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast. Inflation estimates for CYs 2012–15 are from the June 2009 IHS Global Insight forecast of the Implicit Price Deflator for the United States. The Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council relies on IHS Global Insight models and data for the U.S. portion of the official state economic forecast. The initiative defines population growth as the percentage change in the statewide population based on the annual statewide population determinations reported by OFM during the prior calendar year and the current calendar year. Statewide population growth estimates are from OFM’s 30-Year Forecast of the State Population. Estimated STATE Cash Receipts: State Costs to Implement - Assumptions Less than $50,000 will be incurred by OFM in CY 2009 and CY 2010 to set up, test and verify computer systems, and establish policies and practices to implement a state general fund revenue limit County and City Revenue Estimate - Assumptions The initiative applies to counties, first class cities, second class cities, code cities, towns and unclassified cities. To account for possible different patterns in population and revenue growth, counties and cities were analyzed using four groupings: 1. Urban County – 7 counties 2. Rural County – 32 counties 3. Cities in Urban Counties – 109 cities and towns 4. Cities in Rural Counties – 172 cities and towns Urban counties are Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston; all others are rural counties. Under RCW 82.14.370, rural counties are defined as a county with a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile or a county smaller than 225 square miles as determined and published each year by OFM for the period July 1 to June 30. County and city general fund revenues are defined as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees and other governmental changes received by the county or city and deposited into the county current expense fund or city general fund, respectively. County and city revenues are estimated from 2007 financial information contained in the Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS) of the Washington State Auditor’s Office. Only funds reported within LGFRS as general fund revenues are assumed to be deposited into the county current expense fund or city general fund, and therefore, are included in these estimates. The following county and city revenue sources have been excluded from these estimates: Federal and state direct and indirect grants. State shared taxes or revenues. Charges for contracted services performed by counties or cities. Charges for enterprise activities or charges that are not governmental in nature. Inter-fund and inter-department charges. Interest and investment earnings. FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund - State 0 ($676,000, 000) ($875,000, 000) ($1,125,000, 000) ($1,447,000, 000) ($1,803,000, 000) Lower State Property Tax Account 0 $676,000, 000 $875,000, 000 $1,125,000, 000 $1,447,000, 000 $1,803,000, 000 Packet Page 212 of 385 County and city general fund revenue growth rates for CYs 2009–15 are related to the state’s revenue growth rate by estimating each grouping’s five-year historical rate of revenue growth in proportion to the state’s revenue growth rate of 4.8 percent. Inflation estimates for counties and cities are the same as used for the state. Population growth is defined as the percentage change in the countywide population for counties and the percentage change in citywide population in cities, as reported annually by OFM. County and city population growth is estimated from OFM’s 30-Year Forecast of the State Population, adjusted using OFM’s Washington State County Growth Management Population Projections: 2000-2030 and each grouping’s historic population growth rates. Estimated URBAN COUNTY Cash Receipts: Estimated RURAL COUNTY Cash Receipts: Estimated CITIES IN URBAN COUNTIES Cash Receipts: Estimated CITIES IN RURAL COUNTIES Cash Receipts: County and City Costs to Implement - Assumptions County and cities will incur indeterminate costs to implement the initiative during CY 2009 and FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Urban Counties 0 ($55,000, 000) ($70,000, 000) ($87,000, 000) ($111,000, 000) ($137,000, 000) Lower County Property Tax Accounts 0 $55,000,000 $70,000,000 $87,000,000 $111,000, 000 $137,000, 000 FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Rural Counties 0 ($24,000, 000) ($35,000, 000) ($46,000, 000) ($58,000, 000) ($72,000, 000) Lower County Property Tax Accounts 0 $24,000,000 $35,000,000 $46,000,000 $58,000,000 $72,000,000 FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Cities in Urban Counties 0 ($176,000, 000) ($257,000, 000) ($350,000, 000) ($463,000, 000) ($588,000, 000) Lower City Property Tax Accounts 0 $176,000, 000 $257,000, 000 $350,000, 000 $463,000, 000 $588,000, 000 FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Cities in Rural Counties 0 ($30,000, 000) ($42,000, 000) ($55,000, 000) ($72,000, 000) ($91,000, 000) Lower City Property Tax Accounts 0 $30,000, 000 $42,000, 000 $55,000, 000 $72,000, 000 $91,000, 000 Packet Page 213 of 385 CY 2010 to modify computer systems, establish policies and practices, train employees and respond to requests for public information. Costs will vary by jurisdiction and depend, in large part, on the jurisdiction’s ability to modify accounting systems to identify and track revenues subject to the general fund revenue limit. Explanatory Statement The Law as it Presently Exists State and local governments receive revenue through taxes and fees. Some of the rates for these taxes and fees are set by elected representatives in the state Legislature, or in the case of certain local taxes, by local city councils, county councils, or boards of county commissioners. Local taxes may be imposed only if they are authorized by state law. The rates for taxes paid to the State of Washington are set in statute by the Legislature. The voters may also enact laws regarding taxes by initiative or, if applicable, by referendum. Some local taxes can only be imposed if the local voters approve them. State law also permits the assessment of certain fees by state or local agencies, as authorized by the Legislature. The State deposits much of the revenue that it receives from taxes and fees into the state general fund and into accounts referred to by the law as “related funds.” Cities and counties place much of the revenue that they receive from taxes and fees into local “current expense funds.” These funds are similar in nature to the State’s general fund. State law limits spending from the State general fund and “related funds” to the prior year’s expenditures from those funds, increased by the average growth in state personal income for the prior ten years. The spending limit does not apply to city and county expenditures. The state constitution and state statutes limit the maximum amount of revenue that state and local governments may collect from property taxes in a given year, and the amount that property taxes may be increased each year. The state constitution generally limits the total of all annual property tax levies on a particular property to no more than 1% of its true and fair value, unless voters approve higher property taxes. In addition, by statute, the total amount of money that any state or local jurisdiction receives from property taxes may only increase by 1% per year, or the rate of inflation. Total property tax revenue for each jurisdiction can only go up by more than this amount if the voters of that jurisdiction approve the increase by a majority vote. Property taxes for particular parcels may increase or decrease by more or less than that amount, depending on changes in assessed valuation or new construction. Property taxes are levied by both state and local governments. Local property taxes are levied by cities, counties, and special districts, either by the elected representatives or through voter approval of specific property tax levies. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved This measure would limit the growth of revenue to the State’s general fund and “related funds,” and to cities’ and counties’ local “current expense funds,” based on an annual rate of inflation and population growth. If the State or any city or county receives revenue in a given year above the revenue limit established by the measure, then it must deposit the revenues above the limit into a separate account, and reduce the amount that it otherwise would be authorized to levy in property taxes in the following year by that amount. The limit on revenue growth would not apply to revenue increases approved by the voters at an election, and money received from the federal government would not be included in the State’s revenue limit. The inflation rate used to calculate the revenue growth limit would be based on the implicit price deflator for the United States. The limit on state general fund revenue also would be based on changes in statewide population, while for cities and counties it would be based on changes in population for each city and county. The revenue limit would be adjusted if the costs of any program or service are shifted to or from the state general fund or local current expense fund to another fund, or if revenue is transferred from the state general fund or local current expense fund to another fund. Statements For and Against Statement For Statement Against I-1033 Closes Loopholes the Legislature Put in Taxpayer Protection Initiative 601, Voter-Approved in 1993 In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved I-601, putting reasonable limits on government’s fiscal policies, establishing a sustainable rate for government to grow. I- 601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it, resulting in major deficits – $3.2 billion in 2003 – $9 billion in 2009. I-1033 reestablishes I-601’s same reasonable allowance for growth (inflation plus population growth) and includes a safety valve allowing higher increases with voter Eyman’s latest initiative is already a proven failure. Tim Eyman’s latest initiative uses the same failed formula as the “TABOR” law passed in Colorado, which led to deep cuts to public schools, roads and highways, and children’s health care. It did so much damage to the state’s economy that in 2005, Coloradans voted to suspend the law. I-1033 will make it harder for us to dig out of the recession. The national recession has cost our state thousands of jobs and forced billions in cutbacks to important local services, like Packet Page 214 of 385 approval. I-1033 gets government off the “fiscal roller coaster,” allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn’t outpace taxpayers’ ability to afford it. What Happens to Excess Tax Revenues that Government Collects Above I-1033's Limit? After a Fixed... …percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state’s crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn’t be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I- 1033 provides needed, long-overdue property tax relief. Opponents Want Higher Taxes and a State Income Tax - Opponents are Against Any Limits on... …government’s power to take as much as they want from taxpayers. Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I-1033 allows government to grow but at a rate citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I-1033 is needed now more than ever. Washington's the 8th Highest Taxed State in the Nation – I-1033 Keeps us from Hitting #1 I-1033 reminds politicians that taxpayers don’t have bottomless wallets. I-1033 puts a reasonable limit on the growth of government and provides plenty of flexibility (rainy day funds, federal funds, voter-approved revenues). Vote Yes. education and health care. I-1033 will force deeper cuts and lock them in for years – meaning more job losses, more hard times for Washington families, and a longer delay waiting for our economy to recover. More bad news for our communities and small businesses. I-1033 will make things harder than ever for local communities already struggling to maintain basic services such as road repair, libraries and public safety. Small businesses rely on those services, and oppose I-1033 because they will continue to suffer during a prolonged recession. More damage to our schools, and a deepening health care crisis. This year we’ve slashed school funding by $1.5 billion, and as many as 3,000 teachers and education employees are facing layoffs. The Eyman TABOR plan will take even more resources away from Washington’s classrooms – and Washington’s kids. Despite a growing senior population, funding for nursing homes, in-home care and adult day health services are being cut – and 40,000 Washington residents of all ages may lose their Basic Health Plan coverage. Eyman’s TABOR plan will make our health care crisis more severe. Times are tough enough already – let’s not make them worse. Vote NO on I-1033. Rebuttal of Statement Against Rebuttal of Statement For Washington has 16 years of positive experience with I-601 (Colorado’s totally different). Reestablishing I-601’s very successful policies helps government, taxpayers, and the economy. I-1033 provides fiscal discipline and flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter-approved / rainy day / federal funds for the state and except voter-approved funds for counties / cities. I-1033 gives control to citizens – if government wants bigger increases, they can ask taxpayers’ permission. Vote Yes. Initiative 1033 will hurt, not help, Washington’s senior citizens. That’s why AARP Washington and the Washington State Senior Citizens Lobby oppose I-1033. And Initiative 1033 will hurt, not help, working families. That’s why the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Washington State Labor Council, Washington Association of Churches, and many others oppose I-1033. As we try to recover from the worst recession in decades, Washington just can’t afford another Tim Eyman initiative. Vote NO on 1033. Statement Prepared By Statement Prepared By Erma Turner, beauty shop owner, gathered 3699 signatures, Cle Elum; Steven Bencze, retired warehouseman, fisherman/hunter, gathered 2568 signatures, Othello; Mike Dunmire, husband, community leader, retired businessman, initiative volunteer, Woodinville; Jack Fagan, retired policeman, retired navy, grandfather, campaign organizer, Spokane; Mike Fagan, small Doug Shadel, AARP Washington, State Director; Kelly Fox, Washington State Council of Fire Fighters, President; Laura Feshbach, Co-owner Harmatta Construction Inc, Seattle; Teri Nicholson, Registered Nurse, Valley Hospital and Medical Center, Spokane; Mary Lindquist, Washington Education Association, high school Social Studies teacher; Kelley Collen, Assistant Packet Page 215 of 385 Address Confidentiality | Apostilles | Archives | Charitable Trusts & Solicitations | Corporations | Digital Signatures Elections & Voting | International Trade | Library | Medals of Merit & Valor | News Releases | Oral History | Productivity Board State Flag | State Seal | Washington History businessman, community leader, father, campaign organizer, Spokane; Tim Eyman, $30 Car Tab Guy, Taxpayer Advocate, Yakima / Mukilteo. Contact: (425) 493-8707; http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com Economics Professor, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Contact: (206) 200-8969; http://www.no1033.com Washington Secretary of State 520 Union Ave SE PO Box 40229, Olympia WA 98504-0229 (360) 902-4180 Phone Numbers | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Packet Page 216 of 385 City of Edmonds I-1033 Fiscal Impact through Calendar Year 2015 Initiative 1033 limits annual growth of state, city and county general fund revenue to the rate of inflation and population growth. General Fund revenues exceeding this limit must be used to reduce the following year’s state, city or county General Fund property tax levy. The initiative reduces the City of Edmonds’ General Fund (Property Tax line) revenues that support general government activities by an estimated $2.046 million by 2015. Year Reduction in GF Revenues CY 2010 -$ CY 2011 530,817 CY 2012 531,527 CY 2013 361,957 CY 2014 320,467 CY 2015 300,885 2,045,653$ General Assumptions  The initiative is set on a calendar year (CY) basis.  CY 2010 revenue limit is calculated as follows: CY 2009 General Fund Revenue × (1 + 2009 % Change Population) × (1 + 2009 % Change Inflation)  CY 2010 general fund revenues that exceed the CY 2010 revenue limit will be transferred into new “Lower Property Tax Accounts” for the state, counties and cities. The first transfer(s) into the new accounts will occur in CY 2011.  The first property tax levy to be reduced by the initiative is the 2011 levy, which is collected in CY 2012. Thus, funds will be transferred from the new “Lower Property Tax Accounts” into state, county and city general funds in CY 2012 to account for any reduction in 2011 levies.  The Initiative allows for the removal of certain fund sources from the General Fund calculation. Given the short time frame to produce this analysis we included all GF revenues. We believe inclusion of these reductions will have only a minimal impact on the figures presented above. Source: Edmonds Finance Staff analysis State Of Washington, Office Of Financial Management, Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 1033 Spreadsheet shell is from the Association of Washington Cities Packet Page 217 of 385 Up d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 9 IP D ( M a r c h to M a r c h ) (N o t e 1 ) Po p u l a t i o n Gr o w t h Es t i m a t e * (N o t e 2 ) GF F o r e c a s t w/ o u t I - 1 0 3 3 (N o t e 3 ) Fo r e c a s t e d Gr o w t h i n G F Re v e n u e s * (N o t e 3 ) Pr o p e r t y T a x Le v y w / o u t "L o w e r C i t y Pr o p e r t y T a x Ac c o u n t " Tr a n s f e r * G ro w th i n P ro p Ta x w / o u t "L o w e r C i t y Pr o p e r t y T a x Ac c o u n t " Tr a n s f e r Es t i m a t e d * (N o t e 4 ) Es t i m a t e d Ac t u a l G F Re v e n u e s w / o u t Li m i t (N o t e 5 ) Ge n F u n d Re v e n u e w / L i m i t (N o t e 6 ) Lesser of GF Revenue Limit (J) or GF A ctuals growing at rate in column F (I)% Increase in Gen Fund Limit or Actual Revenues (Column K)Amount Over/Under Revenue Limit (I -J)Transfer to "Lower City Property Taxes Account" Property Tax After "Lower City Property Tax Account" Transfer (Note 7) CY 2 0 0 9 0. 5 0 % 0 . 3 4 % 3 3 , 5 2 5 , 9 8 0 9 . 5 9 % 1 3 , 9 3 0 , 1 7 4 3 3 , 5 2 5 , 9 8 0 3 3 , 5 2 5 , 9 8 0 3 3 , 5 2 5 , 9 8 0 1 3 , 9 3 0 , 1 7 4 CY 2 0 1 0 1 . 8 0 % 0. 5 5 % 3 4 , 3 3 8 , 9 8 5 2 . 4 3 % 1 4 , 0 7 9 , 0 6 5 1 . 0 7 % 3 4 , 3 3 8 , 9 8 5 3 3 , 8 0 8 , 1 6 8 3 3 , 8 0 8 , 1 6 8 0 . 8 4 % 5 3 0 , 8 1 7 0 1 4 , 0 7 9 , 0 6 5 CY 2 0 1 1 2 . 0 0 % 0. 5 5 % 3 5 , 1 5 0 , 0 7 2 2 . 3 6 % 1 4 , 2 7 9 , 0 7 3 1 . 4 2 % 3 5 , 1 3 7 , 5 3 4 3 4 , 6 0 6 , 0 0 7 3 4 , 6 0 6 , 0 0 7 2 . 3 6 % 5 3 1 , 5 2 7 5 3 0 , 8 1 7 1 3 , 7 4 8 , 2 5 6 CY 2 0 1 2 1 . 8 0 % 0. 5 5 % 3 5 , 8 7 8 , 0 3 0 2 . 0 7 % 1 4 , 4 7 3 , 5 8 8 1 . 3 6 % 3 5 , 8 5 4 , 2 2 4 3 5 , 4 9 2 , 2 6 7 3 5 , 4 9 2 , 2 6 7 2 . 5 6 % 3 6 1 , 9 5 7 5 3 1 , 5 2 7 1 3 , 9 4 2 , 0 6 1 CY 2 0 1 3 1 . 8 0 % 0. 5 5 % 3 6 , 6 8 2 , 7 7 4 2 . 2 4 % 1 4 , 7 1 3 , 7 4 8 1 . 6 6 % 3 6 , 6 5 0 , 3 1 6 3 6 , 3 2 9 , 8 4 9 3 6 , 3 2 9 , 8 4 9 2 . 3 6 % 3 2 0 , 4 6 7 3 6 1 , 9 5 7 1 4 , 3 5 1 , 7 9 0 CY 2 0 1 4 1 . 7 0 % 0. 5 5 % 3 7 , 5 2 8 , 6 7 9 2 . 3 1 % 1 4 , 9 6 3 , 8 2 7 1 . 7 0 % 3 7 , 4 8 8 , 0 8 2 3 7 , 1 8 7 , 1 9 7 3 7 , 1 8 7 , 1 9 7 2 . 3 6 % 3 0 0 , 8 8 5 3 2 0 , 4 6 7 1 4 , 6 4 3 , 3 6 0 CY 2 0 1 5 1 . 7 0 % 0 . 5 5 % 38 , 3 9 9 , 3 4 4 2 . 3 2 % 1 5 , 2 0 6 , 6 2 3 1 . 6 2 % 3 8 , 3 5 0 , 8 2 5 3 8 , 0 2 7 , 3 8 6 3 8 , 0 2 7 , 3 8 6 2 . 2 6 % 3 2 3 , 4 3 9 3 0 0 , 8 8 5 1 4 , 9 0 5 , 7 3 8 NO T E S * S h a d e d c e l l s s h o u l d b e f i l l e d o u t b y j u r i s d i c t i o n de p e n d i n g u p o n l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s a n d f o r e c a s t s (1 ) I P D e s t i m a t e s f o r C Y 2 0 0 9 - C Y 2 0 1 1 a r e f r o m t h e J u n e 2 0 0 9 W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e E c o n o m i c a n d r e v e n u e F o r e c a s t . I n f l a t i o n e s t i m a t e s f o r C Y s 2 0 1 2 - 1 5 a r e f r o m t h e J u n e 2 0 0 9 H I S G l o b a l I n s i g h t f o r e c a s t ( O F M ) (2 ) P o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h e s t i m a t e s p r o v i d e d a r e b a s e d o n O F M ' s f o r e c a s t e d p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e s f o r c i t i e s i n u r b a n c o u n t i e s ; c i t i e s s h o u l d r e p l a c e w i t h o w n e s t i m a t e s (6 ) C Y 2 0 1 0 r e v e n u e l i m i t c a l c u l a t e d a s : C Y 2 0 0 9 G F R E V X ( 1 + 2 0 0 9 % C h a n g e P o p ) X ( 1 + 2 0 0 9 % C h a n g e I P D ) ; C Y 2 0 1 1 a n d s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s l i m i t c a l c u l a t e d a s : C Y 2 0 1 0 G F R E V - t r a n s f e r X ( 1 + 2 0 1 0 % C h a n g e P o p ) X ( 1 + 20 1 0 % C h a n g e I P D ) (5 ) C Y 2 0 1 0 r e v e n u e c a l c u l a t e d a s : ( C Y 2 0 0 9 G F R E V X G F f o r e c a s t e d g r o w t h ) + C Y 2 0 0 9 G F R E V ; C Y 2 0 1 1 a n d s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s c a l c u l a t e d a s ( ( C Y 2 0 1 0 G F R E V - t r a n s f e r t o L o w e r C i t y P r o p e r t y T a x A c c o u n t ) X % G F f o r e c a s t e d gr o w t h ) + C Y 2 0 1 0 G F R E V ; F o r s i m p l i c i t y t h e s a m e f o r e c a s t e d g r o w t h r a t e i s a s s u m e d w i t h o r w i t h o u t p a s s a g e o f I - 1 0 3 3 . Ci t y o f E d m o n d s (3 ) G e n e r a l f u n d r e v e n u e s a n d r e v e n u e g r o w t h s h o u l d r e f l e c t c u r r e n t f o r e c a s t s w i t h o u t I - 1 0 3 3 As s u m p t i o n s o u t l i n e d b y t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f W a s h i n g t o n C i t i e s ( s e e m o r e o n a s s u m p t i o n s b e l o w ) (7 ) L o w e r C i t y P r o p e r t y T a x e s A c c o u n t i s a p p l i e d t o p r e v i o u s y e a r ' s f u l l l e v y , r e f l e c t i n g a n y l i m i t f a c t o r i n c r e a s e ( p l u s n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n / i m p r o v e m e n t s , a n n e x a t i o n , e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n w i n d t u r b i n e f a c i l i t i e s a n d s t a t e - a s s e s s e d p r o p e r t y ) . Re f l e c t s t h e a m o u n t o f t h e l e v y s e t f o r c o l l e c t i o n i n f o l l o w i n g y e a r ES T I M A T I N G I M P A C T S O F I N I T I A T I V E 1 0 3 3 (4 ) G r o w t h s h o u l d r e f l e c t a n t i c i p a t e d c o u n c i l m a n i c i n c r e a s e s p l u s i n c r e a s e s d u e t o n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n / i m p r o v e m e n t s , a n n e x a t i o n , e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n w i n d t u r b i n e f a c i l i t i e s a n d s t a t e - a s s e s s e d p r o p e r t y Pa c k e t Pa g e 21 8 of 38 5 GE N E R A L AS S U M P T AW C AD D I T I O N AL On c e y o u r c i t y h a s e s t i m a t e d t h e i m p a c t s o f I - 1 0 3 3 , p l e a s e f o r w a r d t h i s s p r e a d s h e e t t o A l i c i a S e e g e r s M a r t i n e l l i , a l i c i a m @ a w c n e t . o r g , t o b e i n c l u d e d o n o u r w e b s i t e . In t e r - f u n d a n d i n t e r - d e p a r t m e n t c h a r g e s Fi r s t p r o p e r t y t a x l e v y t o b e r e d u c e d i s l e v y s e t i n C Y 2 0 1 1 f o r C Y 2 0 1 2 c o l l e c t i o n Us i n g t h e a s s u m p t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n O f f i c e o f F i n a n c i a l M a n a g e m e n t ’ s f i s c a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t , i n a d d i t i o n t o s o m e o f o u r o w n , A W C h a s d e v e l o p e d t h i s s p r e a d s h e e t t h a t c i t i e s c a n u s e t o e s t i m a t e t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ’ s i m p a c t s . I n bu i l d i n g t h i s s p r e a d s h e e t , A W C w o r k e d w i t h a g r o u p o f f i n a n c e d i r e c t o r s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e l a n g u a g e i n I - 1 0 3 3 a n d t e s t t h e m o d e l . Ci t i e s s h o u l d n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r O F M n o r A W C i s a r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c y , a n d t h i s i m p a c t m o d e l o u t l i n e s a s s u m p t i o n s f o r e s t i m a t i n g f i s c a l i m p a c t s o n l y . I t d o e s n o t s e r v e a s a n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n g u i d e s h o u l d t h e i n i t i a t i v e p a s s . T h e i m p a c t mo d e l i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e c i t i e s w i t h a n i d e a o f t h e m a g n i t u d e o f c h a n g e u n d e r t h e i n i t i a t i v e , r a t h e r t h a n a s p e c i f i c d o l l a r a m o u n t . Ge n e r a l f u n d r e v e n u e s d e f i n e d a s t a x e s , f e e s a n d o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l c h a r g e s . R e v e n u e s c o d e d f o r t h e g e n e r a l f u n d i n t h e B A R S c h a r t o f a c c o u n t i n c l u d e d , e x c l u d i n g the following categories: In t e r e s t a n d i n v e s t m e n t e a r n i n g s CY 2 0 1 0 G F r e v e n u e s e x c e e d i n g C Y 2 0 1 0 r e v e n u e l i m i t a r e t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o " L o w e r C i t y P r o p e r t y T a x A c c o u n t " CY 2 0 1 0 r e v e n u e l i m i t c a l c u l a t e d a s : C Y 2 0 0 9 G F R E V X ( 1 + 2 0 0 9 % C h a n g e P o p ) X ( 1 + 2 0 0 9 % C h a n g e I P D ) Fi r s t t r a n s f e r t o t h e " L o w e r C i t y P r o p e r t y T a x A c c o u n t " t a k e s p l a c e i n C Y 2 0 1 1 Fe d e r a l a n d s t a t e d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t g r a n t s St a t e s h a r e d t a x e s o r r e v e n u e s Ch a r g e s f o r c o n t r a c t e d s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d Ch a r g e s f o r e n t e r p r i s e a c t i v i t i e s o r c h a r g e s t h a t a r e n o t g o v e r n m e n t a l i n n a t u r e Pa c k e t Pa g e 21 9 of 38 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Insurance Building, P.O. Box 43113 Olympia, Washington 98504- 3113 ·(360) 902- 0555 1 Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 1033 As sent to the Office of the Secretary of State, August 10, 2009 Fiscal Impact through Calendar Year 2015 Initiative 1033 limits annual growth of state, city and county general fund revenue to the rate of inflation and population growth. General fund revenues exceeding this limit must be used to reduce the following year’s state, city or county general fund property tax levy. The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education; social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015. General Assumptions •The initiative is set on a calendar year (CY) basis. •CY 2010 revenue limit is calculated as follows: CY 2009 General Fund Revenue × (1 + 2009 % Change Population) × (1 + 2009 % Change Inflation) •CY 2010 general fund revenues that exceed the CY 2010 revenue limit will be transferred into new “Lower Property Tax Accounts” for the state, counties and cities. The first transfer(s) into the new accounts will occur in CY 2011. •The first property tax levy to be reduced by the initiative is the 2011 levy, which is collected in CY 2012. Thus, funds will be transferred from the new “Lower Property Tax Accounts” into state, county and city general funds in CY 2012 to account for any reduction in 2011 levies. State Revenue Estimate – Assumptions •The initiative defines state general fund revenue as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees and other governmental charges received by state government that are deposited into any fund subject to the state’s expenditure limit under RCW 43.135.025. For CY 2009 and CY 2010, state general fund revenues are General Fund – State revenue estimates from the June 2009 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council converted from a fiscal-year basis to a calendar-year basis. Packet Page 220 of 385 2 •The following state revenue sources, totaling less than $30 million annually, have been excluded from these estimates: o Sales and income from property. o Contributions and grants. o Grant and loan repayments. o Indirect and prior cost recoveries. o Unclaimed property. o Charges for publications and documents. o Interest and investment earnings. •State general fund revenues for CYs 2011–15 are estimated to grow, on average, by the change in real per capita personal income plus change in inflation plus change in population, adjusted for revenue elasticity. This methodology is consistent with prior long-term revenue forecasts produced by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and results in an average annual growth rate of 4.8 percent. •State general fund revenues are reduced by the amount required to be transferred into the Budget Stabilization Account created under Article 7, Section 12, of the Washington State Constitution. •The initiative defines inflation as the annual percentage change in the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption for the United States as published on or about March 27 each calendar year by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and reported by OFM. Inflation estimates for CY 2009 and CY 2011 are from the June 2009 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast. Inflation estimates for CYs 2012–15 are from the June 2009 IHS Global Insight forecast of the Implicit Price Deflator for the United States. The Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council relies on IHS Global Insight models and data for the U.S. portion of the official state economic forecast. •The initiative defines population growth as the percentage change in the statewide population based on the annual statewide population determinations reported by OFM during the prior calendar year and the current calendar year. Statewide population growth estimates are from OFM’s 30-Year Forecast of the State Population. Estimated STATE Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund - State 0 ($676,000,000) ($875,000,000) ($1,125,000,000) ($1,447,000,000) ($1,803,000,000) Lower State Property Tax Account 0 $676,000,000 $875,000,000 $1,125,000,000 $1,447,000,000 $1,803,000,000 State Costs to Implement – Assumptions Less than $50,000 will be incurred by OFM in CY 2009 and CY 2010 to set up, test and verify computer systems, and establish policies and practices to implement a state general fund revenue limit. County and City Revenue Estimate – Assumptions •The initiative applies to counties, first class cities, second class cities, code cities, towns and unclassified cities. Packet Page 221 of 385 3 •To account for possible different patterns in population and revenue growth, counties and cities were analyzed using four groupings: 1. Urban County – 7 counties 2. Rural County – 32 counties 3. Cities in Urban Counties – 109 cities and towns 4. Cities in Rural Counties – 172 cities and towns Urban counties are Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston; all others are rural counties. Under RCW 82.14.370, rural counties are defined as a county with a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile or a county smaller than 225 square miles as determined and published each year by OFM for the period July 1 to June 30. County and city general fund revenues are defined as the aggregate of revenue from taxes, fees and other governmental charges received by the county or city and deposited into the county current expense fund or city general fund, respectively. County and city revenues are estimated from 2007 financial information contained in the Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS) of the Washington State Auditor’s Office. Only funds reported within LGFRS as general fund revenues are assumed to be deposited into the county current expense fund or city general fund, and therefore, are included in these estimates. •The following county and city revenue sources have been excluded from these estimates: o Federal and state direct and indirect grants. o State shared taxes or revenues. o Charges for contracted services performed by counties or cities. o Charges for enterprise activities or charges that are not governmental in nature. o Inter-fund and inter-department charges. o Interest and investment earnings. •County and city general fund revenue growth rates for CYs 2009–15 are related to the state’s revenue growth rate by estimating each grouping’s five-year historical rate of revenue growth in proportion to the state’s revenue growth rate of 4.8 percent. •Inflation estimates for counties and cities are the same as used for the state. •Population growth is defined as the percentage change in the countywide population for counties and the percentage change in citywide population in cities, as reported annually by OFM. County and city population growth is estimated from OFM’s 30-Year Forecast of the State Population, adjusted using OFM’s Washington State County Growth Management Population Projections: 2000-2030 and each grouping’s historic population growth rates. Estimated URBAN COUNTY Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Urban Counties 0 ($55,000,000) ($70,000,000) ($87,000,000) ($111,000,000) ($137,000,000) Lower County Property Tax Accounts 0 $55,000,000 $70,000,000 $87,000,000 $111,000,000 $137,000,000 Packet Page 222 of 385 4 Estimated RURAL COUNTY Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Rural Counties 0 ($24,000,000) ($35,000,000) ($46,000,000) ($58,000,000) ($72,000,000) Lower County Property Tax Accounts 0 $24,000,000 $35,000,000 $46,000,000 $58,000,000 $72,000,000 Estimated CITIES IN URBAN COUNTIES Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Cities in Urban Counties 0 ($176,000,000) ($257,000,000) ($350,000,000) ($463,000,000) ($588,000,000) Lower City Property Tax Accounts 0 $176,000,000 $257,000,000 $350,000,000 $463,000,000 $588,000,000 Estimated CITIES IN RURAL COUNTIES Cash Receipts: FUND CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 General Fund – Cities in Rural Counties 0 ($30,000,000) ($42,000,000) ($55,000,000) ($72,000,000) ($91,000,000) Lower City Property Tax Accounts 0 $30,000,000 $42,000,000 $55,000,000 $72,000,000 $91,000,000 County and City Costs to Implement – Assumptions County and cities will incur indeterminate costs to implement the initiative during CY 2009 and CY 2010 to modify computer systems, establish policies and practices, train employees and respond to requests for public information. Costs will vary by jurisdiction and depend, in large part, on the jurisdiction’s ability to modify accounting systems to identify and track revenues subject to the general fund revenue limit. Packet Page 223 of 385 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 9/30/09 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DECLARING ITS OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 1033. WHEREAS, Initiative 1033, also known as I-1033, would limit the growth of state, county and local general fund revenue to amount from the previous year, plus inflation, with adjustments for population growth, except where voters and WHEREAS, given the low amounts of general fund revenue in 2008 from drops in sales tax receipts, as well as B & O tax receipts in other jurisdictions, as Edmonds comes out of the recession, I-1033 would require the Edmonds City Council to cut property taxes to offset growth in our sales tax, and WHEREAS, because of the difficulty in raising new revenue by vote, I-1033 would effectively make permanent the cuts the City of Edmonds has had to make, and WHEREAS, the rate of growth in costs for providing city services often exceeds the rate of inflation, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Council opposes Initiative 1033 in the strongest terms. Section 2. The City Council directs staff to develop a “Fact Sheet” on I-1033, which also conveys the Council’s opposition to I-1033, to be distributed by mail to each home of {WSS744007.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 224 of 385 {WSS744007.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2009. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 225 of 385 AM-2527 7. Creation of a New Mixed Use Zoning Classifiation for Firdale Village Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:30 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Continued public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to approve the creation of a new mixed use zoning classification for Firdale Village to implement the Comprehensive Plan. (File No. AMD-2008-10 / Applicant: Shapiro Architects) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption. Previous Council Action A public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2009. A scheduled continuation of the hearing was postponed from September 1 to October 6, 2009, due to technical difficulties on that meeting night. The City Council adopted updated Comprehensive Plan guidance for the Firdale Village neighborhood center in 2006. Narrative This is a follow-up public hearing on a proposal by A. D. Shapiro Architects, representing the owners of the Firdale commercial center, to create a new mixed use zoning classification to implement the direction of the Comprehensive Plan for the Firdale Village neighborhood center. The proponents have developed a zoning classification and design standards proposal that could be applied to the Firdale Neighborhood Commercial area to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The City approved a comprehensive plan amendment providing a new direction for the Firdale Neighborhood Commercial area, but has not yet followed up with implementing zoning changes. If approved, the proponents would have to follow up by making an application for a specific rezone proposal to actually change the zoning of the property in order to set the stage for a future project. The proposal adds a new zoning classification to Chapter 16. As a proposed code amendment, this is a legislative proposal which is at the discretion of the Council to approve, modify, or deny. The Planning Board recommended that the Council approve the proposed code change. The proposal has been updated in response to comments at the July 21st public hearing; the current draft of the zoning chapter is contained in Exhibit 1, with the design standards included in Exhibit 2. Mr. Shapiro will summarize the updates during the October 6th meeting. Packet Page 226 of 385 Please refer to the material from July 21, 2009, for the full background on this proposal. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Firdale Zoning Criteria Link: Exhibit 2: Design Standards Link: Exhibit 3: City Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:52 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 02:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 03:31 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave  Started On: 10/01/2009 01:50 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 227 of 385 1 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS Firdale Village Mixed Use Zoning Criteria September 30, 2009 16.100.000 Introduction 16.100.010 Purposes 16.100.020 Sub-Districts 16.100.030 Uses 16.100.040 Site Development Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16.100.000 Introduction General Intent and Project Vision The design vision for Firdale Village is to create a vibrant neighborhood village form of development that strikes a balance between commercial, retail and residential uses and contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and area. The project is intended to support a variety of commercial and retail uses along with multi-family residential in an environment that is accessible to the pedestrian, visitor, tenant, motorist and public transit user. 16.100.010 Purposes The Firdale Village Mixed-Use zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. To reserve and regulate areas for a ‘neighborhood center’ type of mixed-use development that includes a mix of commercial and multi- residential housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single family residential zone; B. To promote a mix of residential, commercial and other uses in a manner that is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, (i.e.: 25% of heated floor area shall be “commercial” space). C. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. Packet Page 228 of 385 2 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS D. The Codes contained within this Chapter are to be used in conjunction with the Firdale Village Design Standards in Chapter 22.100.000 ECDC. 16.100.020 Sub-Districts See Figure B for location of Districts on the site. A. District 1 – Commercial: The primarily commercial uses will be located in this district, which is located closer to Firdale Avenue and oriented to the street. The flexibility for each is written into the table, but not called out in the “mini-description”. B. District 2 – Commercial/Multi-Family Residential: Multi-family residential uses will be located more towards sides and rear of the site, behind the commercial uses, with possible commercial functions on the ground level. 16.100.030 Uses A. Table 16.100.030-1 Permitted Uses Dist 1 Com- mercial Dist 2 Multi- Family Residential Uses Single-family dwelling X X Multiple dwelling unit(s) X A Housing for low-income elderly and senior housing X A Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A Offices, (2nd floor or higher than retail space in the same building) A A Service uses including professional service offices, health clinics A A Retail uses include grocery stores, pharmacy/ drug stores and bookstores. A E Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X Restaurants (excluding drive-through) A A Packet Page 229 of 385 3 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS Dist 1 Com Dist 2 MF Pubs, taverns or bars A X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, shoe repair, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A E Automobile sales and service X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and non- explosive cleaning agents C E Printing, publishing and binding establishments C C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A Bus stop shelters A X Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A E Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B Commercial parking lots A C Wholesale uses X X Hotels and motels A A Amusement establishments C X Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions X X Drive-in businesses X X Laboratories X X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X Day-care centers C C Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A E Packet Page 230 of 385 4 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS Dist 1 Com Dist 2 MF Retail stores larger than 12,000 GSF X X Residential treatment facilities for alcoholics and drug abusers X X Light Industrial X X Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit E = Permitted primary use on ground level floor only X = Not permitted 16.100.040 Development Standards A. Development Standards – General Development Requirements can be summarized as follows: A minimum of 25% of the heated space of the overall development shall be in commercial and/or retail space usage. See District Map figure B B. Building Scale and Building Height 1. Intent: In order to provide a consistency of architectural scale for different sections of the development: The more commercial/retail area closer to Firdale Avenue shall be lower in scale than the multi-family buildings oriented to the rear of the site. Building Height: a. District 1: Commercial/Office/Retail: One (1) – three (3) stories, (lowest floor to be 12’ flr. to flr. min.), Minimum height: 20 feet; Maximum height 39 feet. Commercial and Office are not permitted on the ground level floor of the building. b. District 2: Multi-family Residential: Maximum -- 4 stories, with conditions. (See subparagraph b.(1) below. Maximum height: 48 feet base height, for four stories, with possibility of an additional 4 feet, (to allow for variation in rooflines, for a maximum bldg. height of 52’. Elev. Shaft enclosures can exceed this height only to meet bldg code. Packet Page 231 of 385 5 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS Guard railings required by and compliant with the State Building Code on roof decks can exceed the maximum roof height. – See subparagraph b(2) below) (1) A fourth story may be allowed in District 2, for multi- family uses, if the project integrates green design methods and technologies throughout the project. The project must achieve at least a 4-star level of the Built Green of Washington program or a LEED gold certification, or equivalent. See also ECDC Design Standards 22.100.090. (2) Building height may extend four feet above the 48 foot height limit if all portions of the building above the stated height are modulated in design, or are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar forms. Vertical parapet walls are not allowed to protrude above the 48 foot height limit unless they are part of an approved modulated design. For examples of permissible forms, see figures C1, C2, C3, C3, and C4. (3) Ground floor residential in District 2 shall be higher than the public sidewalk/way by a minimum of 3’, or accessed through a residential courtyard to segregate it from the public way. 3. Elevator shaft and/or /Stairway penthouse shafts may extend above the maximum building height by 5 feet, when compliant with building code criteria. 4. Mechanical equipment may extend above this base building height a maximum of five feet (5’). C. Parking Standards 1. Minimum Spaces Required a. Commercial including office, retail and restaurant uses: Minimum: Provide one space for every 400 SF. Twenty five percent (25%), of parking places designated for office space must also be shared with multi-family residential uses, and shall be easily accessible to multi- family residential units. b. Multi-Family Uses: Minimum: Provide 1.5 spaces per unit. Additional parking for residential units shall be provided in a shared parking area for office/commercial and residential. c. For Guest parking, provide 1 space for every ten (10) units or 0.10 spaces for every unit as a minimum. Packet Page 232 of 385 6 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS 2. For shared parking arrangements, a binding covenant in readable format describing terms of the shared parking arrangement shall be required between the property management companies/owners of the residential and commercial uses describing the joint use of the parking areas, and shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. D. Site Setbacks See Diagram 16.100.040 D-1 below for illustration of setbacks, buffers and related notes. Setback distances refer to areas above ground. Underground structures can be within the setback area as long so long as adequate soil depth is provided to support the existence of trees and vegetation, provided however, that no below ground structure may extend into or under the 20’ setback at the north property line. 1. Minimum side setbacks are 15 feet. 2. The minimum setback on the northern boundary of the site is 20 feet. The required setback shall be landscaped and designed to provide a buffer to adjoining R-zoned property. 3. Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential (RS) zoned property, the proposed development shall also modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residentially (RS) zoned property. See Design Standards for additional information. 4. SW Corner Setbacks: District 1 shall extend to street property line with no setback, and setback from the west property line by 15’. District 2 shall be setback on a per floor basis, with the second floor setback from the street property line by 30’, and west property line by 35’. Third floor setback shall be 55’ from the street property line and 35’ from the west property line. All floors shall be revert to minimum setback from the west property line of 15’ when 80’ from the street property line and greater. E. Open Space 1. Design Intent: The project shall include a comprehensive open space network that uses courtyard(s) and other open space elements to connect the residential and commercial uses. 2. Open Space Requirements: Minimum open space requirement for the development: Shall be 20% of the overall site area. The minimum open space requirement may include setback areas, all developed pedestrian areas including landscaped walkways, plazas, courtyards and other passive open spaces in the commercial area. The calculation may also include public open space for the residential uses. The calculation shall not include parking areas, driveways, or service areas. Packet Page 233 of 385 7 Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria A.D. Shapiro Architects PS F. Design Standards For more descriptive information on Design Standards and guidelines, please see ECDC Chapter 22.100. Packet Page 234 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 1 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Firdale Village Site Design Standards Index 22.100.000 Applicability and Goals 22.100.010 Site Design and Planning 22.100.020 Architectural Design 22.100.030 Pedestrian Orientation, Outdoor Spaces & Amenities 22.100.040 Vehicular Access and Parking 22.100.050 Site Landscaping & Screening Elements 22.100.060 Signage 22.100.070 Site Lighting 22.100.080 Safety Issues 22.100.090 Sustainable Design Aerial view of existing Firdale Village site. Packet Page 235 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 2 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 22.100.000 Applicability and Goals A. Applicability The design standards in this chapter apply to all development within the Firdale Village MU zone, including the sub-districts contained within the larger zone. The Design Standards use imperative language such as “shall” and “must” to indicate high priority features and a strong directive toward satisfying the ‘Standards’ intent. Words such as “should” and “may” indicate desirable conditions or elements that are strongly encouraged. B . Goals and Intent The Design Standards will help to shape a neighborhood village form of development, a place of complementary uses within an aesthetically attractive, easily accessible and economically healthy environment. The guidelines and standards will be used to create an attractive, inviting environment for residential and commercial uses, with an emphasis on the needs of the pedestrian, including the needs of senior citizens, youths and physically challenged persons, but that is also accessible for vehicles. Development shall be located to facilitate transit and non-motorized travel modes. On-site facilities that are convenient and attractive to pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are encouraged. The development will be designed to include the following uses, and will also evolve and change over time: Retail shops and stores, professional offices, restaurants, services, multi- residential and community related outdoor areas and facilities. C. Project Vision 1. Scale and Form -- The vision for Firdale Village is the creation of a vibrant neighborhood village development that demonstrates a balance between commercial, retail and residential uses and contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and area. The project is intended to create an environment that is accessible and inviting to the pedestrian, visitor, tenant, motorist and public transit user. The project can also be an important example of a more sustainable form of development, one that incorporates sustainable design strategies and methods in many aspects of the project, from site design, construction to long term water and energy efficiency. New development shall include pedestrian amenities that bring residents and customers to the development, including local shopping, services, Deleted: should Deleted: ¶ Deleted: should Packet Page 236 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 3 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS offices, specialty retail, restaurants, and other related uses. Outdoor spaces shall function as social settings for a variety of experiences, while maintaining a human scale and ability for easy pedestrian circulation. 22.100 .010 Site Design and Planning A. Intent 1. The project design shall respond to special opportunities and constraints of the site, including solar orientation, changes in topography, preservation of existing trees as buffer, and opportunities for low impact site design. 2. The project design shall take advantage of the southern solar orientation for multi-family residential orientation and outdoor courtyards as well as designing adequate usable open space and landscaped areas in both private residential and commercial sub-districts. The project should also respond to other local climatic and ecological context by incorporating the site’s natural systems including significant trees, hydrology and geology into design solutions. 3. In general, the designer shall consider the site design as a whole in helping to create an inviting environment for residents, tenants and visitors. In order to clarify possibilities for sustainable design, goals for sustainability and green technologies shall be set in the initial stages of project design. B. Site Features 1. Pedestrian Orientation. The project shall include a pedestrian orientation with public amenities, such as buildings with ground floor orientation to the streetscape and public spaces, pedestrian walkways, street trees, attractive landscaping, outdoor areas with seating and other amenities, and places for gathering. Additional amenities in public spaces such as fountains, sculpture or other forms of art are highly encouraged. (See Pedestrian Orientation section for more description). The use of materials, color, texture, form and massing, proportion, public amenities, landscaping and vegetation along with mitigation of environmental impacts, shall be incorporated in the design of the project with the purpose of supporting a human scale, pedestrian-oriented development. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 237 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 4 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 2. Tree Retention -- The project site plan shall retain the existing stand of evergreen trees at the north end of the site, to help serve as a buffer between the new buildings and the residential parcels bordering the project. Illustration depicting existing large trees on the site that act as buffer on north boundary of the site. C. Open Space – Design Intent: The project shall include a comprehensive open space network that uses courtyards and other open space elements to connect the residential and commercial uses. 1. The design and layout of required plazas, courtyards and other public gathering spaces shall contribute to the overall sense of place and help attract pedestrian users to the development. Large storefront windows, overhead metal canopy , lush landscaping and attention to detail help to create a strong pedestrian orientation. Deleted: should Packet Page 238 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 5 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS The project shall be designed in such a way to allow some views into the public plazas and open space from Firdale Avenue, to help create an inviting and welcoming ambiance from outside the development. It is important to achieve a balance between creating inviting, usable public spaces and buffering noise and other traffic issues from Firdale Avenue. A more transparent configuration, that allows views from the street into the development, will also help create an inviting ambiance and make visible the pedestrian friendly character of the development 2. Open Space Requirements: Minimum open space requirement for the development: 20% of total site area. The minimum open space requirement may include all developed pedestrian areas including landscaped walkways, existing setback landscaping, plazas, courtyards and other passive open spaces in the commercial area. The calculation may also include open space for the residential uses. The calculation shall not include parking areas, driveways, or service areas. 3.. Residential Open Space: Residential Development shall include private open space or outdoor areas for residents. These areas shall be configured and designed so as to ensure privacy for residential uses while also providing linkages to the public open space components of the project. Seating areas shall be provided as an important part of the usable open spaces, and coordinated with landscaping, shaded areas, lighting and orientation to focal points. 22.100 .020 Architectural Design A. Design Intent To create a unified design concept for the project that reflects the neighborhood village form of development, while allowing for some individual expression of each building. The massing, layout and individual design of each building shall be compatible with the architectural design of its on site neighboring buildings, yet complement the neighborhood village character. In general, all aspects of the project, from landscaped open spaces to project signage should be well-designed and coordinated with the project as a whole. 1. Scale. The designers shall consider how the structure and site development will be viewed from the street and adjacent properties. Scale is not simply the size of the buildings, it is the proportion of buildings in relationship to each other, to the street and to the pedestrian environment. Because of the bowl-like topography, the larger scale buildings will be Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 239 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 6 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS toward the side and rear of the site, with lower scale commercial buildings toward Firdale Avenue. 2. Form and Style. The objectives and standards do not set a particular style of architecture or design theme. The style and site design shall be pedestrian in scale and address design features such as distinctive building shapes; incorporation of a number of design elements on building facades, with particular focus on ground floor, integration of art; interesting textures and patterns; treatment of public spaces; landscaping; and signage. Building forms shall not present visual mass or bulk impacts that are out of proportion to the adjoining structures, or that appear from the street or sidewalk as having unmodulated visual mass or bulk. Building additions should complement the original structure in design Mixed-use development with variation in scale and height. Variety of retail facades, along with interesting storefronts creates visual interest at the ground level. B. Architectural Character 1. Building Siting and Orientation a. Where feasible, primary commercial buildings shall be oriented to the street frontage to enliven the street edge as well as to maximize access from the public sidewalk. Because not all of the commercial space will be oriented towards Firdale Avenue, primary entrances may also be oriented to side streets or towards a rear courtyard as the site design warrants. b. All visible building frontages and ground floor commercial spaces shall be detailed with architectural elements. (See Building Facades, below). Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 240 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 7 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS c. Commercial uses are located towards the front of the site, with orientation towards Firdale Avenue. Residential uses are located towards the rear of the site to allow for greater privacy and buffering from street noise and activity. 2. Building Articulation a. In order to prevent long stretches of monotonous facades, buildings over 100 feet in length as measured parallel to a roadway or public open space shall be vertically articulated along the façade at regular intervals. b. Articulation may be accomplished in several ways, including: Modulation – the stepping back of projection of a portion of the façade, including significant building elements such as balconies, porches, canopies, entry areas, etc. that visually break up the façade. Articulation can also be accomplished through adding building focal points which include distinctive entry features, changing the roofline and changing materials. Mixed-Use Building with modulation of façade along with emphasis on development of ground floor retail uses. 3. Building Facades a. Objectives. Building facades should be designed with a variety of architectural elements that suggest the buildings’ use and provide visual interest to residents and pedestrians. Special focus shall be given to mass, scale roof forms and landscaping, with special attention to the ground floor of retail and commercial buildings. b. Street-facing and major Façade Elements: All major mixed-use, commercial and/or retail buildings within the development shall include decorative light Deleted: should Packet Page 241 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 8 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS fixtures, and decorative paving, and at least five (5) of the following elements on the major facades, with at least five (5) elements on the ground floor. (1) Window and doors treatments which embellish the façade. (2) Unique façade treatment, such as decorative materials and design elements. (3) Recessed entrances. (4) Balconies. (5) Railings, grill work, gates (6) Unique landscaping. (7) Belt courses. (8) Decorative tile work. (9) Projecting metal and glass canopy (10) Clearstories over storefront windows. Building façade with emphasis on development of ground floor – with attention to building entry and other attractive façade detail including iron grill balconies above. Deleted: six Deleted: 6 Deleted: (3)Decorative light fixtures. ¶ (4)Decorative paving.¶ Packet Page 242 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 9 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Use of high quality materials and decorative building details including exterior lighting and grill work add interest. Retail façade with emphasis on the ground floor and entry. Architectural detail includes large windows in storefront, large glass entry door, recessed Mixed-use building with large scale storefront windows helps to maximize transparency at ground level. Metal canopy, use of durable materials and lighting adds to visual interest. Packet Page 243 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 10 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS entry, arched windows above, contrasting stone outlining entry, structural canopy above entry, large sign integrated into building façade, hanging blade sign to the left, and landscaped planters in front. c. Walls Blank walls without visual or architectural interest shall be avoided. Buildings shall provide massing breaks along wall expanses and walls shall include visual or architectural treatments. Walls facing the sidewalk or other pedestrian spaces should be treated with recesses, landscaping, windows, seating, recessed secondary entrances, balconies, belt courses, cornices, and other means of breaking up the blank wall surface. d. Ground Floor Windows and Doors Major commercial buildings should have at least 75 percent of the length of the ground floor façade between the height of two feet and seven feet devoted to windows and doors affording views into retail, office or lobby space. e. Transparent Facades Major commercial building facades shall have a high degree of transparency into the first floor offices/retail to help create a more inviting ambiance. See section d. above on Ground Floor Windows and Doors. Deleted: should Packet Page 244 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 11 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Building with large storefront windows, overhead canopy and large street trees f. Upper Story Facades Upper stories of buildings above two stories should maintain an expression line along the façade such as a setback, change of material, or a projection to reduce the perceived building mass. Upper-story features shall include but are not limited to balconies, roof decks, or bay windows. g. Long Buildings Long buildings, more than 50 feet in length, shall provide relief to perceived building mass through such features as varied setback or heights, or projecting windows, entrances or walls. Long linear walls should be staggered horizontally and vertically to provide interest. h. Entrances Building entrances should concentrate along the sidewalk and should be physically and visually inviting. Entrance doors should be recessed from the façade surface to emphasize the Storefront design with a high degree of transparency from walkway or sidewalk. Deleted: should Packet Page 245 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 12 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS entrance and provide a sheltered transition to the interior of the building. Special paving treatments may be used to enhance the entry. i. Pedestrian walkways Pedestrian walkways should be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide, and be landscaped appropriately. Wheelchair ramps shall be constructed between the sidewalk and building entrances. j Building Facades Oriented towards Residential Areas. Building facades facing north towards the single family residential areas shall be designed to include elements to create an interesting architectural expression as opposed to blank walls. Elements shall include those associated with multi-family residences such as balconies, roof decks, or bay windows, along with modulation of building facades. . 4. Materials and Color a. Objectives: The buildings should include textured high quality materials and colors and provide a visually interesting experience. Color shall be carefully considered in relation to the overall project design. Color and materials should highlight architectural elements such as doors, windows, fascias, cornices, lintels, sills and pedestrian amenities. b. Development and Design Standards: Building Exteriors: shall be constructed from high quality and durable materials, that will require minimal maintenance. Color: A harmonious range of colors shall be used on all buildings. Bright colors shall be used only for trim and accents. 22.100.030 Pedestrian Orientation, Outdoor Spaces & Amenities A. Design Intent: The project should incorporate a network of well designed, attractive pedestrian spaces throughout the project. The commercial area will feature various sizes of public spaces, completed with outdoor furnishings and amenities to help create a safe, inviting environment for visitors and residents. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 246 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 13 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS B. Pedestrian Connections 1. Attractive well-marked pedestrian links between parking and buildings shall be provided. The connections shall be designed to enhance pedestrian safety through clearly marked walkways across traffic lanes, landscaped areas and parking lots. 2. Where walkways cross driveways and traffic lanes, special features shall be used to increase safety for pedestrians. Potential features include raised or textured pavement to define the pedestrian space, raised curbs, curb extensions or low-level lighting such as bollard lights. 3. Pedestrian connections shall be provided between buildings with special focus on connections between residential and commercial areas. 4. Pedestrian connections shall include design cues to help demarcate the transition between public and private spaces. Design cues may include a change in materials, colors, landscaping or the dimensions of the space. 5. Illumination of walkways shall be concentrated along the pedestrian paths leading to parking areas and in the specific areas where cars are parked. 6. Walkways shall be landscaped where feasible. 7. The project shall include at least one pedestrian pathway through the parking area(s) to the main entrance from the street. C. Pedestrian Amenities -- Commercial and public areas: 1. Pedestrian amenities such as street trees, landscaping, and seasonal flowers, benches, lighting, banners and possibly artwork shall be provided to create interest along walkways, courtyards and other pedestrian oriented spaces. Amenities including street trees, planted areas, canopies, wide sidewalks and street furniture emphasize the pedestrian orientation of the project. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 247 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 14 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 2. All public open spaces, walkways, and sidewalks shall meet ADA standards. 3. The addition of texture to the ground plane of sidewalks and plazas with unit pavers, bricks, tiles or public artwork is strongly encouraged. 4. Safe public walkways around and through parking areas shall be provided as an important part of the site layout and design. (See B1-6 above). 5. Awnings, arcades, pergolas, and/or overhangs shall be provided to protect pedestrians from inclement weather whenever possible. 6. Pedestrian amenities and detailing of site furniture, lighting, paving, and site amenities shall be consistent throughout the development to help create a recognizable identity and image. 7. Separate areas should be provided for active and passive activities. 8. Residential buildings shall provide an easily accessible gathering space for building occupants and their guests. Examples include an upper level or roof-top patio area or an at-grade courtyard. D. Pedestrian Oriented Spaces 1. Mixed-use areas shall emphasize pedestrian orientation by incorporating features such as plazas, interior walkways, outdoor courtyards, outdoor seating areas, fountains, outdoor street furniture and other similar elements. 2. Outdoor Spaces A variety of outdoor spaces shall be provided, including patios, courtyards, plazas and other landscaped open spaces, which shall be proportionate in size to the development. a. Courtyards: (1) An outdoor covered or uncovered area easily accessible to the public at the same level as the public sidewalk or pedestrian connections which should: Be at least 8 feet in width, with a building façade on at least one side; and minimum area of 100 SF. Be landscaped with groundcover, shrubs, trees or other landscaping over 25% of its area. The design should include seating, special paving material, pedestrian-scale lighting and other pedestrian furnishings; b. Plazas, Squares and other open spaces Public plazas and other gathering areas shall be provided to encourage community activity in open spaces, particularly at the edges that relate to building openings, natural features, or activities. Public plazas and gathering areas shall be of Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 248 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 15 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS sufficient size to encourage passive gathering activity and permit permanent/temporary seating and shall incorporate other elements as described: (1) There shall be pedestrian linkages leading to and from the plazas to natural features and other pedestrian paths. (2) A plaza shall have an articulated edge (buildings, benches, landscaping, etc.) where feasible to provide visual interest and additional seating along the edges of the plaza where people may linger out of the pedestrian traffic flow. (3) Amenities shall be provided such as seating, lighting, plants, drinking fountains, distinctive paving, art work, bicycle racks or structures (either open or covered); and such focal points as a sculpture or water feature. a) Plaza Amenities: -- Minimum quantity of amenities for Plazas shall include four (4) main elements of the following: (a) Pedestrian oriented seating; (b) Permanent Landscaping elements including planting beds, large potted plants and other landscaping elements that add visual interest; (c) Outdoor lighting element; (other than walkway lighting for safety), (d) Outdoor artwork or sculptures; (e) Outdoor fountains; (f) Information kiosks; (g) Trash Receptacles; b) Plaza Amenities -- Additional elements that can be included above the minimum elements listed above: (a) Decorative clocks, (b) Special paving patterns/ or tree grates; (c) Bicycle racks; (d) Other amenities that meet the intent of providing high-quality, pedestrian oriented usable space. (4) Pedestrian furniture for plazas, courtyards, walkways and other public spaces shall be made of durable, weather- resistant materials and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. (5) The quantity, type, placement and location of amenity elements shall contribute to a well-balanced mix of features that provide attractive, inviting, usable outdoor spaces. (6) Color, form and texture are integral to the overall design of the plaza. Design of the plaza shall incorporate some soft Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 249 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 16 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS as well as hard surface areas (landscaped and special pavement areas). Courtyard space surrounding fountain with artwork, street furniture, trees and potted plants. c. Configuration and Linking of Outdoor Spaces. Where possible, smaller outdoor spaces, including courtyards and plazas shall be designed to be adjacent to another outdoor space to increase the size and usability of outdoor spaces. Packet Page 250 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 17 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Where possible, several outdoor spaces shall be linked to help create a mini-park or usable outdoor space, complete with landscaping, planters, pedestrian oriented furnishings and other amenities. The intention is to provide both usable smaller outdoor spaces, and larger plazas that can help to provide a larger, more park-like open space or public square that can be utilized for outdoor event, gatherings or community type market. l Open area between buildings can be designed as usable outdoor space. Small courtyard outside restaurant, separated from adjacent open space by a low wall/fountain. Deleted: should Packet Page 251 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 18 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Small courtyard created by Narrow courtyard for dining area recessed area in building. can be created adjacent to restaurant. Open space courtyard adjacent to storefronts with fountain, seating stones, artwork and landscaping. d. Residential Balconies and Decks Upper story decks, and balconies as private open space shall also be incorporated for residential use. Balconies shall be appropriately scaled and incorporated into the overall design of the building. The designer shall consider environmental conditions such as sun, shade, and prevailing winds when designing outdoor spaces including courtyards, decks, balconies other usable open spaces. E. Dedicated Public Meeting Space Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 252 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 19 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS The project should provide a public meeting room of not less than 500 SF, with at least one wall with windows to the outside, within the commercial section of the project. Preferably, the room should be located adjacent to a courtyard or other usable public outdoor spaces or plazas, so as to be easily located and accessible to the public. The property manager/owner should provide access to the room on a reservation basis, and provide custodial service for the space on a regular basis. A restaurant or coffee shop may provide such a meeting room adjacent to a primary dining room as an amenity, and may determine rules of access and reservation of the space. 22.100.040 Vehicular Access and Parking A. Parking Layout and Design 1. Parking should be located on the sides, to the rear of projects or below grade with pedestrian connections between the parking areas and the commercial and/or residential buildings. 2. Building siting and parking design shall maximize opportunities for pedestrian and vehicular circulation between adjacent buildings or subdistricts, such as joint access easements and common driveways. The layout shall limit the conflict between pedestrians and cars to the greatest extent possible. B. Access Drives Building siting and parking design shall maximize opportunities for shared parking, access entries and driveways in order to minimize the number of curb cuts. This will help to limit possible conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles entering and leaving the parking area. C. Vehicular Entrances and Driveways The site plan shall allow maximum of three (3) access points from Firdale Avenue to the project. 22.100.050 Site Landscaping & Screening Elements A. General Landscaping Site landscaping shall be designed to achieve the project vision as described in Section A. Trees and landscaping shall be incorporated into the site design in order to provide a more attractive overall pedestrian oriented environment and to soften and screen the visual impact of hard surfaces Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 253 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 20 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS such as parking lots, service areas, walkways and gathering places. Outdoor furniture shall be compatible with the project architecture and shall be carefully considered as integral elements of the landscape. The combination of trees, planted areas, potted plants, and street furniture all work together to create an inviting, walkable environment. 1. A range of landscape materials, trees, evergreen shrubs, groundcovers and seasonal flowers shall be provided for color and visual interest. 2. Trees should be placed to allow southern sun exposure in such a manner as not to conflict with pedestrian activity areas. (For this reason trees with a fine leaf texture are also preferred in the plaza.) 3. Planters or large pots with small shrubs and seasonal flowers may also be used to separate café seating from traffic flow and create protected sub-areas within the plaza for sitting and people watching. 4. Creative use of plant materials such as climbing vines or trellises, and use of sculpture groupings, etc. are also encouraged. 5. Native and drought tolerant plants shall be used where possible. A minimum of 20% of all landscaped areas should include native drought tolerant plants. 6. Sun angle at noon and wind pattern shall be considered in the design of the open space and courtyards to maximize sunlight areas. 7. Recommended materials include: brick, concrete, unit pavers, tile, stone and wood (some seating). 8. No dumpsters or service areas shall be adjacent to open space. 9. Public restrooms should be located nearby in an accessible public space. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 254 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 21 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Various forms of landscaping, including trees, planted areas, hanging plants, trellises and uses of potted plants, site lighting, help to create an inviting and attractive ambiance within the development. B. Landscaping – Parking Lots 1. Parking areas shall be screened from pedestrian-oriented areas through the use of trees, shrubs, walls and/or trellis structures with plants. 2. Parking lots shall provide landscaping next to buildings and along walkways. Landscape beds within parking lots shall have a 90% ground coverage in five years. 3. Parking areas shall have one tree per every 10 parking stalls. C. Screening Elements Intent: To minimize the negative visual impacts of service and storage elements (ie. waste receptacles, loading docks), to the street and pedestrian environment. A well-designed landscape plan will help to provide walkable connections and usable open space throughout the project. Deleted: should Packet Page 255 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 22 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 1. On-site Service Areas. All on-site service areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas, garbage collection and recycling areas shall be located in an area not visible from public streets or important pedestrian areas of the site. These areas shall be enclosed and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence at least seven feet high. Service areas should be located and designed for easy access by service vehicles and for convenient access by each tenant. 2. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts of the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements should generally by concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use. 3. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, meters and similar structures and other similar elements shall be located so as not be visible from the street, public open space, parking areas, or from the ground level of adjacent properties. Screening features shall blend with the adjacent buildings and project as a whole. 22.100.060 Signage A. Design Intent: To encourage signage that is clear, attractive and of an appropriate scale for the project. To provide consistent design criteria for the entire project. To enhance the visual qualities of signage through the use of complementary sizes, colors and methods of illumination. To provide signage guidelines that meet commercial tenant needs. General Signage Types of signage fall into several categories: Tenant Signs (large and small), Site Entry Markers and Identification Signs, Wayfinding signage, and Environmental Graphic Design Elements B. Design Standards 1. Signage must be of a high quality of design and materials, consistent with the design of the project. Signage shall be consistent throughou t the project and always complement a building’s character. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 256 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 23 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 2. Signage shall be designed as an integral element of the building’s Architecture. Wall and blade signs shall not interfere with Architectural details or disrupt the rhythm of windows. 3.. Signage shall make a positive contribution to the overall visual character of the streetscape. Signs shall be appropriately sized with the scale of the building. Materials and colors used in the construction of signs shall be compatible with the overall design of the site. Retail entry with hanging blade signs to left of entry. Storefront exhibits strong pedestrian orientation and attention to detail including: recessed entry door, glass storefront, arched element over entry door, contrasting materials of storefront, structural canopy and landscape planters in front. 4. Signs may be fabricated of mixed-media, including metal reverse- illuminated letters, suspended neon letters, illuminated individual letters, signs etched or cutout of solid materials such as wood or brass and illuminated from behind. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 257 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 24 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Mixed media sign above door. Retail sign with large individual letters above canopy. 5. Internally illuminated boxes with formed or painted lettering are not permitted. Large internally illuminated boxes that serve as monument signs are not permitted. 6. Instead, larger signs of wood or other non-transparent or translucent material are allowed that have exterior sources of illumination (as opposed to internal). Monument signs constructed from plastic or plastic-like material are not allowed. However, monument signs that provide primary development identification (project name) constructed from materials such as wood, metal or other durable materials are allowed. Monument sign on pedestal Ground level monument sign constructed of solid materials 7. ‘Way finding signage.’ The project shall include a coordinated system of signs to aid in visitor orientation and navigation through the project. Packet Page 258 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 25 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 22.100.070 Site Lighting A. Objectives. Lighting shall be an integral part of all components of the development. Lighting shall contribute to the individuality, security and safety of the site design without having overpowering effects on the adjacent areas. Lighting is viewed as an important feature, for functional and security purposes, as well as to enhance the streetscape and public spaces. 1. The design of light fixtures and their structural support shall be integrated with the architectural theme and style of the main structures on the site, and with landscaping. 2. Pedestrian scale lighting (maximum 15’ height) and/or bollard lighting shall be used to define pedestrian walkways, connections and other pedestrian areas within the development. Deleted: should Packet Page 259 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 26 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Decorative pedestrian scale lighting along walkway Light fixture with hanging plants in near parking lots. front of storefront. 3. Along walkways, low level lighting that directs light downward onto the ground surface is encouraged. The design of the fixtures shall be compatible with the overall design of the development, and shatterproof lamp coverings will be used. The fixtures will be placed to minimize glare and shall be located as to not present hazards for pedestrians or vehicles. 4. All lighting shall be shielded from the sky and adjacent properties and structures, either through exterior shields or through optics within the fixture. Light shall not spill out onto surrounding properties or project above the horizontal plan. Warm lighting colors are encouraged. 5. Within parking lots, a minimum foot candle of (1.0) at the perimeter of light sources and between light sources, and 5.0 under light fixtures is recommended. Light shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles at any property line. 6. Wall mounted lights shall be directed downward. Soffit mounted light fixtures shall be recessed in the soffit or otherwise fully shielded from any property line. Ground mounted or other upward directional lighting will be permitted only where some form of shielding or light baffling is provided to create a soft, uniform light quality and minimize light spillage beyond the wall or sign being illuminated. Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 260 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 27 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 22.100.080 Safety Issues A. Intent: Visitors and residents should find that the development provides the best possible design to protect their personal safety and safety of their property. The development shall consider safety issues in all aspects of design, with particular focus on safety of pedestrians within the development as well as links to transit and outside access to the development. B. Standards: 1. Architectural features should be used to provide weather protection and shade, well as highlight building features and entries. 2. Landscaping and lighting shall be used to identify entrances, pathways, public spaces and bus stops. 3. Lighting shall contribute to the overall safety of the development, and landscaping should incorporate safe-by-design standards. 4. Covered bus stops and waiting areas shall be included to provide pedestrians with outdoor areas sheltered from extreme weather conditions. 22.100.90 Sustainable Design A. Incentive. In exchange for allowing four-story buildings for the multi-residential portion of the project, the development would be required to meet the requirements for at least a 4-star rating of the Built Green of Washington program, or the LEED Gold Standard, with integration of sustainable design methods and technologies throughout the project. If the project does not include four-story buildings in the multi-family sub- district, then the project must meet the requirement for at least a 3-star rating of the Built Green of Washington program. Particular focus will be given to low-impact site design strategies, water efficiency and energy efficiency methodologies. Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Deleted: should Packet Page 261 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 28 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS B. Design Goals for Project Incorporate goals for integration of sustainability at earliest stages of design process possible. Decide on projected levels of achievement for the project – For example: The project will achieve at least a 4- star level of the Built Green of Washington program 1. Site Design and Water Use The proposed development will integrate low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bio swales, green roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not render the use of low impact techniques unreasonable or unfeasible. Additional techniques for strong consideration: Rainwater harvesting – for use in site irrigation and possibly toilet flushing for commercial uses. Utilization of water efficient fixtures throughout the project. 2. Energy Resources Increase efficiency by maximizing equipment efficiency and using control strategies. Design to reduce energy and electricity consumption and eliminate unnecessary demand. Include use of alternative energy resources wherever possible. 3. Material Resources Plan for long term use by designing for adaptability, specifying durable materials and considering energy and maintenance needs. elect resource efficient and recycled materials where possible, that minimize environmental impact. Utilize wood from sustainable sources. Encourage recycling of waste with easy access recycling stations and pick-up areas. Manage construction demolition and waste with a jobsite recycling plan. Packet Page 262 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 29 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 4. Health and Indoor Air Quality Utilize multiple strategies to limit emissions from materials Select low VOC and non-toxic materials, paints and finishes. Pay special attention to residential units in selection of finishes and paints for low or no toxicity. Sustainable stormwater mitigation and site drainage system Definitions This section will provide clarification of some of the specific terminology used within the guidelines. Courtyard: A landscaped spaced enclosed on at least three sides by a structure(s). Curb Cut: A depression in the curb for the purpose of accommodating a driveway that provides vehicular access between private property and the street (or ADA/bike crossing at street corners). Façade: Any vertical exterior wall of a building. Possible use of green roofs and other innovative hli Packet Page 263 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 30 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Frontage: Refers to the length of property along a public street or right-of- way. Landscaping: An area is considered to be landscaped if it is: Planted with vegetation in the form of hardy trees, shrubs, or Grass or evergreen groundcover maintained in good condition; or occupied by sculpture, fountains, pools, benches, or other Outdoor furnishings; or Occupied by recreational facilities; or Paved with decorative pavers, brick combined with any of the above items. Modulation: As used in the Design Guidelines, modulation is a stepping back, or projecting forward of portions of a building face within specified intervals of building width and depth, as a means of breaking up the apparent bulk of a structure’s continuous exterior walls. Pedestrian-Oriented Façade: A building façade is considered “pedestrian-oriented” if it features any of the following characteristics: A transparent window along at least 75 percent of the ground floor between the height of two feet and eight feet above the ground. Frontage along a pedestrian-oriented space. Pedestrian-Oriented Space: An area between a building and a public space that promotes visual and pedestrian access to the site and provides pedestrian oriented amenities and landscaping to enhance the public’s use of the space for passive activities such as sitting, reading, picnicking, etc. A “pedestrian-oriented” space must have: Visual and pedestrian access into the site from the public right of way; Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; On-site or building-mounted lighting; Seating comprised of at two feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.), or one individual seat per 60 SF of plaza area or open space. A “pedestrian-oriented” space is encouraged to have: Site furniture, amenities such as fountains, kiosk, artwork, and landscaping that does not act as a visual barrier. Packet Page 264 of 385 Firdale Village Site -- Design Standards -- 31 A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS Human Scale: The perceived size of a building relative to a human being. A building is considered to have “good human scale” if there is an expression of human activity or use that indicates the building’s size. For example, traditionally sized doors, windows, and balconies are elements that respond to the size of the human body, and therefore are elements in a building that indicate a building’s overall size. Vertical Articulation: Visual division of a building’s façade into distinct sections or elements to reduce the apparent horizontal length of the façade. Packet Page 265 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 13 if challenges destroyed a quorum of the Council, Councilmembers were returned to the quorum; challenges could not be used to prevent the Council from making a decision. It was the consensus of the Council to make Mr. Snyder’s memorandum regarding Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and Prejudgmental Bias to Pending Rezone Application available to the public. Councilmember Wambolt asked the difference between a site specific rezone and a spot rezone. Mr. Snyder advised a rezone was an area-wide rezone. An example of an area-wide rezone was the neighborhood near Stevens Hospital to change the zoning designation of dozens of parcels. He explained a spot rezone referred to designating one piece of property differently than the surrounding zone. A site specific rezone is a request to make a change to a specific property. The Comprehensive Plan designations are broad and several zoning categories may fit within a Comprehensive Plan designation. Mayor Haakenson asked whether he could say whatever he wanted. Mr. Snyder answered yes but depending on what he said, he may need to step down as the chair of the meeting. Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mayor Haakenson could break a tie. Mr. Snyder responded the Mayor was unable to vote on any matter that required the passage of an ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a Councilmember could send Mr. Snyder potential phrases they were contemplating in a campaign to ensure they were appropriate. Mr. Snyder answered no because he was paid by the City. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CREATION OF A NEW MIXED USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR FIRDALE VILLAGE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. AMD-2008-10 / APPLICANT: SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was an application by Shapiro Architects representing the owner of the Firdale Village commercial property. They are seeking a new zoning classification in the Development Code that would implement the Comprehensive Plan and apply to the Firdale commercial center that is identified in the Comprehensive Plan. He clarified this was a legislative proposal for Council consideration. The applicant received unanimous favorable support from the Planning Board. Tony Shapiro, Shapiro Architects, commented this was an example of a spot zone because it was specific to the Firdale Village site although the zoning language was general and would not be applied until the zone were approved and created. Another approval process would be required to apply the zone to this site. Mr. Shapiro displayed an aerial photograph identifying the approximate property lines of the site, explaining development on the property was outdated, originally developed in the 1960s. He identified the two existing access points, easements across the site to adjacent properties, and significant grade change from the southwest to the northeast corner of the site. The goals of the property owner are to rezone the property in the most general and flexible manner while establishing constraints on development that would provide the City and neighbors assurance that new development would comply with Comprehensive Plan goals and have attributes that were beneficial to an urban center. He displayed a wider view aerial photograph, identifying structures and roadways in the surrounding area. He explained Firdale Village was located within a residential area with one large apartment complex nearby and surrounded by single family housing. Mr. Shapiro displayed a Comprehensive Plan map that identified the designation for the Firdale Village site and the surrounding area. The site is currently zoned BN, an outdated zone that staff has expressed interest in phasing out. The property owners decided to rewrite the zoning ordinance themselves because the City did not have the budget or time to create an appropriate zone. They worked closely with planning staff in developing the zone language, met twice with neighbors and met several times with the Planning Board, culminating in the Planning Board’s unanimous support on April 22, 2009. Packet Page 266 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 14 Mr. Shapiro displayed and reviewed the existing language for the BN zone including primary and secondary allowed uses. He pointed out secondary uses in the BN zone limit the property to one dwelling unit per lot. The site has seven lots and creating a mixed use with seven units is not economically feasible. He reviewed the Comprehensive Plan language for Firdale Village that refers to an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village” pedestrian-oriented environment, commercial spaces oriented toward the street in order to maximize visibility, parking behind or underneath structures, four stories in height, design that breaks up the mass and bulk of buildings and a mix of uses of not less than one quarter commercial space. He advised this proposal was more complex than a Master Plan that established exact development. The property owner plans to offer the property to a developer who would implement the zoning language. The proposed language was intended to be flexible enough to accommodate an assisted/extended care facility on the upper floors with commercial on the lower floors or a general mixed use project. The intent was for the zoning language to be as flexible as possible while giving assurance that it would be a positive development. He envisioned a Neighborhood Village Design with mixed use building types, ground floor retail with commercial office or residential above, retail uses closer to the primary street, parking below or behind the retail building. Their proposed zoning criteria establish a commercial zone against Firdale Avenue with residential on the back side of the property. In addition to the significant grade change from the northeast to the southwest corners of the site, there are significant stands of fir trees on the north property line. He referred to a proposed 20-foot setback along the north property line to retain the trees. He displayed a sketch of the site, identifying the trees inside and outside the 20-foot setback and the existing rockery on the north property line. He advised a stormwater line and sanitary sewer line that run through the site would need to be relocated. The proposed zoning criteria mandates below grade parking to achieve a high density build-out. He anticipated a maximum of 160 units on the site and 60,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Shapiro displayed sketches illustrating trees as buffer between the project and residential, existing houses on adjacent property, trees outside the setback subject to removal, and existing Firdale Village building proposed to be removed. He displayed a sketch illustrating the location of the proposed zone districts, a commercial lower height (39 feet) zone in District 1 and residential above commercial and higher heights in District 2. He identified an area between the districts that could be either District 1 or District 2 to provide flexibility. He displayed drawings illustrating the possible location of buildings via a massing study, cautioning they were for discussion purposes only. He commented on access points to the site, advising no traffic analysis had been conducted at this time. In response to concern by the Planning Board regarding the proximity of the commercial building on the west property line to the existing residence with a 15-foot setback, the height of the building was restricted to 2 stories at the rear toward the residence and stepping up to 4 stories at the front. He displayed several sketches from the massing study illustrating the possible location and height of buildings. He briefly commented on design standards for the site that address site design and planning, architectural design, pedestrian orientation, outdoor spaces and amenities, vehicular access and parking, site landscaping and screening elements, signage, site lighting, safety issues and sustainable design. He remarked the criteria requires 20% open space which he acknowledged may be difficult to achieve. Council President Wilson asked if traffic signals would be required. Mr. Shapiro stated they may be appropriate at the intersection to the south where Firdale Avenue becomes 205th. Council President Wilson inquired about the feasibility of open space if there were three access points to the site. Mr. Shapiro commented service access would likely be at the western entrance and the mid-access point may be only for emergency access. Council President Wilson expressed concern there many not be enough space on the site to incorporate all the good things that are proposed. He referred to the definitions that indicate “will” and “shall” were directives and “should” were nice-to-have items, pointing out there were few “shall” or “will” in the document compared to “should” and “maybe” in the language. He understood the owner’s interest in maximum flexibility but as the process moved forward he was interested in changing many of the “should” to “will” or “shall.” Mr. Shapiro Packet Page 267 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 15 noted there were many “shall” in the document including the 20% open space. Council President Wilson commended the language that required the development to achieve at least a four star level of the Build Green Washington program or LEED gold standard certification. Mr. Shapiro indicated they were open to discussion of any components the Council wanted changed from “should” to “shall.” Council President Wilson referred to the ultimate height limit in the residential district, 4 stories, 48 feet plus a modulated roof of 4 feet, plus 5 feet for mechanical equipment and an additional 10 feet on top of the maximum. Mr. Shapiro clarified 52 feet was the maximum building height. The additional 10 feet would be for an elevator shaft. He suggested the language be changed to 10 feet above the base roof line. Councilmember Orvis asked why the step-back adjacent to the residence on the west was not proposed adjacent to the remainder of the single family residential development. Mr. Shapiro responded a 20-foot setback was proposed in the other areas; an additional step-back would make the building uneconomical. He pointed out the significant number of fir trees that would be retained along the north property line. Councilmember Bernheim referred to the gold LEED standard certification and other green building incentives, concluding the buildings would be constructed in a more sustainable manner. Mr. Shapiro agreed. Councilmember Bernheim commented many of the massing diagrams illustrate a squarish building; he asked if they would be interested in maximum floor area standards with a flexible height standard in lieu of strict height limits and open space requirements. Mr. Shapiro responded the Comprehensive Plan restricts heights to 4 stories. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the impact of additional traffic from development. Mr. Shapiro advised an in-depth traffic study had not been done because it would be difficult to assess the traffic impacts at this point in the process. That would be addressed at the time a development proposal was made. Councilmember Bernheim concluded there would be a huge impact on the roadway. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for lower parking standards and inquired what parking standards were proposed. Mr. Shapiro answered retail was typically 5 stalls per 1000 square feet of retail; they proposed 1 space per 400 square feet of retail. Their residential parking ratio was 1.5 spaces per unit. They also envisioned shared parking due to mixed use. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained if the zone were approved, the applicant would need to apply for a rezone. A traffic study, SEPA, etc. would occur at that point. He commented a floor area ratio approach was appropriate for a flat site in close proximity to single family development; this proposal uses the buffer to soften the impact on the surrounding residential and a floor area type approach such as step-backs in areas where the tree buffer did not exist. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council received an email from Roger Mithen, Edmonds, with several concerns regarding the project. Lora Petso, Edmonds, requested the Council take advantage of Mr. Shapiro’s offer to do more work on the proposal and urged the Council not to approve the zone tonight. The proposal did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan which requires a minimum of ¼ commercial space; there was no requirement in the zoning ordinance to implement that Comprehensive Plan goal. Without that requirement, it would be a multi family residential zone with a 62-foot height limit rather than a mixed use development. She urged the Council not to allow increased density until the failed intersection at 244th & Highway 99 was addressed. She recalled that intersection was declared failed at least eight years ago. She recommended both districts be mixed use; under the current proposal, District 2 has possible commercial on the ground floor. She pointed out 15 feet was not enough setback between commercial and residential development for a 62-foot building. Rather than approve an illegal spot zone, she urged the Council to update the Neighborhood Business Zone so that it could be applied Packet Page 268 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 16 to similar neighborhood business zones. She was opposed to reducing the parking ratios, advising many residents would walk to the site in good weather but would drive in poor weather. David Page, Edmonds, commented this project and the levy were defining moments for Edmonds. He favored a compromise that would allow this project to proceed. He remarked the passage of the levy would illustrate that Edmonds was moving toward a more cosmopolitan type of town rather than a village. He pointed out the Planning Board, comprised of professionals, was in favor of this project. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern the proposal did not indicate the total cost of the project. He recognized the City recently increased their permit fees which would be applicable to this project. Tamara Ancona, Shoreline, whose residence overlooks the site, stated the parking requirements for an assisted living facility would be significantly less than typical residential because most of the residents did not drive. David Thorpe, Edmonds, recalled a presentation in the past regarding a proposed project at 220th & Hwy. 99 that had not materialized. He expressed concern that having Mr. Shapiro represent the property owner was like the fox guarding the hen house. He noted this highlighted the inability to collect revenue; there should be staff and citizens involved in these proposals. He commented on limited public involvement in this process. He pointed out there were several neighborhood centers that could be redeveloped, recalling staff meetings in the past to discuss development at 5 Corners. He was opposed to a site specific rezone when there was zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations in place. With regard to Mr. Shapiro’s interest in a flexible zoning classification that allowed the developer more flexibility; he urged the City to ensure its interests were considered. He acknowledged development needed to occur but favored having more City involvement. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Petso’s reference to the failure of the 244th & Hwy. 99 intersection. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss answered it was a highway of statewide significance and the intersection was under Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) jurisdiction and did not have to meet the City’s level of service standards. The modeling performed for the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan identified the intersection as a LOS D which is not failed. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the project at 220th & Hwy. 99 had been put on hold due to the economy. He referred to Mr. Thorpe’s comment about meetings held regarding development of 5 Corners, explaining the City’s former Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerand held similar discussions for Firdale Village. He referred to Ms. Petso’s reference to 62 foot building heights, clarifying the buildings are a maximum of 52 feet with the ability to have a 10 foot elevator shaft. Councilmember Wambolt asked if this was an illegal spot rezone. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered a spot zone was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation or those in the surrounding area. This proposal was similar to the zone proposed on Sunset Avenue, a general application zone proposed for a specific area. When reviewing the proposal he had two areas of concern including the definition of height which although used in the Comprehensive Plan needed to be integrated into the zoning code. His other concern was a decision of the Washington Court of Appeals Division 1, Property Rights Alliance v. Ron Sims, that struck down the King County Native Growth Protection Areas because they were without a proper foundation and violated RCW 82.02.020 as an illegal development fee. If the Council wanted to proceed, he suggested that portion of the requirement be addressed via a development agreement that binds the developer to preserving the trees. With regard to spot zoning, Mr. Chave explained this site was designated as a Neighborhood Center. The reason there was a proposal from only one applicant was because the entire site was under one ownership. He envisioned development zones would be developed for other neighborhood centers in the City. In those cases it would likely be done by staff because there were multiple properties and property owners. Packet Page 269 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 17 Council President Wilson referred to Ms. Petso’s comment about ¼ commercial. Mr. Chave answered that was a good catch; he recalled Mr. Shapiro had agreed to include that but it was inadvertenly overlooked. With regard to parking, Mr. Chave explained the parking standards downtown were changed to a flat rate one space per 500 square feet, rather than a per use standard. That ratio was appropriate for downtown due to the amount of on-street parking. Development at Firdale Village may require a slightly higher standard although there was an opportunity for shared parking due to the mixed use. He explained an agreement would need to be reached regarding what parking was shared and what was reserved. With regard to whether there should be mixed use in both districts, Mr. Chave explained the concept was a mixed use zone with different parts. The applicant did not feel it was appropriate to have commercial inside the site particularly against the residential. Council President Wilson inquired if a 15 foot setback was sufficient between the existing residential and this project. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed step-back on the west where there was a 15-foot setback and no trees which would result in essentially a 2-story, 25-foot height adjacent to the residence; elsewhere on the site there was a 20-foot setback with trees to provide a buffer. Mr. Shapiro described the 30-foot setback at the street before 3 stories can begin and two 25-foot zones, essentially 80 feet from the street edge before buildings could be 4 stories. Mr. Shapiro pointed out the 20% open space requirement excluded the setbacks. He anticipated commercial space would face all plaza areas. Council President Wilson asked whether Mr. Shapiro would agree to a requirement for commercial on the first floor throughout the entire development. Mr. Shapiro was reluctant to impose criteria, noting the northeast corner of the site may be appropriate for four stories of housing. He assured a developer would not propose a development with housing facing a public area. He reiterated the requirement for 20% of the buildable site to be open space. He noted the open space was required to be an 8-foot minimum width. Council President Wilson pointed out the 8-foot width was a “should” not a “shall.” He was in favor of tightening that requirement. Council President Wilson referred to Mr. Shapiro’s reference to 60,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Shapiro answered the exact amount was unknown but they were required to have 25% of the built area in commercial space. Council President Wilson pointed out 60,000 square feet could amount to only 3-4 commercial spaces. He referred to permitted uses and the exclusion of buildings over 20,000 other than drugstores, noting as an example Starbucks stores were 1,500 square feet. Mr. Shapiro envisioned multiple different stores the size of Starbucks that would achieve the 25% minimum commercial space. . COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson suggested the language be clear that the Council preferred small, neighborhood stores versus three 20,000 square foot stores. He offered to identify where “should” in the language should be changed to “shall.” Councilmember Bernheim inquired whether a straight height limit could be imposed rather than allowing the roof to extend 5 feet above the stated high limit. Mr. Shapiro commented a strict height limited architectural options and would result in more mundane and less attractive buildings. Councilmember Bernheim asked what Mr. Shapiro was asking from the Council. Mr. Shapiro responded he was asking the Council to approve the zone with any modifications. Councilmember Bernheim asked the next step once the zone was approved. Mr. Shapiro answered they would return to the Planning Board to ask that the zone be applied to the Firdale Village site. Mr. Snyder explained this was the legislative act of creating the zone. A site specific rezone would follow. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the current BN zone allowed residential. Mr. Chave answered it allowed only one dwelling unit per lot. Packet Page 270 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 18 Council President Wilson suggested scheduling further discussion on the August 17 or August 25 agenda. Mr. Chave suggested staff prepare an ordinance that clarified the issues the Council identified and options for other issues. Mr. Snyder cautioned the public hearing would need to be re-advertised if there were any substantive changes; therefore September 1 may be a more appropriate date. Council President Wilson agreed a second public hearing on September 1 would be appropriate. Mr. Snyder advised he would like an opportunity to work with the applicant on a mechanism to require and make the rear setback to protect the trees enforceable. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 7. PRESENTATION ON THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed major milestones to date: • Completion of the Draft Transportation Plan in June which was reviewed by the Planning Board, agencies and community members • Community involvement that included three open houses and meetings with the Transportation, Walkway, Bicycle, and Parking Committees • Presentation to the Planning Board including a public hearing on June 10 and a recommendation from the Planning Board to forward the Plan to the City Council. The purpose of the Transportation Plan was to guide development of multimodal transportation, identify transportation infrastructure/services needed to support the City’s adopted land use plan and transportation goals and policies. Elements of the Transportation Plan include Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies; Street System; Non-Motorized System; Transit and Transportation Demand Management; and Implementation and Finance Plan. He explained the Plan reflects the existing (2008) and projected (2025) population and employment and growth: Existing 2025 Project Growth Population ~40,000 44,880 >12% Employment ~10,400 12,190 >17% He noted the new travel demand forecasting model developed by the consultant reflects build-out of the City’s adopted 2025 land use plan and provides a basis for updated impact fees. He described major differences from the 2003 Transportation Plan: • Future planning year 2025 instead of 2022 • Stronger emphasis on non-motorized transportation projects (25% of the plan cost rather than 5% in the past) • Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Project not included in City financial plan (no planned City expenditures), still planned as a long range project • Updated traffic impact fee ($1,071/trip, increased from $764/trip • Adds Traffic Calming Program and ADA curb Ramp Transition Plan Mr. Hauss explained the Street System element identifies capital projects that include concurrency projects, safety projects and highways of statewide significance. With regard to concurrency, he explained state law requires the transportation system be adequate to support planned land use as measured by adopted level of service standards (LOS D). There are four existing concurrency deficiencies (LOS E or F). The modeling indicates there will be 4 additional locations by 2015 and 3 additional locations by 2025. He explained safety projects are identified by previous studies or accident data. Highways of statewide significance are intersections on the local state highway system that are under WSDOT jurisdiction and are not subject to the City’s concurrency standards. The Street System element also describes the Traffic Calming Program and maintenance and preservation projects. Packet Page 271 of 385 AM-2520 8. Building Setback Exemption Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Jen Machuga Time:15 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to adopt an ordinance adding a new section to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40 to establish a qualified building setback exemption for residential projects with expired County building permits (File No. AMD20090011). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Board (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action Staff made a presentation to the CS/DS Committee on June 9, 2009. The committee requested that staff and the City Attorney draft an interim zoning ordinance to bring before the City Council. Staff presented the interim ordinance to the City Council on June 23, 2009. The Council voted to forward the ordinance to the Planning Board for review. Narrative This is a public hearing on a proposed ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to establish a qualified building setback exemption for residential projects with expired County building permits. Carla Elder and her husband obtained permits from Snohomish County in 1993 to construct an addition to their home. Ms. Elder’s husband began the work, but fell ill and passed away before being able to complete the interior portion of the addition. The property was annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1995, and the Elders' building permit expired following annexation. Per the Annexation Agreement, if a County permit expires after annexation, all vesting is lost, and a new permit must be obtained from the City which meets current adopted codes. The Elders' addition was built in compliance with the County’s setback requirements; however, it does not meet current City setback requirements. The County did not notify the City of this situation. Using Ms. Elder's situation as an example, staff discussed potential options with the CS/DS Council Committee on June 9, 2009, including a variance, lot line adjustment, removing a portion of the addition, and adopting an ordinance amending the City’s nonconforming regulations (ECDC 17.40). City Attorney, Bio Park, noted that the Council could also adopt an interim zoning ordinance. The Council Committee requested that Mr. Park craft an interim zoning ordinance to bring before the City Council. The draft interim ordinance was presented to the Council on June Packet Page 272 of 385 23, 2009. Some Council members felt that a public hearing should be held and that the matter should not be resolved with an interim ordinance. Rather than adopt an interim code amendment, the Council voted (4-3) to forward the draft ordinance to the Planning Board to review, conduct a hearing, and provide a recommendation to the Council. Staff presented the background behind the draft ordinance to the Planning Board on July 22, 2009 as outlined in staff's narrative to the Board (Exhibit 2). The Board directed staff to prepare draft language for the permanent ordinance and schedule it for a public hearing and agreed that no further discussion would be necessary prior to the hearing. The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 9, 2009 and unanimously voted to recommend that the Council adopt the ordinance. As recommended by the Planning Board, the draft ordinance adds a new section (ECDC 17.40.060 - Setback Exemption) to the City's nonconforming regulations. The ordinance would establish a qualified building setback exemption for certain residential projects with expired County building permits. The draft ordinance is provided as Exhibit 1. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Narrative to Planning Board from 7/22/09 Meeting Link: Exhibit 3: Planning Board Minutes 9/9/09 Link: Exhibit 4: Planning Board Minutes 7/22/09 Link: Exhibit 5: Council Minutes 6/23/09 Link: Exhibit 6: CS/DS Minutes 6/9/09 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 12:33 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 01:37 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:13 PM APRV Form Started By: Jen Machuga  Started On: 09/30/2009 01:21 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 273 of 385 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW ECDC 17.40.060 SETBACK EXEMPTION TO ESTABLISH A QUALIFIED BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (“City”) annexed significant areas within unincorporated Snohomish County (“County”) in 1994 and 1995; and WHEREAS, the City and the County entered into an interlocal agreement (“ILA”) to coordinate as well as to facilitate the transfer of building permit applications and development permits in process by the County; and WHEREAS, the ILA required the County to notify the City of the status of unexpired permits being processed and administered by the County in the annexation area; and WHEREAS, it has been brought to the City’s attention that the County did not notify the City that certain building permits that were being administered by the County following annexation expired without final approval; and WHEREAS, under the current code, projects in the annexation area with expired permits from the County (“Projects”) must be updated to meet all criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code (“ECDC”); and WHEREAS, updating Projects to meet certain criteria in the ECDC, such as certain building setback requirements, may not be possible without undoing improvements that have already been partially inspected and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, {BFP736547.DOC;2\00006.900000\} - 1 - Exhibit 1 Packet Page 274 of 385 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adopted. A new section, ECDC 17.40.060 Setback Exemption., is hereby adopted to read as follows: 17.40.060 Setback Exemption. A. Notwithstanding the current criteria in the ECDC relating to residential building setbacks, development projects in areas annexed by the City of Edmonds from unincorporated Snohomish County since January 1, 1994 with building permits from Snohomish County that were valid on the effective date of the annexation, but which have subsequently expired without final approval, shall be exempt from the setback requirements specified in ECDC 16.20.030 and 16.30.030; PROVIDED that the development projects are (1) residential in nature; (2) located in residentially zoned areas of the City of Edmonds; (3) meet setback requirements of the then current Snohomish County code in effect on the effective date of the annexation; (4) consistent with the plans approved by the County (it will be the applicant’s responsibility to provide the City with evidence that the project was approved by the County); and (5) compliant with all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC. B. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to allow any development project in the City of Edmonds, for which a valid building permit from the City is required under the current ECDC, to begin, proceed or be completed without the same. Section 2. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (formerly the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development) as required by law. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect {BFP736547.DOC;2\00006.900000\} - 2 - Packet Page 275 of 385 APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {BFP736547.DOC;2\00006.900000\} - 3 - Packet Page 276 of 385 {BFP736547.DOC;2\00006.900000\} - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, 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, ADOPTING A NEW ECDC 17.40.060 SETBACK EXEMPTION TO ESTABLISH A QUALIFIED BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, 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 ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 277 of 385 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board From: Jen Machuga, Planner Date: July 14, 2009 (for July 22, 2009 agenda item) Agenda Item: Discussion to set hearing date and provide recommendation to Council regarding a proposed Zoning Ordinance establishing a qualified building setback exemption for residential projects with expired county building permits, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. ________________________________________________________________________ Carla Elder, who owns the property addressed 8732 – 242nd St. SW, spoke during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting on May 19, 2009 stating her concerns over an unfinished addition to her residence. In 1993, while the property was located in unincorporated Snohomish County, the County issued a permit to the Elders for an approximate 600 square foot second story addition to their home. Ms. Elder’s husband was a builder and completed all of the exterior construction, but fell ill before he was able to complete the interior work. The job card provided by Ms. Elder shows that the only inspection approval obtained from the County was for the foundation in 1993. Following an extension, the permit eventually expired before the Elders were able to finish the project. The property was annexed into the City of Edmonds on October 16, 1995. The County’s records were not transferred over to the City following annexation of the property, so the City was unaware of an unfinished addition at this address. Mr. Elder passed away in 2006. The City had no record of the unfinished addition until Ms. Elder recently inquired with the City in November 2008 about obtaining permits to complete the addition. Per the Annexation Agreement, the County is to complete all permits in process prior to the date of annexation. If a County permit expires after annexation, all vesting is lost, and a new permit must be obtained from the City which meets current adopted codes. The Agreement requires the County to notify the City of expired permits so that we may follow up to insure new permits are issued. It is unknown how many other properties have been annexed over the years with expired permits and unfinished work similar to that of Ms. Elder’s. If a permit issued by the County expired prior to final approval and the property was in the meantime annexed into the City, the Annexation Agreement requires the owner to obtain permits for the entire project subject to current City code requirements. In the case of Ms. Elder’s addition, the addition was started under the 1991 Uniform Building Code, but it is now subject to Exhibit 2 Packet Page 278 of 385 the 2006 International Residential Codes. Additionally, although the addition was constructed to meet the County’s site development standards for the R-8,400 zone at the time, which included a 5-foot side setback, the addition is now subject to the current site development standards of the City's RS-8 zone, which requires a 7.5-foot setback. Based on information provided by Ms. Elder, the addition was constructed at 7’3” from the property line and includes two bump-outs that are 5’3” from the property line. Therefore, the addition does not comply with current City setback requirements. It is unknown at this time if the addition is in compliance with all other applicable site development standards. There are potential options for resolving situations similar to Ms. Elder’s, however, these options can be expensive and some are not guaranteed. In the example of Ms. Elder’s addition, potential options include a variance, lot line adjustment, and modifying the addition so that it meets setback requirements. A variance is expensive and may not be possible for the addition because the situation of reduced setbacks and an expired permit was created by the property owner. A lot line adjustment would be expensive due to the cost of a survey and any property acquisition fees charged by the neighbor. Additionally, a lot line adjustment is only possible if it does not put the adjacent property out of compliance with minimum lot size and width requirements as well as the applicable site development standards. Modifying a structure to comply with site development standards could be very expensive. Staff has discussed Ms. Elder’s situation as well as the potential for other property owners within annexed areas having similar situations with City Attorney, Scott Snyder. He has advised us that in cases like this, a new permit for the entire project is required if the permit issued by the County expired. When a new permit is required, it must be shown that the project entirely meets current code requirements. Mr. Snyder stated that staff does not have the discretion to approve a permit for a project that was started under a County permit that has since expired unless all current City site development standards and building code requirements are met. Outside of the options available to the applicant (already discussed above), the only other solution would be for the Council craft an ordinance to amend the City’s nonconforming code (ECDC 17.40) to help address the situation where a County building permit has expired and a structure does not meet current site development standards -- allowing a new building permit to be issued by the City maintaining the originally approved County site development standards (i.e. setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc.). Current building codes must still be met. The difficulties with this approach are the time period involved since the original approvals were granted by the County, and the fact that it cannot be known how this type of code change could impact other non-conforming properties. Using Ms. Elder’s situation as an example, staff discussed the potential options above with the Community Services/Development Services Council Committee on June 9, 2009. During the Council Committee meeting, City Attorney, Bio Park noted that the Council could also adopt an interim zoning ordinance. The Committee requested that Bio Park and staff craft an interim zoning ordinance to bring before the City Council. A draft interim ordinance was crafted and presented to the City Council on June 23, 2009. The draft ordinance would allow for a residential building setback exemption for development projects in areas annexed from unincorporated Snohomish County since 1994 for properties that had valid building permits on the date of annexation but the permits expired prior to final approval. The draft ordinance includes provisions that the projects would need to be residential Packet Page 279 of 385 in nature, located in residentially zoned areas, meet the setback requirements of the then current County code in effect on the date of annexation, consistent with the plans approved by the County, and compliant with all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC, including the current Building Code. It should be noted that the draft ordinance includes a provision that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the City with evidence that the project was approved by the County; however, it is unknown whether the County has retained sufficient records to be utilized as evidence of the work that was approved by the County prior to annexation. Following review and discussion of the draft interim ordinance, some Council members felt that a public hearing should be held and that the matter should not be resolved with an interim ordinance. The Council voted (4-3) to forward the draft ordinance to the Planning Board to review it as a standard ordinance, conduct a hearing, and provide a recommendation to the Council. Packet Page 280 of 385 Board Member Young expressed his belief that the motion was general enough to meet the administrative requirements. It basically states that the Board is comfortable with the document and that they recommend the City Council adopt or approve it at some point in the future after FEMA and the State have reviewed it. Again, Board Member Clarke suggested the motion should not recommend approval at this point, and Board Member Young expressed his belief that any future changes would not likely change the material information and/or intent of the plan. Mr. Chave said the key word to avoid would be “adoption,” but using the word “approval’ would be appropriate since the City Council has to approve the document in order to send it to the State and FEMA for review. Using the word “approval” would in no way indicate the City Council would take final action, but just approve the current draft so it can be moved forward for additional review. In light of Mr. Chave’s explanation, Board Member Clarke withdrew his objection. Vice Chair Lovell suggested the plan be changed to include some mention of the on-going, long-term concerns related to the area at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104. Ms. Gravelle agreed that would be appropriate, and she invited staff to provide some recommended language that could be inserted on Page 71 of the draft document as a “flood mitigation action item.” Perhaps it could also be discussed in the overview section. She emphasized that the City has the ability to update and change the document at any point, and they do not have to wait until the next five-year update. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO ESTABLISH A QUALIFIED BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS (FILE NUMBER AMD-09-11) Ms. Machuga advised that the hearing is on a proposed ordinance amending the ECDC to establish a qualified building setback exemption for residential projects with expired county building permits. She explained that Carla Elder spoke during the audience comment portion of the May 19th City Council meeting stating her concer over an unfinished addition to her residence. In 1993, Ms. Elder and her husband obtained permits from Snohomish County to construct an addition to their home. Ms. Elder’s husband started the work but fell ill and passed away before being able to complete the interior portion of the addition. The property was annexed into the City in 1995, and the Elder’s building permit expired following annexation. Per the annexation agreement, if a County permit expires after annexation, all vesting is lost and a new permit must be obtained from the City that meets current adopted codes. She explained that the Elder’s addition was built in compliance with the County’s setback requirements, but it does not meet current City setback requirements. Following the annexation, the County did not notify the City of the Elder’s expired building permit, and it is unknown how many other properties within annexed areas are facing similar situations. Ms. Machuga reported that using Ms. Elder’s situation as an example, staff discussed potential options (variance, lot line adjustment, removing a portion of the addition, adopting an amendment to the City’s non-conforming regulations) with the Development Services Council Committee on June 9th. At that time, City Attorney Bio Park noted that the Council could also adopt an interim zoning ordinance. The committee requested that Mr. Park and staff craft an interim zoning ordinance to bring before the City Council. When the ordinance was presented to the City Council on June 23rd, some Council members felt that a public hearing should be held and that the matter should not be resolved by an ordinance. The Council voted to forward the ordinance to the Planning Board for review. Ms. Machuga recalled that staff presented the Planning Board with a brief history of the proposed ordinance on July 22nd, and the Board directed staff to prepare the ordinance as a permanent ordinance instead of an interim ordinance and to set a date for a public hearing. She referred to the draft ordinance, which would amend the City’s non-conforming provisions and allow for a residential building setback exemption for development projects in areas annexed from unincorporated Snohomish County since 1994 for properties that had valid building permits on the date of annexation but the permits expired prior to final approval. She advised that the ordinance includes provisions that the projects need to be residential in nature, located in residentially zoned areas, meet the setback requirements of the County code in effect on the date of annexation, and be consistent with the plans approved by the County and compliant with all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC, including the current Building Code. She noted that the ordinance includes a provision that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the City with evidence that the project was approved by the County. However, it is APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2009 Page 5 Exhibit 3 Packet Page 281 of 385 unknown whether the County has retained sufficient records to be utilized as evidence of the work that was approved prior to annexation. Vice Chair Lovell observed that residential homes that were built in unincorporated Snohomish County and later annexed to the City are subject to the non-conforming regulations if they do not meet all of the City’s zoning requirements. He referred to Section 17.40.060.A of the draft ordinance and summarized that the proposed language would grandfather any annexed properties for which the permit paperwork was completed prior to annexation even if they do not meet the City’s setback requirements. Ms. Machuga pointed out that even if the proposed ordinance is not approved, the current code defines non- conforming structures as structures that met the code at the time they were constructed, but due to annexation they do not meet the current codes. The code allows these structures to be maintained. Chair Bowman summarized that when the area was annexed, the records relating to the Elder’s permit were not transferred to the City. He noted there may be more situations of this type throughout the annexed areas. Board Member Works pointed out that Section 17.40.060.A specifically references January 1, 1994. She asked if this is the date the first annexation took place. Mr. Chave advised that the series of annexations started in 1994 and continued into 1995. Board Member Works inquired if the proposed language would be applicable to future annexations, too. Mr. Chave noted there are not a lot of areas left to annex into the City, but the code language should apply equally to previous annexed properties and future annexed properties, as long as the situation is the same. Board Member Clarke expressed concern about situations where records are not transferred as part of a home acquisition and neither the County nor City has records of the permit, either. As written, the ordinance would not be applicable to properties unless adequate information can be provided to support the request. He suggested this burden might be too onerous. Ms. Machuga explained that in the Elder’s case, the County failed to transfer the permit documents to the City, but the County does have a record that they granted approval for the addition. Board Member Clarke recalled that because the Old Woodway Elementary School was located in a single-family residential zone, the Edmonds School District was required to obtain a conditional use permit. When they attempted to do research for a project after the property was annexed into Edmonds, they learned that the County did not have any record of the conditional use permit. If the school district had not had their own set of records, there could have been a problem. He suggested the proposed ordinance needs to provide a method of resolving situations where the records from all parties are gone. When people purchase properties, they don’t always know about the annexation processes that took place many years ago. They may not be aware that they cannot finish a particular project because permits have expired, the project does not meet the City’s current code requirements, and there is no record of the permit that was issued by the County. Vice Chair Lovell commented that information regarding permits and non-conformance should be identified on the disclosure form that is required for the house sale. Chair Bowman questioned how the City would know that a permit existed prior to annexation if there is no paperwork on file with the County and the property owner does not have any record of the permit. Ms. Machuga said that if the property owner could not provide documentation that the permit was approved by the County, the City would only have the property owner’s word that the project was approved. Board Member Works cautioned that the ordinance should not allow a property owner to merely make an assertion that a building permit was approved prior to annexation. She would like the ordinance to require validation. Board Member Clarke suggested the proposed language include a provision that allows the Planning Division Manager to look at specific cases and make a judgment call. He said he is sensitive to this issue because he lives in an annexed area and most of his neighbors do not understand that their properties are legal, non-conforming uses. Board Member Young reminded the Board that the proposed ordinance is not intended to address all properties that are legal, non-conforming uses. Instead, the intent is to accommodate property owners who had work in progress prior to annexation. In his view, the City should honor permits that are active at the time of annexation and were applied for in good faith. He said he supports the proposed language that places the onus on the property owner to provide proof of the County permit. Typically, property owners keep the paperwork associated with building permits at least until the project has been completed. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2009 Page 6 Packet Page 282 of 385 The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to recommend policies that could be applied to all annexations that have occurred to date and those that will occur in the future. Mr. Chave suggested the word “aforementioned” be deleted so the language is clear that the ordinance applies to all past and future annexations. Vice Chair Lovell reminded the Board of their goal to create an ordinance that would resolve the issue forever. The remainder of the Board agreed that the ordinance should be applicable to all annexations both previous and in the future. Board Member Young observed that if the City wants to encourage annexation, they must honor the active permits that are issued in good faith by the County as part of their annexation guidelines. Board Member Clarke noted this is a big concern to those living in Esperance. It is important that the ordinance address future annexations, as well. Carla Elder, Edmonds, said she is in favor of the proposed ordinance. However, she is not quite clear how her situation would be impacted by the proposed language in Section 17.40.060.A.4, which states that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the City with evidence that the project was approved by the County. She said she has a copy of the permit that was issued by the County, as well as copies of the plans that were submitted. However, there is no formal stamp on the documents. She questioned what standard the City would use to determine the appropriate level of proof. Mr. Chave explained that staff typically looks for consistency with all of the available information. If everything lines up in a logical sequence of events, it will be considered sufficient evidence. However, he cautioned that the City staff would not be able to make arbitrary decisions that are not supported by documentation. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. CHAIR BOWMAN MOVED THE BOARD FORWARD FILE AMD-09-11 (AN AMENDMENT TO THE ECDC TO ESTABLISH A QUALIFIED BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. VICE CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:25 P.M. THE MEETING RESUMED AT 8:32 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 17.35 ALLOWING UP TO THREE “DOMESTIC FEMALE FOWL” ON LOTS IN SINGLE- FAMILY ZONES (FILE NUMBER AMD-09-7) Mr. Chave referred to the proposed amendment, which was forwarded to the Board by the City Council for consideration. As proposed, the amendment would enable properties in single-family zones to keep a limited number (3) of female fowl to further the Council’s goals of sustainability through encouraging locally-grown and naturally-produced food. He emphasized that the amendment would be limited in scope, focusing on the keeping of a small number of female fowl that would logically have little impact on surrounding properties. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that they have received a fair amount of public comment regarding the proposed amendment, and they have also received feedback from the Police Department indicating that ECDC 5.05 contains sufficient protection to support the proposed ordinance. He noted the City Attorney has had some experience with these types of issues, and he has suggested that it may be desirable to limit the allowed “female fowl” to certain types. He referred them to the letter from the City Attorney identified in the Staff Report as Attachment 2. Board Member Works inquired if the current City code would prohibit the slaughter of chickens in single-family zones. Mr. Chave said he is not familiar with the animal control rules, but the Police Department did not identify a concern. Karen Newsome, Edmonds, said she has been a property owner and resident of Edmonds for more than 50 years. She referred to a flyer she prepared for her neighbors to provide more information about the proposed ordinance. She noted that all of the surrounding cities, including Lynnwood, allow small flocks of chickens (not emus, ostriches, etc.) A flock is more than one, but it does not have to be 100. Three would be an appropriate number for the City. She recalled that many years ago Edmonds adopted language in its code that prohibited fowl of any kind in an effort to phase out the large scale chicken APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2009 Page 7 Packet Page 283 of 385 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2009 Page 2 farm situation would receive far more humane treatment and housing space. Commercial hens are confined to a space the size of a piece of paper, and they do not have access to the outdoors and fresh air. Hens raised in a backyard would be free of antibiotics and pesticides. There would be less chance of disease outbreaks in small flock that are raised on a single-family lots as opposed to the inbreeding and poor living conditions that are common in industrial farming. He summarized his belief that it would be good for the City to allow single-family property owners to keep chickens. He summarized that a lot of citizens in Edmonds would properly care for hens, and nuisances could be adequately addressed via the City’s existing codes. George Murray, Edmonds, said he purchases fresh eggs and knows there is quite a difference between fresh eggs and those that are commercially produced. He expressed support for the proposed ordinance that would allow up to three hens on single- family properties. Mr. Murray reported that he attended a question and answer sessions where the Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds spoke about climate control. It appears that not a lot of attention has been paid to this issue, and the joke of the day was that the Port would have to consider extending its area all the way back to the ferry terminal in the near future. If this is a potential consideration, he suggested that the issue of water table should be an important part of the discussion. Mr. Murray recalled that at the last City Council meeting, the term “cultural direction” came up several times. The same was true during recent discussions related to the Transportation Plan. He applauded the concept and expressed his desire that Edmonds should become a hub of cultural activities. He said he recently attended a cultural event in Port Townsend, where he estimated they made between $500,000 and $750,000. He suggested that Edmonds could sponsor a similar revenue producing event. He noted they already have the cultural venue and the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan is progressing, as well. BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTIONS FOR PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS Ms. Machuga referred the Board to the draft interim ordinance that would amend the City’s nonconforming regulations (ECDC 17.40) to allow a building setback exemption to residential properties that have been annexed into the City since 1994 where the properties had valid building permits on the date of annexation, but the permits expired prior to final approval. She explained that, currently, if a permit expires following annexation, all vesting is lost and the project must be altered to meet current code requirements. Ms. Machuga announced that the City Council reviewed the draft ordinance as an interim ordinance and voted to forward it to the Planning Board for review. They have asked the Board to conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council. She noted that the item is not scheduled for discussion at this time. She asked the Board to provide direction about whether they would like staff to schedule it as a public hearing, or if they want to schedule the issue for additional discussion prior to the hearing. Vice Chair Lovell said that as per Ms. Machuga’s memorandum to the Board dated July 14, 2009, it sounds as though the Elders did everything appropriate at the time they obtained the necessary permits from the County for the new addition. Ms. Machuga agreed that prior to annexation, the Elder’s received a valid permit from Snohomish County. However, Mr. Elder got sick and was not able to finish the project before the County permit expired. Vice Chair Lovell questioned why the City cannot just issue an occupancy permit if the project is consistent with the code. If upgrades need to be completed to be consistent with the City’s code, they could be done without requiring an interim ordinance. Mr. Chave explained that the Elder’s never finished the permit and obtained the necessary final inspections to vest the actual structure. The non- conforming provisions in the code will not allow the City to administrative waive the permit requirement, and the proposed interim ordinance would be the least costly option. Vice Chair Lovell asked why variances are expensive. Mr. Chave said it would cost Ms. Elder approximately $2,000 to submit a variance application, and there is no certainty that the project would meet all of the criteria for approval. Exhibit 4 Packet Page 284 of 385 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2009 Page 3 Board Member Works asked how much of the project has been completed. Ms. Machuga answered that from the outside, the project looks finished, but there is work remaining on the interior. Right now, the addition is walled off from the main house and is not accessible from the inside. Board Member Reed observed that if an interim ordinance is approved, it would only pertain to this one item. Mr. Chave said the proposed interim ordinance has been constructed to apply to annexed properties where projects were started with permits that were issued by the County prior to annexation. Board Member Works inquired if Ms. Elder’s property is the only site the ordinance would apply to. Mr. Chave answered that staff has no way of knowing how many sites it would apply to, but they do not know of any others at this time. Again, he explained the ordinance is intended to take care of this situation and any other situations that might come up. Board Member Stewart observed that Snohomish County was at fault because they failed to notify the City of the expired permit. It is unfortunate that the County failed to do their duty as per the annexation agreement, but she did not feel the Elders should bear the complete burden for the mistake. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Elders are not the only family that has experienced this type of situation. The Edmonds School District did not realize that the Woodway Elementary School site had been annexed into the City of Edmonds, and that they were a legal, non-conforming use with a permit from the County. They did a lot of things that were illegal without even realizing it. He suggested there are many people in the southern portion of the City who do not have any idea what really happens with annexation, and they don’t have a clear understanding of their legal rights. The City must help these people understand the regulations. He expressed his belief that it would be worthwhile to pursue the proposed ordinance. The Board discussed that rather than creating an interim ordinance, they would be in favor of creating a permanent ordinance to address the problem into the future. They directed staff to prepare draft language for the permanent ordinance and schedule it for a public hearing. They agreed no further discussion would be necessary prior to the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY OASIS, INC. TO REZONE THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 7631 – 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RM-2.4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) (FILE NUMBER R-2009-36) Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is proposing to change the zoning of property located at 7631 – 212th Street Southwest from Residential Multi-Family (RM-2.4) to Neighborhood Business (BN). He explained that the subject property is currently developed with four office buildings that were constructed in the mid 1960s, and the uses were allowed under a conditional use permit. The three rectangular buildings are currently used for medical offices, and the round building was previously a real estate office. If the rezone is approved, the applicant intends to use the round building as a pharmacy and apply for a conditional use permit to locate a drive-through window in the building. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.40.010 identifies six factors that must be considered when reviewing and approving rezone applications. He reviewed each one as follows: 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcel as “Mixed-Use Commercial” within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The proposed BN zoning would be consistent with that designation, while the existing RM-2.4 designation is not. The proposed rezone would bring the parcel into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, upzoning the subject parcel from RM-2.4 to BN would provide for a mixture of uses, which is a stated goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Impacts should be minimal if the change in zoning is approved since the existing structures would remain. Any future redevelopment on the site would have to comply with the height and bulk restrictions of the BN zone, which are very similar to those of the existing RM-2.4 zone. The existing street system and available amenities would support the intensity of development that is proposed by the rezone. Packet Page 285 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2009 Page 3 E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A "HOLDOVER TERM LETTER" RELATED TO A CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH SHORTS 'N SLIPPAS, OPERATORS OF DA HULA HUT LOCATED ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT JAMES STREET IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE FERRY HOLDING LANES. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. G. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECT. H. ORDINANCE NO. 3744 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.50.050 RELATING TO STORMWATER RATES AND CHARGES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. I. ORDINANCE NO. 3745 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.20.050 TO COLLECT AND REFLECT PROPERLY THE COST OF PROVIDING FOR FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2009. City Clerk Sandy Chase pointed out a correction to the minutes on page 10, noting that two ordinances were passed via a motion and only one was reflected in the minutes. The motion on page 10 would be revised to read as follows: COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3742 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3743, EXHIBIT 2, THE 200 SQUARE FOOT VERSION. The two ordinance titles read as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3742 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TEMPORARY USES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. ORDINANCE NO. 3743 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.05.010, WORK EXEMPT FROM BUILDING PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2009 AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A QUALIFIED BUILDING SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH EXPIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Planner Jen Machuga recalled Carla Elder spoke to the Council during Audience Comments on May 19, stating her concerns over an unfinished addition to her residence. In 1993 Ms. Elder and her husband obtained permits from Snohomish County to construct an addition to their home. Mr. Elder began the work, but fell ill and passed away before completing the interior portion of the addition. The property was annexed into the City in 1995, and the Elder’s building permit expired following annexation. Per the Annexation Agreement, if a County permit expires after annexation, all vesting is lost, and a new permit Exhibit 5 Packet Page 286 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2009 Page 4 must be obtained from the City which meets current adopted codes. The addition was built in compliance with the County’s setback requirements; however, it does not meet the City’s current setback requirements. Following annexation, Snohomish County did not notify the City of the Elder’s building permit and it is unknown if there are additional properties within annexed areas with similar situations. Using Ms. Elder's situation as an example, staff discussed potential options with the Council Community Services/Development Services Committee on June 9, including a variance, lot line adjustment, removing a portion of the addition to comply with current setbacks, and adopting an ordinance amending the City’s nonconforming regulations (ECDC 17.40). City Attorney Bio Park advised that the Council could also adopt an interim zoning ordinance. The Council Committee requested that Mr. Park craft an interim zoning ordinance to bring before the City Council. The interim ordinance would allow for residential building setback exemptions for development projects in areas annexed from unincorporated Snohomish County since 1994 for properties with valid building permits on the date of annexation but the permit expired prior to final approval. The ordinance includes provisions that the projects be residential in nature, located in residentially zoned areas, meet setback requirements of the Snohomish County code in effect on the date of annexation, are consistent with the plans approved by the County, and meet all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC including the current building code. The draft ordinance includes a provision that it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the City evidence the project was approved by the County; however, it is unknown if the County has retained sufficient records to be utilized as evidence of work approved by the County prior to annexation. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the proposed ordinance is intended to be the narrowest possible exemption while still complying with constitutional special law provisions. He noted accomplishing this via an interim zoning ordinance would deprive the public from an opportunity to comment as the applicant could vest via filing a building permit application. Councilmember Orvis pointed out Snohomish County failed to communicate with the City regarding the pending building permit. Mr. Snyder agreed the Annexation Agreement the City has with Snohomish County required that notification. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern about a lack of public vetting. Mr. Snyder responded the Council could send the ordinance to the Planning Board for review and public comment before it was enacted. An interim ordinance was based on findings that harm would occur that needed to be avoided and that there was a public benefit. The finding in the ordinance was that half-built houses were detrimental to the neighborhood. Councilmember Bernheim asked how long the house had been in its current condition, recalling a considerable period of time had elapsed where no action had been taken. Ms. Machuga responded the permit was issued in 1993 and it had been approximately 16 years since the addition had been constructed. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (EXHIBIT 1) RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD. Packet Page 287 of 385 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2009 Page 5 Councilmember Bernheim commented although he empathized with the unfortunate position the applicant found herself in, he was concerned with the lack of public notice. He pointed out the considerable length of time when no action had been taken which indicated an additional delay would not be prejudicial. He was also concerned with setting a precedent by allowing an applicant to obtain a vested permit without public comment. Councilmember Orvis commented that he was in favor of passing it now because the record did not indicate there had been any complaints and it was important to finish the addition for safety reasons. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDING MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, AND ORVIS OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson noted that a vote was not required on the first motion due to the action in the amendment. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON 2009 LEVY Council President Wilson clarified the question tonight was specifically whether or not to place a levy on the November ballot. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised Mukilteo was considering placing a levy on the February ballot due to expiration of their fire agreement with Everett on July 1. He encouraged citizens to watch Lynnwood City Council meetings that are aired on Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Sundays at 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. David Thorpe, Edmonds, recalled during last week’s presentation regarding a proposed increase in utility rates a statement was made that with the proposed increase, the city would be approximately 20% below the State average municipal utility rate. He pointed out the City should not be 20% below but should be at the median. Next, he expressed frustration with the Council’s handling of the levy to this point. He recalled the work done by the Citizen Levy Review Committee (CLRC), noting by the third meeting all the teams understood the City’s dire financial position. He recalled after taking three votes unanimously in support for a levy, the Council then concerned itself with plastic bags and chickens, losing the energy and focus of the CLRC. He summarized the delay let City workers down and forced the Council to wait to place the levy on next year’s levy. He reminded this financial situation had been festering for years and that the culture of just getting by needed to change. Elizabeth Scott, Edmonds, a member of the CLRC’s yellow team who presented the minority opinion, voiced her continued opposition to a levy, pointing out increased taxes would hurt Edmonds’ economy and property values. She cited a study that found a negative relationship between property values and tax rates; raising property taxes caused property values to drop because people were less likely to move into the City. She pointed out Washington had the eighth highest taxes in the nation and second highest gas tax; raising property taxes reached further into citizens pockets, people who were already cutting back on purchasing. She commented on pink slips issued at Boeing and newspaper headlines about orders Airbus has received while Boeing has none, noting Boeing represents 14% of the jobs in Snohomish County and 22% of the wages. She urged the Council to tighten its belt and actively work to increase economic development to raise revenue streams, noting the formation of the Citizens Economic Development was a step in the right direction. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, pointed out other government entities that have put off levy and bonds will likely place them on the ballot in 2010 and if the Council waits until next year, the City’s ballot measure will be competing with these other entities. He commented the overall outcome of the CLRC was still applicable, that a levy was a short term fix. For this reason the yellow team advocated for the formation of a Financial Oversight and Economic Development Committee. With regard to the type of levy, he and Packet Page 288 of 385 D R A F T M I N U T E S Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting June 9, 2009 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Peggy Pritchard-Olson, Council member Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Orvis, Chair Ann Bullis, Building Official Jen Machuga, Planning Jerry Shuster, Engineering Rob English, City Engineer Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Officer The committee convened at 6:00 p.m. A. Status of request by Carla Elder concerning a home addition initially started under County permits. Planner Jen Machuga explained that Ms. Elder and her husband obtained permits from Snohomish County in 1993 to construct an addition to their home. Ms. Elder’s husband began the work, but fell ill and passed away before being able to complete the interior portion of the addition. The property was annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1995, and the Elder’s building permit subsequently expired without the work being completed or inspected. Per the Annexation Agreement, if a County permit expires after annexation, all vesting is lost, and a new permit must be obtained from the City which meets current adopted codes. The addition was built in compliance with the County’s setback requirements; but it does not meet current City setback requirements. Staff discussed potential options with the Council Committee, including a variance, lot line adjustment, removing a portion of the addition, and adopting an ordinance amending the City’s nonconforming regulations (ECDC 17.40). City Attorney, Bio Park, noted that the Council could also adopt an interim zoning ordinance providing specific relief in a well-defined situation such as this. The Committee agreed that the best option appeared to be the interim ordinance approach suggested by Mr. Park. Bio Park noted that the county had not complied fully with the interlocal agreement when the area was annexed by not informing the city of outstanding permits such as the one in question here. ACTION: The Council Committee requested that Mr. Park and staff craft an interim zoning ordinance to bring before the City Council. B. Landmark Tree Ordinance. This item was deferred. ACTION: N/A. C. Update of the Stormwater Code (ECDC 18.30) and the Illicit Discharge Code (EMC 7.200). Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager and Mark Ewbank, from Herrera Environmental Consultants presented a brief description of the updates to the two code chapters. Both are required by the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit ( issued in Exhibit 6 Packet Page 289 of 385 AM-2528 10. Report on Petitions Received Regarding the "Meadowdale Beach Area" Annexation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Gina Coccia Time:10 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Report on petitions received regarding the "Meadowdale Beach Area" Annexation. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff (1) Accept the proposed annexation. (2) Require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. The above three recommendations are incorporated in the SECOND motion provided by the City Attorney (see narrative below). Previous Council Action The Development Services Director briefed the CS/DS Committee on this subject in 2008 (see Exhibit 3). Narrative The “Meadowdale Beach Area” Annexation refers to an area of land within unincorporated Snohomish County lying east of 68th Avenue West near 160th Street SW that has expressed interest in being annexed into the City of Edmonds (see Exhibits 1 and 2). On 05/13/2008 Development Services Director Duane Bowman informed the City Council Community Services/Development Services Committee of this potential annexation (see Exhibit 3). Since that time, Lynn Treseler has collected numerous signatures of the owners of over 10% of the assessed property value of the proposed annexation area. It is the desire of these people to commence annexation proceedings pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120 (see Exhibit 4). Pursuant to RCW 35.A.14.120, the Council needs to determine if (1) they will accept the proposed annexation, (2) if they will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed, and (3) if they will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Staff recommends that the Council (1) Accept the proposed annexation, (2) Require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed, and (3) Require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Staff recommends that the Council make a motion on this matter understanding that a decision to Packet Page 290 of 385 require assumption of all or part of the bonded indebtedness of the city must be made at this meeting and entered into the minutes by motion. Below are three alternative motions provided by the City Attorney for the Council to consider. As indicated above, Staff recommends the Council adopt the second motion: (1) I move to reject the proposed annexation. (2) I move to accept the proposed annexation and: (a) Direct staff to initiate the process for the simultaneous adoption of RS-8 zoning or such other zoning category as is consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and as near to the current Snohomish County zoning as practicable; and (b) Provide for the assumption of all of the bonded indebtedness of the city [if less, specify percentage or none as applicable]. (3) I move to modify the proposed annexation to exclude/include the [describe the deleted or additional area] and: (a) Direct staff to initiate the process for the simultaneous adoption of RS-8 zoning or such other zoning as is consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and as near to the current Snohomish County zoning as is practicable; and (b) Provide for the assumption of all of the bonded indebtedness of the city [if less, specify percentage or none as applicable]. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Petition Link: Exhibit 2 - Parcels Signed Petition Link: Exhibit 3 - CC-Committee Meeting 05-13-08 Link: Exhibit 4 - RCW 35A.14.120 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/02/2009 08:28 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/02/2009 11:19 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/02/2009 11:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Gina Coccia  Started On: 10/01/2009 02:02 PM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2009 Packet Page 291 of 385 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 2 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 3 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 4 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 5 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 6 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 7 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 9 8 o f 3 8 5 09.30.2009 UnincorporatedSnohomishCounty City ofEdmonds City ofLynnwood Properties that signed the petition to annex I 0 200100 Feet Packet Page 299 of 385 P a c k e t P a g e 3 0 0 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 3 0 1 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 3 0 2 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 3 0 3 o f 3 8 5 AM-2526 11. City of Edmonds Website - City Council Web Pages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:20 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title City of Edmonds Website - City Council Web Pages. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff When considering the kind of information the City Council wishes to place on City Council web pages, using an Option 1 format would provide the most consistent information to web users by not including philosophy and/or pending issues. This option could include providing the following on each City Council member web page: • City Council name and position number • Phone and e-mail contact information • Year elected to the City Council • Number of terms served • Council Committees and appointments • Employment • Basic factual biographical information (this could include birthplace, education, marital status, hobbies, etc.) If the City Council wishes to expand upon Option 1, then Option 2 could include the above information in addition to general philosophies or goals of City Council members and address pending issues of note within the Edmonds community. Previous Council Action Narrative Over the past several months, City staff have been updating a variety of City website web pages in an attempt to provide more effective and useful information to website visitors. Although the City does not employ a Webmaster, the City does utilize the services of a contractor to assist with website maintenance. As such, the responsibility for updating web pages and formatting rest with existing City staff. Website development is ever evolving and is a product of numerous contributions by individuals throughout the City and increasing the accessibility of information contained within the City’s website is a primary goal of City Administration. At the request of Council President Wilson, City Council webpages have been an area where City staff have focused our efforts. As such, visitors to the City’s website can now find an updated City Council web page http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/cityCouncil.stm. On this web page, visitors can Packet Page 304 of 385 Council web page http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/cityCouncil.stm. On this web page, visitors can find information about the Council’s adopted 2009 sustainability agenda, meeting schedule, general contact information, and associated web links to individual Council member web pages (Attachment 1). As stated in Scott Snyder’s September 3, 2009 memorandum to the City Council, given the flurry of e-mails recently regarding the website (City Council web pages), and the indication that the City Council wishes to review the use of Council biographical material in light of these e-mails, he prepared comments for consideration by the City Council (see Attachment 2). According to the memorandum, the Council has a number of options with regard to the website. These include: 1) listing names, dates, places and basic factual biographical information with no statements of philosophy or references to pending legislative issues, 2) permit each Councilmember to state his or her general philosophy and address pending issues of note in the Edmonds community, and/or 3) a limited forum approach for Council consideration. This approach would place the photographs and voters’ pamphlet information on the City website to provide the public with information relating to the candidates for public office and other issues on the Edmonds ballot. A link could be provided to each candidate’s website where additional information could be obtained. This would provide information in a neutral fashion to Edmonds voters in a controlled format without opening the City’s website as an open public forum. In a September 22, 2009, Washington State Public Disclosure Commission decision, the Public Disclosure Commission stated the RCW 42.17.130 does not prohibit elected officials from communicating with the public concerning the issues they are working on and their goals while in office. It is important, however, that this type of communication not be used to campaign for reelection, and it would be prudent to establish standards for what is expected on a biography page of the City’s website. City staff have compared existing Edmonds City Council member web pages with examples from nine other cities within the Puget Sound region, i.e,, Mukilteo, Renton, Shoreline, Kirkland, Bellevue, Lynnwood, Everett, Marysville and Redmond. See Attachment 3 for examples of these web pages. Based on our review, City of Edmonds Council member web pages align most closely with Option 1 above, i.e., names, dates, places and basic factual biographical information with limited philosophy or references to pending legislative issues. This is also the case with seven of the nine cities reviewed. The Cities that include some statements that could be interpreted to relate to both Options 1 and 2 include Marysville and Renton. None of the nine cities provide information related to Option 3. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attachment 1 - City of Edmonds Council Web Pages Link: Attachment 2 - September 3, 2009 Memorandum from Scott Snyder Link: Attachment 3 - Examples of City Council Web Pages from Nine Puget Sound Cities Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 04:31 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 05:14 PM APRV Packet Page 305 of 385 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 05:14 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/02/2009 08:28 AM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton  Started On: 10/01/2009 11:48 AM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2009 Packet Page 306 of 385 Packet Page 307 of 385 Packet Page 308 of 385 Packet Page 309 of 385 Packet Page 310 of 385 Packet Page 311 of 385 Packet Page 312 of 385 Packet Page 313 of 385 Packet Page 314 of 385 A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100  Seattle, WA 98101-1686  206.447.7000  Fax: 206.447.0215 Web: www.omwlaw.com {WSS740575.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2009 TO: Edmonds City Council City of Edmonds CC: Mayor Gary Haakenson Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Website Given the flurry recently regarding the website, and the indication that the City Council wishes to review the use of Council biographical material, I offer these comments. The staff’s approach (that is, the approach of Mr. Clifton and myself) is an attempt to follow the philosophy established by the Council when it allowed the use of public facilities for community meeting meetings by a Councilmember who is in a campaign for reelection. In its decision, the Council chose not to prohibit the use of facilities for this purpose, but has emphasized as I have suggested, the need to avoid any reference to campaigns, distribution of campaign materials or to solicit invitation of campaign contributions. In a nutshell as my recent e-mail indicates, it is my opinion that a City Councilmember’s first amendment right and obligation in a representative form of government to communicate with and listen to citizens is a normal and ordinary part of the office of being an elected official. The Council has a number of options with regard to the website. Among those that Mr. Clifton and I have discussed are: 1. The Redmond Approach. Redmond lists names, dates, places and basic factual biographical information. There are no statements of philosophy or references to pending legislative issues. Packet Page 315 of 385 {WSS740575.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2. Communication with Constituents. The second approach would permit each Councilmember to state his or her general philosophy and address pending issues of note in the Edmonds community. As with the Council’s decision on the use of public facilities by Councilmembers during an election season, this approach is defensible but comes very close to the line drawn by Washington statute and PDC rule. It depends on each Councilmember’s communication avoiding any reference to the campaign including but not limited to references to an opponent or any solicitation for campaign funds. 3. Limited Public Forum. As I have expressed in the past, opening the comment section or the website to campaigning presents a myriad of problems, not least of which is placing Councilmembers and those trying to monitor the comments at a disadvantage. As the City Council is aware, the individual Councilmembers can only express opinions regarding ballot issues, whether other ballot measures through a very strict format involving notice, formal action of the Council meeting and the passage of a resolution after comment for both sides. Opening the mike or the website to campaigning raises the specter that individuals may make comments to which the Council cannot respond. Several weeks ago, this problem arose when candidates included Councilmembers’ City website addresses in broadcast e-mails and began a debate to which the Councilmembers could not legally respond from City e-mail. Mr. Clifton and I have discussed a limited forum approach for Council consideration. This approach would place the photographs and voters’ pamphlet information on the City website to provide the public with information relating to the candidates for public office and other issues on the Edmonds ballot. A link could be provided to each candidate’s website where additional information could be obtained. This would provide information in a neutral fashion to Edmonds voters in a controlled format without opening the City’s website as an open public forum. I have a commitment on September 15 and cannot attend the Council meeting, but will ensure that Mr. Clifton and Mr. Park will be available to answer questions and draft any follow up that the Council directs. WSS/gjz Packet Page 316 of 385 Packet Page 317 of 385 Packet Page 318 of 385 Packet Page 319 of 385 Packet Page 320 of 385 Packet Page 321 of 385 Packet Page 322 of 385 Packet Page 323 of 385 Packet Page 324 of 385 Packet Page 325 of 385 Packet Page 326 of 385 Packet Page 327 of 385 Packet Page 328 of 385 Packet Page 329 of 385 Packet Page 330 of 385 Packet Page 331 of 385 Packet Page 332 of 385 Packet Page 333 of 385 Packet Page 334 of 385 Packet Page 335 of 385 Packet Page 336 of 385 Packet Page 337 of 385 Packet Page 338 of 385 Packet Page 339 of 385 Packet Page 340 of 385 Packet Page 341 of 385 Packet Page 342 of 385 Packet Page 343 of 385 Packet Page 344 of 385 Packet Page 345 of 385 Packet Page 346 of 385 Packet Page 347 of 385 Packet Page 348 of 385 Packet Page 349 of 385 Packet Page 350 of 385 Packet Page 351 of 385 Packet Page 352 of 385 Packet Page 353 of 385 Packet Page 354 of 385 Packet Page 355 of 385 Packet Page 356 of 385 Packet Page 357 of 385 Packet Page 358 of 385 Packet Page 359 of 385 Packet Page 360 of 385 Packet Page 361 of 385 AM-2521 12. 2009 Budget Amendment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Debra Sharp Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:15 Minutes Department:Finance Type:Action Review Committee:Finance Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on Ordinance amending the 2009 Budget. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Review and approve. Previous Council Action Finance Committee recommended full Council review. Narrative Please review the attached documents for details of the proposed ordinance amendment. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Amending Ordinance Version One with Council Contingency Cut Link: General Fund Summary (Version 1) Link: Other Fund Summary (Version 1) Link: 2009 Amending Ordinance Version Two without Council Contingency Cut Link: General Fund Summary (Version 2) Link: Other Fund Summary (Version 2) Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Finance Debra Sharp 10/01/2009 12:00 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 12:33 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 01:37 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 02:13 PM APRV Form Started By: Debra Sharp  Started On: 09/30/2009 03:40 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 362 of 385 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CHASE\MY DOCUMENTS\2521_2009 AMENDING ORDINANCE WITH COUNCIL CONTINGENCY CUT VERSION 1.DOC ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 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 2009 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. 3711 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2009 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take Packet Page 363 of 385 2 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 364 of 385 3 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, 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. 3711 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 ________________,2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 365 of 385 4 EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND (Version 1) 2009 2009 FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 987,951 33,590,851 33,602,623 976,179 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 574,904 376,598 432,055 519,447 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 183,806 28,500 72,025 140,281 111 STREET FUND 24,876 1,469,574 1,424,030 70,420 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 281,802 1,402,950 1,443,407 241,345 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 3,100,000 3,100,000 0 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 249,368 234,081 256,200 227,249 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 330,077 104,050 105,425 328,702 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,325 400 0 17,725 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 126,762 67,530 74,883 119,409 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 96,872 27,500 23,862 100,510 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 18,494 3,462 5,000 16,956 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 36,869 17,483 22,100 32,252 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,503,803 485,535 4,544,175 445,163 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 657,147 369,714 956,072 70,789 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 177,188 24,504 43,192 158,500 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 96,669 179,767 142,513 133,923 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 2,800 0 2,800 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 0 235,000 235,000 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 9,458 108,000 95,475 21,983 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 49,416 2,000 0 51,416 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 442,598 442,598 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 5,081,455 12,747,929 13,055,717 4,773,667 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 2,181,667 8,341,039 10,205,750 316,956 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 19,099 1,306,852 1,162,124 163,827 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,490,515 1,773,244 2,069,929 4,193,830 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 145,823 3,650 0 149,473 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 739,389 31,223 91,500 679,112 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 295,108 100,061 130,874 264,295 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 17,318 21,400 21,000 17,718 Totals 23,320,761 66,598,295 73,757,529 16,161,527 Packet Page 366 of 385 5 EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE (Version 1) ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2009 FUND FUND 3711 Amended NO. DESCRIPTION 12/2/2008 10/6/2009 Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 34,520,728 (918,105) 0 0 33,602,623 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 432,055 0 0 0 432,055 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 72,025 0 0 0 72,025 111 STREET FUND 1,491,530 (67,500) 0 0 1,424,030 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1,443,407 0 0 0 1,443,407 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 3,100,000 0 0 0 3,100,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 256,200 0 0 0 256,200 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 105,425 0 0 0 105,425 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 74,883 0 0 0 74,883 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 23,862 0 0 0 23,862 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,400 1,600 0 0 5,000 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,100 0 0 0 22,100 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,558,175 (14,000) 0 0 4,544,175 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 956,072 0 0 0 956,072 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 21,000 22,192 0 0 43,192 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 145,074 (2,561) 0 0 142,513 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 235,000 0 0 0 235,000 211 LID FUND CONTROL 95,475 0 0 0 95,475 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0 0 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 442,598 0 0 0 442,598 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 13,162,872 (107,155) 0 0 13,055,717 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 10,205,750 0 0 0 10,205,750 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,162,124 0 0 0 1,162,124 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,079,027 (9,098) 0 0 2,069,929 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 0 0 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 91,500 0 0 91,500 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 130,874 0 0 0 130,874 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 0 0 0 21,000 Totals 74,760,656 (1,003,127) 0 0 73,757,529 Packet Page 367 of 385 6 EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL (Version 1) Department Category Debit Credit Description Items Previously Before Council Park Trust Fund Transfer Out 36,500 Park Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance 36,500 General Fund Transfer In 36,500 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 36,500 Park Trust Fund Transfer Out 55,000 Park Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance 55,000 General Fund Transfer In 55,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 55,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 45,000 General Fund Yost Pool Fees 30,000 Parks Yost Pool Costs 15,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 20,000 Council Council Contingency 20,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 9,408 Police Salaries 4,500 police Benefits 500 Police Supplies 3,820 Police Repair & Maint 418 Police Miscellaneous 170 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 8,414 Police Salaries 7,471 Police Benefits 643 Police Uniforms 300 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 45,876 General Fund MLT Animal Control 11,224 Police Salaries 41,300 Police Benefits 15,800 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 2,500 Police Professional Services 2,500 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 12,000 Police Supplies 8,100 Police Small Equipment 1,600 Police Professional Services 500 Police Repair & Maint 275 Police Interfund Rental 1,525 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 33,000 Economic Development Advertising 33,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 54,510 Parks Salaries 46,235 Parks Benefits 8,275 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 280,534 Various GF Depts Interfund Rental 280,534 ERR Fund Reduce Gen Fund Cont 280,534 ERR Fund Ending Fund Balance 280,534 Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 47,752 Street Fund Interfund Rental 47,752 ERR Fund Reduce St. Fund Cont 47,752 ERR Fund Ending Fund Balance 47,752 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 225,281 Various GF Depts Salaries 194,682 Various GF Depts Benefits 30,599 Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 19,748 Various ST Fund Salaries 17,172 Various ST Fund Benefits 2,576 Cemetery Fund Ending Fund Balance 2,561 Cemetery Fund Salaries 2,227 Cemetery Fund Benefits 334 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 107,155 Various Utility Accts Salaries 93,178 Various Utility Accts Benefits 13,977 Equipment Fund Ending Fund Balance 9,098 Equipment Fund Salaries 7,911 Equipment Fund Benefits 1,187 To Eliminate funding for Parks Maintenance Seasonal Staff To Eliminate funding for Edmonds Night out. To Eliminate funding for DARE. To Reduce Economic Development Advertising Budget Eliminate 2009 Street Fund Contribution to B-Fund. 2009 Furlough Day Savings and Police Buyback Transfer from Parks Trust Fund to the General Fund for Flower Program. Transfer from Parks Trust Fund to the General Fund for Yost Pool. Eliminate 2009 General Fund Departments Contribution to B-Fund. To record additional Yost Pool Revenue due to increased fees and reduce seasonal staff salaries. To reduce Council Contingency Budget. To Eliminate Crime Prevention Program. To Eliminate Police Reserve Program. To Eliminate one Animal Control Officer and corresponding Contract Revenue from Mountlake Terrace. Packet Page 368 of 385 7 Items Previously Before Council General Fund Ending Fund Balance 224,891 Development Services Salaries 74,653 Development Services Benefits 21,066 Fire Salaries 106,424 Fire Benefits 22,748 General Fund Sales Tax Revenue 1,200,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,200,000 REET 1 Local Excise Tax 400,000 REET 1 Ending Fund Balance 400,000 REET 2 Local Excise Tax 400,000 REET 2 Ending Fund Balance 400,000 General Fund Annual Vehicle Fee(TBD) 150,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 150,000 New Items for Council to Consider-Reappropriations Municipal Arts Interfund Transfer 14,000 Municipal Arts Beginning Fund Balance 14,000 REET 2 Interfund Transfer 14,000 REET 2 Beginning Fund Balance 14,000 Gift Program Supplies 22,192 Gift Program Beginning Fund Balance 22,192 New Items for Council to Consider-Amendments Police Overtime 1,664 Police Grant Revenue 1,664 Police Overtime 6,891 Police Grant Revenue 6,891 Police Equipment 3,032 Police Grant Revenue 3,032 Fire Supplies 1,726 Fire Grant Revenue 1,726 Community Services Small Equipment 10,000 Community Services Beginning Fund Balance 10,000 Community Services Professional Services 35,000 Non-Departmental Professional Services 35,000 Development Services Benefits 50,000 Non-Departmental PERS1 Excess Payout 50,000 Parks and Recreation Travel 351 Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous 569 Parks and Recreation Program Fees 920 Parks and Recreation Professional Services 300 Parks and Recreation Parks Donation 300 Municipal Arts Ending Fund Balance 21,000 Municipal Arts Grant Revenue 21,000 Youth Scholarship Fund Miscellaneous 1,600 Youth Scholarship Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,600 Reduce Transportation Benefit District revenue due to DOL delay Vacant positions - salary and benefit savings Reduce sales tax forecast due to poor economy Reduce REET revenue forecast due to poor housing market Increase actual contract amounts paid from Community Svc instead of non-department WSTSC X52 Speeding Grant Senior Adventurer Field Trip Fee added to the price of day camp WSTSC Nighttime Seatbelt Enforcement WASPC Grant - Lidar for patrol Bowman PERS1 Excess Compensation Increased request for scholarship money due to the economy Increase actual contract amount for Community Svc instead of using non- departmental funds (Franchise Agreement) Received grant revenue from Sno Co Rapid Transit Adjust beginning fund balance, anticipated 2009 revenue was received in 2008 Increase Beg Fund balance, 2008 budget for benches expended in 2009 Hubbard Family Foundation Grant to Discovery Pgm-Storyteller and Tent Annual SOW Dept of Health Grant - purchased advanced Life Support supplies Packet Page 369 of 385 Fund: General Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Parks Increased Yost Pool Revenues 30,000$ Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Yost Pool 55,000 Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Flower Program 36,500 Heard Police Reduce Animal Control revenue from Mountlake Terrace (11,224) Heard Finance Reduce sales tax forecast due to poor economy (1,200,000) Heard Finance Reduce Transportation Benefit District revenue/DOL delay (150,000) (1,239,724) Other Revenues augmentations offset with related Expenses New Police WSTSC X52 Speeding Grant 1,664 New Police WSTSC Nighttime Seatbelt Enforcement 6,891 New Police WASPC Grant - Lidar for patrol 3,032 New Fire Annual SOW Dept of Health Grant 1,726 New Parks Senior Adventurer Field Trip Fee 920 New Parks Hubbard Family Foundation Grant 300 14,533 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (1,225,191)$ Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Heard Police Eliminate Crime Prevention Program.(9,408) Heard Police Eliminate Police Reserve Program.(8,414) Heard Police Eliminate 1.0 Animal Control Officer/Contract Revenue from Mountlake Terrace.(57,100) Heard Council Reduce Council Contingency Budget.(20,000) Heard Police To Eliminate funding for Edmonds Night out.(2,500) Heard Police To Eliminate funding for DARE.(12,000) Heard Parks Decreased Yost Pool Expense (15,000) Heard Econ. Dev. Reduce Advertising Budget (33,000) Heard Parks To Eliminate funding for Parks Maintenance Seasonal Staff (54,510) Heard General Eliminate B-Fund Contributions - ERR fund (280,534) Heard Finance Furlough Savings (225,281) Heard Finance Increase actual contract amounts paid from Comm. Svc instead of non-department10,000 Heard Finance Savings from vacant positions in Dev. Svcs and Fire (224,891) (932,638) Other Expense augmentations offset with related Revenues New Police WSTSC X52 Speeding Grant 1,664 New Police WSTSC Nighttime Seatbelt Enforcement 6,891 New Police WASPC Grant - Lidar for patrol 3,032 New Fire Annual SOW Dept of Health Grant 1,726 New Parks Senior Adventurer Field Trip Fee 920 New Parks Hubbard Family Foundation Grant 300 14,533 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Revenues (918,105)$ Increase in Beginning General Fund Balance 10,000$ Total impact to General Fund (297,086)$ City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment (Version 1) 10/6/2009 Packet Page 370 of 385 Fund: Street Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Eliminate 2009 Street Fund Contribution to B-Fund.(47,752)$ Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (47,752) Heard Furlough Savings (19,748) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (19,748) Total Impact to Street Fund 67,500 Fund: Municipal Arts Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount New Received grant revenue from Sno Co Rapid Transit 7,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 7,000 None - Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Increase in Beginning Fund Balance 14,000$ Total Impact to Municipal Arts Fund 21,000 Fund: Youth Scholarship Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None - Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - New Incresed Scholarship Funds 1,600 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to Youth Scholarship Fund (1,600) Fund: REET 1 Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Revenue Reduction (400,000) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (400,000) Heard Expenditure Reduction (14,000) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (14,000) Decrease in Beginning Fund Balance (offset)14,000$ Total Impact to REET1 (400,000) Fund: REET 2 Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Revenue Reduction (400,000) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (400,000) Heard Expenditure Reduction Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to REET 2 (400,000) City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment (Version 1) 10/6/2009 Packet Page 371 of 385 City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment (Version 1) 10/6/2009 Fund: Gift Program Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Heard Benches Purchase 22,192 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses 22,192 Increase in Beginning Fund Balance (offset)(22,192)$ Total Impact to Gift Program - Fund: Cemetery Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Heard Furlough Savings (2,561) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (2,561) Total Impact to Cemetery Fund 2,561 Fund: Utility Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Heard Furlough Savings (107,155) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (107,155) Total Impact to Utility Fund 107,155 Fund: Equipment Reserve Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Eliminate GF Dept. B-Fund Contributions - ERR fund (280,534) Heard Eliminate Street Fund B-Fund Contributions - ERR fund (47,752) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (328,286) Heard Furlough Savings (9,098) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (9,098) Total Impact to Equipment Reserve (319,188) Fund: Parks Trust Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues -$ Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Yost Pool (55,000) Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Flower Program (36,500) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (91,500) Total Impact to Parks Trust Fund (91,500)$ Packet Page 372 of 385 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 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 2009 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. 3711 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2009 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” 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 L:\PRODUCTIONDB\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0072_2521_2009 AMENDING ORDINANCE WITHOUT COUNCIL CONTINGENCY CUT VERSION 2.DOC Packet Page 373 of 385 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 2 Packet Page 374 of 385 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, 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. 3711 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 ________________,2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 Packet Page 375 of 385 EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND (Version 2) 2009 2009 FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 987,951 33,590,851 33,622,623 956,179 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 574,904 376,598 432,055 519,447 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 183,806 28,500 72,025 140,281 111 STREET FUND 24,876 1,469,574 1,424,030 70,420 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 281,802 1,402,950 1,443,407 241,345 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 3,100,000 3,100,000 0 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 249,368 234,081 256,200 227,249 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 330,077 104,050 105,425 328,702 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,325 400 0 17,725 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 126,762 67,530 74,883 119,409 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 96,872 27,500 23,862 100,510 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 18,494 3,462 5,000 16,956 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 36,869 17,483 22,100 32,252 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,503,803 485,535 4,544,175 445,163 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 657,147 369,714 956,072 70,789 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 177,188 24,504 43,192 158,500 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 96,669 179,767 142,513 133,923 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 2,800 0 2,800 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 0 235,000 235,000 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 9,458 108,000 95,475 21,983 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 49,416 2,000 0 51,416 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 442,598 442,598 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 5,081,455 12,747,929 13,055,717 4,773,667 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 2,181,667 8,341,039 10,205,750 316,956 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 19,099 1,306,852 1,162,124 163,827 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,490,515 1,773,244 2,069,929 4,193,830 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 145,823 3,650 0 149,473 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 739,389 31,223 91,500 679,112 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 295,108 100,061 130,874 264,295 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 17,318 21,400 21,000 17,718 Totals 23,320,761 66,598,295 73,777,529 16,141,527 4 Packet Page 376 of 385 EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE (Version 2) ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2009 FUND FUND 3711 Amended NO. DESCRIPTION 12/2/2008 10/6/2009 Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 34,520,728 (898,105) 0 0 33,622,623 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 432,055 0 0 0 432,055 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 72,025 0 0 0 72,025 111 STREET FUND 1,491,530 (67,500) 0 0 1,424,030 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1,443,407 0 0 0 1,443,407 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 3,100,000 0 0 0 3,100,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 256,200 0 0 0 256,200 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 105,425 0 0 0 105,425 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 74,883 0 0 0 74,883 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 23,862 0 0 0 23,862 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,400 1,600 0 0 5,000 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,100 0 0 0 22,100 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,558,175 (14,000) 0 0 4,544,175 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 956,072 0 0 0 956,072 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 21,000 22,192 0 0 43,192 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 145,074 (2,561) 0 0 142,513 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 235,000 0 0 0 235,000 211 LID FUND CONTROL 95,475 0 0 0 95,475 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0 0 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 442,598 0 0 0 442,598 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 13,162,872 (107,155) 0 0 13,055,717 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 10,205,750 0 0 0 10,205,750 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,162,124 0 0 0 1,162,124 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,079,027 (9,098) 0 0 2,069,929 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 0 0 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 91,500 0 0 91,500 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 130,874 0 0 0 130,874 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 0 0 0 21,000 Totals 74,760,656 (983,127) 0 0 73,777,529 5 Packet Page 377 of 385 EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL (Version 2) Items Previously Before Council Park Trust Fund Transfer Out 36,500 Park Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance 36,500 General Fund Transfer In 36,500 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 36,500 Park Trust Fund Transfer Out 55,000 Park Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance 55,000 General Fund Transfer In 55,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 55,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 45,000 General Fund Yost Pool Fees 30,000 Parks Yost Pool Costs 15,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 9,408 Police Salaries 4,500 police Benefits 500 Police Supplies 3,820 Police Repair & Maint 418 Police Miscellaneous 170 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 8,414 Police Salaries 7,471 Police Benefits 643 Police Uniforms 300 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 45,876 General Fund MLT Animal Control 11,224 Police Salaries 41,300 Police Benefits 15,800 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 2,500 Police Professional Services 2,500 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 12,000 Police Supplies 8,100 Police Small Equipment 1,600 Police Professional Services 500 Police Repair & Maint 275 Police Interfund Rental 1,525 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 33,000 Economic Development Advertising 33,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 54,510 Parks Salaries 46,235 Parks Benefits 8,275 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 280,534 Various GF Depts Interfund Rental 280,534 ERR Fund Reduce Gen Fund Cont 280,534 ERR Fund Ending Fund Balance 280,534 Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 47,752 Street Fund Interfund Rental 47,752 ERR Fund Reduce St. Fund Cont 47,752 ERR Fund Ending Fund Balance 47,752 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 225,281 Various GF Depts Salaries 194,682 Various GF Depts Benefits 30,599 Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 19,748 Various ST Fund Salaries 17,172 Various ST Fund Benefits 2,576 Cemetery Fund Ending Fund Balance 2,561 Cemetery Fund Salaries 2,227 Cemetery Fund Benefits 334 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 107,155 Various Utility Accts Salaries 93,178 Various Utility Accts Benefits 13,977 Equipment Fund Ending Fund Balance 9,098 Equipment Fund Salaries 7,911 Equipment Fund Benefits 1,187 Transfer from Parks Trust Fund to the General Fund for Flower Program. Transfer from Parks Trust Fund to the General Fund for Yost Pool. Eliminate 2009 General Fund Departments Contribution to B-Fund. To record additional Yost Pool Revenue due to increased fees and reduce seasonal staff salaries. To Eliminate Crime Prevention Program. To Eliminate Police Reserve Program. To Eliminate one Animal Control Officer and corresponding Contract Revenue from Mountlake Terrace. To Eliminate funding for Edmonds Night out. To Eliminate funding for DARE. To Reduce Economic Development Advertising Budget Eliminate 2009 Street Fund Contribution to B-Fund. 2009 Furlough Day Savings and Police Buyback To Eliminate funding for Parks Maintenance Seasonal Staff 6 Packet Page 378 of 385 Items Previously Before Council General Fund Ending Fund Balance 224,891 Development Services Salaries 74,653 Development Services Benefits 21,066 Fire Salaries 106,424 Fire Benefits 22,748 General Fund Sales Tax Revenue 1,200,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,200,000 REET 1 Local Excise Tax 400,000 REET 1 Ending Fund Balance 400,000 REET 2 Local Excise Tax 400,000 REET 2 Ending Fund Balance 400,000 General Fund Annual Vehicle Fee(TBD) 150,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 150,000 New Items for Council to Consider-Reappropriations Municipal Arts Interfund Transfer 14,000 Municipal Arts Beginning Fund Balance 14,000 REET 2 Interfund Transfer 14,000 REET 2 Beginning Fund Balance 14,000 Gift Program Supplies 22,192 Gift Program Beginning Fund Balance 22,192 New Items for Council to Consider-Amendments Police Overtime 1,664 Police Grant Revenue 1,664 Police Overtime 6,891 Police Grant Revenue 6,891 Police Equipment 3,032 Police Grant Revenue 3,032 Fire Supplies 1,726 Fire Grant Revenue 1,726 Community Services Small Equipment 10,000 Community Services Beginning Fund Balance 10,000 Community Services Professional Services 35,000 Non-Departmental Professional Services 35,000 Development Services Benefits 50,000 Non-Departmental PERS1 Excess Payout 50,000 Parks and Recreation Travel 351 Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous 569 Parks and Recreation Program Fees 920 Parks and Recreation Professional Services 300 Parks and Recreation Parks Donation 300 Municipal Arts Ending Fund Balance 21,000 Municipal Arts Grant Revenue 21,000 Youth Scholarship Fund Miscellaneous 1,600 Youth Scholarship Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,600 Reduce Transportation Benefit District revenue due to DOL delay Vacant positions - salary and benefit savings Reduce sales tax forecast due to poor economy Reduce REET revenue forecast due to poor housing market Increase actual contract amounts paid from Community Svc instead of non-department WSTSC X52 Speeding Grant Senior Adventurer Field Trip Fee added to the price of day camp WSTSC Nighttime Seatbelt Enforcement WASPC Grant - Lidar for patrol Bowman PERS1 Excess Compensation Increased request for scholarship money due to the economy Increase actual contract amount for Community Svc instead of using non- departmental funds (Franchise Agreement) Received grant revenue from Sno Co Rapid Transit Adjust beginning fund balance, anticipated 2009 revenue was received in 2008 Increase Beg Fund balance, 2008 budget for benches expended in 2009 Hubbard Family Foundation Grant to Discovery Pgm-Storyteller and Tent Annual SOW Dept of Health Grant - purchased advanced Life Support supplies 7 Packet Page 379 of 385 Fund: General Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Parks Increased Yost Pool Revenues 30,000$ Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Yost Pool 55,000 Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Flower Program 36,500 Heard Police Reduce Animal Control revenue from Mountlake Terrace (11,224) Heard Finance Reduce sales tax forecast due to poor economy (1,200,000) Heard Finance Reduce Transportation Benefit District revenue/DOL delay (150,000) (1,239,724) Other Revenues augmentations offset with related Expenses New Police WSTSC X52 Speeding Grant 1,664 New Police WSTSC Nighttime Seatbelt Enforcement 6,891 New Police WASPC Grant - Lidar for patrol 3,032 New Fire Annual SOW Dept of Health Grant 1,726 New Parks Senior Adventurer Field Trip Fee 920 New Parks Hubbard Family Foundation Grant 300 14,533 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (1,225,191)$ Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Heard Police Eliminate Crime Prevention Program.(9,408) Heard Police Eliminate Police Reserve Program.(8,414) Heard Police Eliminate 1.0 Animal Control Officer/Contract Revenue from Mountlake Terrace.(57,100) Heard Police To Eliminate funding for Edmonds Night out.(2,500) Heard Police To Eliminate funding for DARE.(12,000) Heard Parks Decreased Yost Pool Expense (15,000) Heard Econ. Dev. Reduce Advertising Budget (33,000) Heard Parks To Eliminate funding for Parks Maintenance Seasonal Staff (54,510) Heard General Eliminate B-Fund Contributions - ERR fund (280,534) Heard Finance Furlough Savings (225,281) Heard Finance Increase actual contract amounts paid from Comm. Svc instead of non-department10,000 Heard Finance Savings from vacant positions in Dev. Svcs and Fire (224,891) (912,638) Other Expense augmentations offset with related Revenues New Police WSTSC X52 Speeding Grant 1,664 New Police WSTSC Nighttime Seatbelt Enforcement 6,891 New Police WASPC Grant - Lidar for patrol 3,032 New Fire Annual SOW Dept of Health Grant 1,726 New Parks Senior Adventurer Field Trip Fee 920 New Parks Hubbard Family Foundation Grant 300 14,533 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Revenues (898,105)$ Increase in Beginning General Fund Balance 10,000$ Total impact to General Fund (317,086)$ City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment (Version 2) 10/6/2009 Packet Page 380 of 385 Fund: Street Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Eliminate 2009 Street Fund Contribution to B-Fund.(47,752)$ Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (47,752) Heard Furlough Savings (19,748) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (19,748) Total Impact to Street Fund 67,500 Fund: Municipal Arts Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount New Received grant revenue from Sno Co Rapid Transit 7,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 7,000 None - Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Increase in Beginning Fund Balance 14,000$ Total Impact to Municipal Arts Fund 21,000 Fund: Youth Scholarship Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None - Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - New Incresed Scholarship Funds 1,600 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to Youth Scholarship Fund (1,600) Fund: REET 1 Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Revenue Reduction (400,000) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (400,000) Heard Expenditure Reduction (14,000) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (14,000) Decrease in Beginning Fund Balance (offset)14,000$ Total Impact to REET1 (400,000) Fund: REET 2 Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Revenue Reduction (400,000) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (400,000) Heard Expenditure Reduction Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to REET 2 (400,000) City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment (Version 2) 10/6/2009 Packet Page 381 of 385 City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment (Version 2) 10/6/2009 Fund: Gift Program Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Heard Benches Purchase 22,192 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses 22,192 Increase in Beginning Fund Balance (offset)(22,192)$ Total Impact to Gift Program - Fund: Cemetery Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Heard Furlough Savings (2,561) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (2,561) Total Impact to Cemetery Fund 2,561 Fund: Utility Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Heard Furlough Savings (107,155) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (107,155) Total Impact to Utility Fund 107,155 Fund: Equipment Reserve Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount Heard Eliminate GF Dept. B-Fund Contributions - ERR fund (280,534) Heard Eliminate Street Fund B-Fund Contributions - ERR fund (47,752) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (328,286) Heard Furlough Savings (9,098) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (9,098) Total Impact to Equipment Reserve (319,188) Fund: Parks Trust Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept.Item Amount None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues -$ Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Yost Pool (55,000) Heard Parks Transfer from Park Trust Fund to GF-Flower Program (36,500) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (91,500) Total Impact to Parks Trust Fund (91,500)$ Packet Page 382 of 385 AM-2531 13. Establish Notice Provisions for a Hearing Before the Hearing Examiner Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:10/06/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Submitted For:City Attorney Scott Snyder Time:5 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Resolution establishing notice provisions for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner regarding the termination of an Interlocal Agreement relating to the maintenance of playfields at a site formerly owned by the Edmonds School District and adjacent to Hickman Park. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Adopt the Resolution. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative City Attorney Scott Snyder prepared the attached Resolution in order to establish notice provisions as stated in the above subject title. The reason behind the need to establish notice provisions is addressed in the Resolution, and Mr. Snyder will also provide a brief explanation at the City Council Meeting. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Resolution Establishing Notice Provisions Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 03:16 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/01/2009 03:19 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2009 03:31 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 10/01/2009 03:06 PM Final Approval Date: 10/01/2009 Packet Page 383 of 385 00006.900000 WSS/nkr 09/25/09 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING NOTICE PROVISIONS FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF PLAYFIELDS AT A SITE FORMERLY OWNED BY THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ADJACENT TO HICKMAN PARK. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, page 8 of Purpose of Scope, Effect of Plan, provides in subsection B that: “No . . . park . . . shall be abandoned . . . until the Hearing Examiner has reviewed and reported to the City Council on the location, extent and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan . . . .”; WHEREAS, in a decision of the Central Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board No. 09-3-0005, the Board remanded to the City to establish that this requirement has been met with regard to the termination of an ILA to use certain playfields on property formerly owned by the Edmonds School District and adjacent to Hickman Park, formerly known as Sherwood Park; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between ownership, leases and other contractual issues; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan provides in pertinent part: “Notice of the hearing by the Hearing Examiner shall be given in the manner specified in each case by the City Council”; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: {WSS742946.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 384 of 385 {WSS742946.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Section 1. Public notice of a hearing before the Edmonds Hearing Examiner shall be undertaken by publication in the City’s legal newspaper, by placing notice on the City’s web site, by posting the adjacent park site, and by providing notice on the notice boards at the locations specified throughout the City. Section 2. Such notice shall be provided at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date the matter is set for hearing before the Hearing Examiner. RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2009. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 385 of 385