2009.11.02 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
Special Monday Meeting
November 2, 2009
6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding pending or threatened litigation.
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-2574 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2009.
C. AM-2578 Approval of claim checks #114982 through #115132 dated October 29, 2009 for $518,862.77.
D. AM-2570 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Randall Baird (amount undetermined), K.
Fred Breske ($500,000), Donna L. Breske ($500,000), 9330 LLC ($500,000), and Scott
Conahan ($686.27).
E. AM-2573 Authorization for Mayor to sign funding agreements with the Washington State General
Administration for an energy efficiency improvement project at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
F. AM-2571 Authorization to surplus seized vehicle.
3. AM-2575
(15 Minutes)
Report from Community Transit on Bus Rapid Transit.
4. AM-2577
(30 Minutes)
Public hearing on Fire District 1 Contract, Option 4. In addition to contracting for
services with Fire District 1, this option includes selling apparatus (engines, aid cars,
and equipment), and keeping fire stations, land and transport fees.
5. (30 Minutes)City Council discussion and potential action on the Fire District 1 Contract, Option 4.
6. AM-2569
(20 Minutes)
Report to Washington Consortium regarding the transfer of control of Verizon
Northwest Inc. to Frontier Communication Corporation - Workshop.
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. AM-2572
(20 Minutes)
City of Edmonds Website - City Council Web Pages.
Packet Page 1 of 339
9. AM-2579
(20 Minutes)
Review of construction easement reserved by Ordinance No. 3729. The easement
involves the vacated right of way of a platted but unbuilt public alley lying between the
700 block of 8th Ave. N and 9th Ave. N and parallel to and north of Daley Street. The
reserved construction easement is for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall
on property lying north of the alley and east of 8th Ave. N.
10. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 339
AM-2574 2.B.
Approve 10-27-09 City Council Meeting Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
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 October 27, 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: 10-27-09 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 09:31 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 10:37 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 12:32 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 10/29/2009 08:36
AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 3 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 27, 2009
The 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
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Sandy Chase, 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 PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114865 THROUGH #114981 DATED OCTOBER 22,
2009 FOR $537,990.94. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS
#48678 THROUGH #48713 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OCTOBER 1 THROUGH
OCTOBER 15, 2009 FOR $819,291.29.
D. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2009.
E. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
–OCTOBER, 2009.
F. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3760 – AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 16.100 FIRDALE VILLAGE
MIXED-USE ZONING CRITERIA, AND A NEW CHAPTER 22.100 FIRDALE VILLAGE
SITE DESIGN STANDARDS.
Packet Page 4 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 2
G. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FINDING AN END TO POVERTY WEEK,
NOVEMBER 2 - 8, 2009.
H. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH, NOVEMBER
2009.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT TO THE POSITION OF FINANCE
DIRECTOR.
Mayor Haakenson explained the Council had an opportunity to interview the three finalists for the
Finance Director position prior to last week’s Council meeting. With his own and the Council’s thoughts
and recommendations in mind, he appointed Lorenzo Hines to the position of City’s Finance Director.
He requested the Council’s confirmation.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO CONFIRM MAYOR HAAKENSON’S APPOINTMENT OF LORENZO HINES TO THE
POSITION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR.
Council President Wilson advised he would abstain as he was unable to participate in the interviews. He
commented Mr. Hines was an exceptional candidate.
Councilmember Plunkett spoke in support of Mr. Hines’ confirmation, commenting he had stepped into a
hornet’s nest and although he was overworked and deluged, he had performed in good spirits and with
due diligence and worked well with the Council and public.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON ABSTAINED.
Mayor Haakenson commented Mr. Hines has done an excellent job and will be a great addition to the
management staff.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4. IN ADDITION TO
CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1, THIS OPTION INCLUDES
SELLING APPARATUS (ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT), AND KEEPING FIRE
STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the question posed by the public regarding how Fire District 1 could
provide fire service to Edmonds for $6.2 million/year, explaining in reality the amount was approximately
$7.3 million. The City would pay Fire District 1 $6.2 million/year and Fire District 1 would no longer
pay Edmonds approximately $700,000 to provide fire service to Esperance. In addition, Fire District 1
would likely negotiate a contract with Woodway which would generate additional revenue.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dave Page, Edmonds, asked if the City had held other public hearings. Mayor Haakenson answered
there had been five opportunities for public comment. Mr. Page spoke in favor of contracting for fire
service with Fire District 1, envisioning it would be beneficial to the City, the citizens and the Fire
Department employees. He anticipated everyone would look back on this in the future as a win. He
urged the Council to embrace regionalization and vote in favor of the contract.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained the City previously discussed fire service consolidation with
Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Brier when Laura Hall was the mayor. He reported Lynnwood signed
Packet Page 5 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 3
a medical services contract with Mukilteo. He relayed a report in the Mukilteo Beacon that Edmonds and
Mukilteo were involved in ongoing discussions with Fire District 1. He remarked that Lynnwood was
considering cancelling their December meetings as a cost saving measure.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented research that has been done indicates Edmonds received less that
it should have from Fire District 1 for providing fire service to Esperance. In addition, Woodway has
been getting a good rate for fire service from Edmonds. He envisioned the rates for Esperance and
Woodway residents would increase when fire service was provided by Fire District 1 and expressed
concern that representatives from those communities had not been involved in the discussions.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, was glad the Council was no longer considering the sale of the fire stations
and land. With regard to the public hearing process, he pointed out the difference between public
comment and a public hearing. Public comment to date has been useful in providing the Council
feedback during their deliberations. Public hearings should begin once the final proposal is made and the
deliberations have reached an end. He pointed out often life got in the way and citizens did not have time
to follow issues being considered by the Council. Citizens often wait until the Council has completed
their deliberations and a proposal has been finalized before providing comment.
George Murray, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Wambolt for the work he has done on the proposal,
Council President Wilson for the questions he has raised, and Ms. Buckshnis and Ms. Petso for their
questions. He remarked the contract for fire service represented approximately 20-30% of the City’s
budget. Consideration of the contract for fire service differed when it was for revenue purposes versus
something the firefighters want. He suggested the Council contract with an outside, independent analyst
to review the numbers, particularly assumptions such as fuel costs, the cost of department heads, and
growth rates. He urged the Council not to rush into a contract.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented the City’s website had been down and she had only recently
received the information regarding this agenda item. She remarked citizens are still confused and
according to the Firefighters Union lost revenue could be as much as $2.5 million. She requested the City
provide accurate information regarding the amount of revenue that would be lost via contracting with Fire
District 1. She pointed out this was not a valid public hearing as information regarding Option 4 had not
been available to the public.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4
In response to comments made during the public hearing, Council President Wilson reported the Council
took public comment regarding the Fire District 1 contract on September 15 and 22 and October 6 and 13;
public hearings were held on October 20 and tonight; and another public hearing was scheduled for
November 2.
To Dr. Senderoff’s comment that life gets in the way, Mayor Haakenson agreed people did not have time
to attend Council meetings or make their wishes known to the Council and that was why they elected the
Mayor and Councilmembers.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 2.9 of the Interlocal Agreement regarding response time,
recalling in the past the Edmonds Fire Department met six of the eleven standards. This section indicates
if more than six of the standards are met, the City and Fire District 1 would meet to discuss how to pay
for the difference. He asked whether Fire District 1 would increase the cost of the contract if response
times improved so that eight of the eleven standards were met. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg answered no,
Packet Page 6 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 4
anticipating the only way Fire District 1 would increase the cost would be if the City asked to add
services such as another fire station or additional personnel. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this section
also provided a process if Fire District 1’s response times did not meet the City’s expectations.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 4.8, and asked why the Interlocal Agreement still included
the EMS transport fee language. Chief Tomberg answered the language was provided by the City
Attorney. Fire District 1 will provide the EMS service, collect a transport fee and remit the fee to the City
on a quarterly basis less the cost of collection. That process was the result of three opinions from the
Office of the Inspector General that stated in order to collect Medicare, the cost must be collected by the
provider of the service. He offered to email the Council the three opinions.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 6.3, sale of the rolling stock, and asked if the City would be
retaining any vehicles. Chief Tomberg answered the City would not retain any vehicles.
Council President Wilson expressed appreciation for the addition of Section 8.2, a joint annual meeting.
With that language, he was less concerned about also having an annual meeting with two Fire District 1
Commissioners and two Councilmembers. Mayor Haakenson suggested retaining the language and a
decision could be made annually regarding whether a meeting was necessary.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 11.1 regarding the first 5 years, questioning why the
Interlocal Agreement did not allow the City to terminate the contract until 5 years had elapsed plus 2
years notice. Chief Tomberg answered this was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace and Brier contract.
The reason for the 5 year period was the substantial investment made by Fire District 1. Council
President Wilson questioned the reason for a 2-year notice rather than 12 months. Chief Tomberg
answered it would give both the Fire District 1 and the City an opportunity to ensure the termination
occurred in an orderly manner. Council President Wilson preferred to change the notice from 2 years to 1
year, anticipating since the Council would complete this process by December, it could be unwound in
less than 2 years. He suggested termination of the contract be allowed to occur in 3 years.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 11.5, Regional Fire Protection Service Authority, expressing
concern that this section gave all the decision-making and policy-making authority to Fire District 1. He
suggested the City retain the authority to enter into an RFA without Fire District 1 if they wished. Chief
Tomberg explained the City Attorney and Fire District 1’s attorney drafted this section. He recalled until
fall 2008, the City was involved in RFA discussions with the south county service providers, a process
that was led by Fire District 1. Mayor Haakenson explained this section allowed Edmonds to opt out of a
RFA if Fire District 1 wanted to form a RFA and Edmonds did not want to join. He remarked
realistically Edmonds would never be part of a RFA that did not include Fire District 1.
Council President Wilson agreed with Mayor Haakenson’s assumption regarding a RFA, commenting at
some point he wanted to examine the concept of a Fire District comprised of Edmonds and Woodway or
Edmonds, Woodway and Mountlake Terrace or reverse annexation into Fire District 1. He wanted to
provide the Fire District 1 the same opportunity to opt out that was provided to the City in Section 11.5.
The same was true for Sections 12.1 and 12.1.3 which provides the City the opportunity to opt out if the
City declined to merge into a Fire District. He requested language be added that would allow Fire District
1 to opt out if they declined to merge into a Fire District or if they were opposed to the City annexing into
Fire District 1.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Murray’s comment about the City continuing to pay for
department heads, explaining under the proposed contract, the Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief and the
Executive Assistant would all transfer to Fire District 1.
Packet Page 7 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 5
With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comments that Esperance and Woodway were not involved in the contract
discussions, Councilmember Wambolt advised Woodway’s Mayor Pro Tem attended the joint meeting
between the Council and Fire District 1 Commissioners. He agreed it was likely Esperance and
Woodway would experience a greater expense for fire service. He remarked a total of 12 different
citizens spoke regarding the Fire District 1 contract, 27 times.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the financial situation was very compelling. He agreed there
needed to be some refinement such as suggested by Mr. Murray regarding fuel projections, however, that
refinement would be very slight. He pointed out under Option 1, expenses through 2016 would exceed
revenues by $21.1 million. Under Option 4, expenses through 2016 would exceed revenues by $12.4
million. Over that seven year period, the City would be $10.6 million better off under Option 4 than
Option 1. He summarized contracting for fire service with Fire District 1 did not solve the City’s
financial problem; a levy lid lift would still be necessary.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Ms. Buckshnis’ comment that the Firefighters Union indicated there would
be a $2.5 million loss by contracting with Fire District 1. Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds
Firefighters Local 1828, responded he was not aware of that.
Councilmember Bernheim commented he wanted to be certain he understood the basis for the Union’s
support: to stabilize public safety funding and staffing levels. He asked whether there had been a lack of
stability in the actual funding levels of the Fire Department. Mr. Hoover answered there had been the
threat of lack of funding every year. Last year through the work of the City Council as well as Fire
Administration and the Union, the EMS levy was increased and transport fees were initiated which
generated an additional $1.5 million. To date, the threat of insufficient funding has been circumvented by
identifying additional revenue sources. Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged there had been threats
but actual funding for the Fire Department had remained stead and stable. Mr. Hoover agreed it had but
the Fire Department was included in discussion regarding across-the-board cuts every year. He pointed
out the Fire Department’s budget had been cut in the past including the loss of the Assistant Fire Chief
five years ago.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how this proposal accomplished regionalization and why regionalization
was the best way to provide the highest level of service. Mr. Hoover answered savings were based on
economies of scale by reducing overhead costs while maintaining levels of service. This was beneficial
to citizens because instead of relying on automatic aid, assistance was provided by the neighboring fire
station that was within the same organization.
Councilmember Orvis requested page 545 of 1057 of last week’s packet, Option 1 versus Option 4, also
be available on the City’s website.
Councilmember Orvis commented after talking with Chief Tomberg as well as the Fire District 1 Chief,
he learned Fire District 1 sends its firefighters for live fire training in North Bend on overtime. Because
Edmonds cannot afford to pay overtime, when Edmonds firefighters go to North Bend, there is a hole in
service in the City. Fire District 1 does a much better job providing coverage for firefighters attending
training.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out the required 2 year written notice in Section 11.2 could be
beneficial to Edmonds. In the event Fire District 1 wanted to terminate the contract, Edmonds would
need at least that much time to establish its own fire service. He summarized the 2 year written notice
was beneficial to both the City and Fire District 1. He agreed with the 5 year termination clause in
Section 11.1 in view of the significant outlay of resources by Fire District 1. He noted the 5 year period
Packet Page 8 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 6
was also important for the firefighters who transferred to Fire District 1. He summarized the 5 year
period was appropriate from both a contractual as well as a service aspect.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Councilmember Orvis whether he envisioned the Council would vote on
the contract at the November 2 meeting. Councilmember Orvis responded yes, explaining he crunched
the numbers this weekend and was unable to find any flaws; contracting with Fire District 1 would save
the City money in the long run. He did not anticipate terminating the contract unless Fire District 1
charged the City more than the City could provide the service itself which he did not envision would
happen. He spoke in support of Option 4 and suggested the November 2 agenda include a public hearing
as well as state that the Council may take action on Option 4.
Councilmember Bernheim noted the contract was a 20 year term and the base rate could be renegotiated
after 20 years. Mayor Haakenson agreed the base rate in 20 years would be different than the base rate
today. The contract language states the contract would be negotiated identically as it was today.
Councilmember Bernheim observed the base rate of $6.2 million was established for next year and each
year it would be adjusted depending on the factors identified in the contract such as labor costs,
equipment replacement, etc. Chief Tomberg advised the contract would be adjusted annually for CPI.
Mayor Haakenson advised a larger increase would occur when labor contracts were negotiated.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if all the potential cost increases were limited to CPI. Chief Tomberg
advised that information was detailed in Section 4.5. Councilmember Bernheim summarized if the City
retained its own Fire Department, in 25 years the City would be in charge of how much the fire service
cost which was not necessarily true if the City contracted for fire service.
Councilmember Bernheim remarked he was impressed with the competency, command, capacity and
confidence of the Fire District 1 Commissioners. However, he was concerned with turning over the
City’s fire service to Fire District 1 when the citizens would not have an opportunity to vote for the
Commissioners.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if the contract addressed the new base rate when the contract expired in
20 years. Mayor Haakenson answered it did not. Councilmember Bernheim responded that was his
primary reservation with this contract. He agreed the City’s financial situation was dire and that the City
budget would be easier over the next five years if the City contracted with Fire District 1. If citizens
wanted to retain control of the Fire Department, they should expect to pay the full cost of the Fire
Department. He favored placing a levy on the ballot to allow the voters to indicate whether they were
willing to pay for services. He supported the levy and the Edmonds Fire Department but was hesitant to
give up control of the Fire Department.
Council President Wilson commented he had sufficiently vetted the service and financial questions but
did not feel the public has had sufficient time to vet the financial questions. He was inclined to vote for
the contract but was concerned 7 years was too long to obligate the City without any flexibility. He asked
whether in 2002 Mayor Haakenson would have been in favor of obligating the City for 7 years. Mayor
Haakenson answered he has been reviewing the contract proposal since April 2009 with the Fire Chief,
two Finance Directors, the City Attorney, and 5 public hearings where 12 people have spoken 27 times.
During that time he had not received any calls from citizens expressing concern with the contract. Also
during that time he held a neighborhood meeting where the only person who raised the issue was a
Lynnwood Fire Department employee who lives in the City. He has attended meetings where political
questions were raised and no one has brought up the issue of the fire service contract with Fire District 1.
The issue has been on the front page of both newspapers for months, on the City’s website, and on
Channel 21. He assured he would not have offered the contract to the Council if he did not believe in the
Packet Page 9 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 7
contract terms, that there were financial savings, and that the citizens would be better served. Whether it
was 2002 or 2009, the believed this was the right thing to do.
Mayor Haakenson commented in 2002 he had no idea what would happen in the next 7 years, nor did he
know what would happen in the next 7 or even 20 years. This contract would put the City in good stead
for the next 2-3 years although a levy would still be necessary. He concluded the 5 year termination
clause protected the City as well as Fire District 1 due to the huge investment they were making in taking
on the Edmonds Fire Department employees and equipment. If the Council preferred a 1-year notice, that
could be negotiated; however, he had no issue with the 2-year period. If he were Mayor and the Council
decided in 5 years to opt out of the contract, he would want as much time as possible to set up the City’s
Fire Department.
Council President Wilson reiterated he felt 5 years plus a 2-year notice was too long. Pointing out the
Council would be completing the contact over the course of 2 months including the sale of the fire
apparatus, he envisioned that could be reversed in 12 months. He anticipated it would be a totally
different world in 5 years; the situation was much different today than it was in 2003. He acknowledged a
termination clause of less than 5 years or a notice period of less than 2 years may be totally unacceptable
to Fire District 1. He also planned to work with City Attorney Scott Snyder to develop opt out language
in the contract for Fire District 1.
Mayor Haakenson suggested Council President Wilson determine whether at least four Councilmembers
agreed with having the City Attorney develop that language, noting the City Attorney’s policy of not
spending more than on hour on an issue unless at least four Councilmembers agreed. Council President
Wilson assured his request would not consume more than one hour of the City Attorney’s time.
With regard to the 2-year notice, Councilmember Peterson commented the formation of a RFA would be
a lengthy process. If Edmonds wanted to form a RFA with Mountlake Terrace and Woodway, the 2-year
notice would be desirable and as beneficial to Edmonds. He cautioned the Council should not pursue a
contract with the idea of getting out of it; if the concerns were that great, the City should not enter into the
contract. Council President Wilson stated the 2-year notice period was for any reason other than a RFA.
Councilmember Wambolt commented there was no relationship between the term of the contract and the
notice period. If it were a 3-year contract, a 2-year notice may still be desirable. He commented if the
City wanted to terminate the agreement, planning could occur before notice was given; if Fire District 1
wanted to terminate the agreement, the entire 2-year period may be necessary. He asked Chief Tomberg
whether a Fire Department could be established in one year, noting the contract with Fire District 1 was
able to be completed relatively quickly because all the staff were transferring to Fire District 1. If Fire
District 1 terminated the contract, the employees may not necessarily transfer to the City and recruitment
may be necessary. Chief Tomberg responded he was hopeful the City was not contracting for fire service
in 20 years; he hoped a RFA would be formed in the near future. He commented although the discussion
was about regionalization, the concern seemed to be Edmonds having its own Fire Department again. He
relayed the Mukilteo Beacon reported last week that the offer Fire District 1 made to Mukilteo was not
presented to the Mukilteo City Council. Mukilteo is watching Edmonds and may consider Fire District
1’s offer. With regard to setting up a standalone Fire Department, he remarked the more time, the better.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he had no issue with the 5 year termination clause in light of the
significant investment Fire District 1 was making. With regard to the notice period, he commented a
great deal would need to be accomplished in the event the contract was terminated.
Council President Wilson explained his primary concern was 2 years following 5 years. He would accept
even 2 years within the 5 years or ideally 2 years with 3 years. He pointed out the City had not done any
Packet Page 10 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 8
planning with regard to the impacts of I-1033. If I-1033 passes, it will be even more difficult for future
Council’s to address the constraints of a 7-year wait before the contract with Fire District 1 which
comprises approximately 20% of the City’s budget, could be terminated. He was concerned the Council
had not discussed how it would effectively manage the budget in a post I-1033 world.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the passage of I-1033 would require a levy lid lift. Council
President Wilson pointed out all other City services, including police and parks, would be at greater risk if
I-1033 passed, a levy failed and the Council did not have the ability to terminate the fire service contract
for 7 years. Mayor Haakenson responded if I-1033 passed the Police Department and Fire Department
would continue to be funded, parks may not. Further, fire service would cost the City $1 million less via
contracting with Fire District 1 than the City having its own Fire Department. He commented if I-1033
passed and the City were in dire straits, the only option to reduce the cost of fire service would be to close
a fire station or lay off firefighters. He suggested the Council deal with I-1033 if it passed, commenting it
had no effect on the fire service contract.
Council President Wilson clarified he was not suggesting that a fire station be closed or that firefighters
be laid off. He was interested in exploring other options such as annexing into Fire District 1 or a
standalone Fire District with Mountlake Terrace or Woodway. If the Council planned to pass the fire
service contract next Monday with the outcome of I-1033 unknown, he preferred to have some flexibility
with regard to termination of the contract. Mayor Haakenson responded he had no interest in forming a
new Fire District today or if I-1033 passed because it was not a good thing for Edmonds citizens.
Mountlake Terrace and Brier have a good contract with Fire District 1 and were not interested in forming
a Fire District with Edmonds; they are interested in a RFA with Fire District 1. He summarized the City’s
future was with a RFA, not an Edmonds/Woodway or Edmonds/Mountlake Terrace Fire District.
Councilmember Orvis commented he found the proposed language acceptable and viewed contracting for
service with Fire District 1 as a more stable situation for the Fire Department. He did not envision
addressing budget problems by reductions in the Fire Department under any circumstances.
Councilmember Plunkett also found the proposed language acceptable, both the 5-year termination clause
as well as the 2-year notice, noting those time periods provided stability and flexibility. He noted the
contract did not restrict the City from taking action with regard to the formation of a RFA. If I-1033
passed, he would rather be in a contract for service with Fire District 1 than the City having its own Fire
Department because it costs more for the City to operate its own Fire Department. He did not envision
making cuts to the Fire Department even if I-1033 passed.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting the City was better off with
a contract with Fire District 1 than on its own.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, IN SECTION 11.2 RELATED TO YEARS 6
THROUGH 20, TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO READ, “EITHER PARTY MAY
TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AFTER THE FIRST FOUR YEARS...BY PROVIDING THE
OTHER PARTY WITH ONE YEAR WRITTEN NOTICE...ONCE FOUR YEARS HAVE
ELAPSED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT DATE.”
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Bernheim questioned the language in Section 4.5. Chief Tomberg referred to Exhibit C
in the binder where the costs were detailed. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the labor cost increase for
2010 was 2.14%.
Packet Page 11 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 9
Council President Wilson commented if Councilmembers were not interested in making any change to the
contract, he would not propose alternate language. There were no changes requested by any
Councilmember.
Mayor Haakenson suggested any changes be discussed tonight to allow the public time for review.
Councilmember Bernheim questioned whether the term of the contract should be lengthened. Mayor
Haakenson agreed with Chief Tomberg that it was unlikely the contract for fire service would be in place
in 20 years because of the likelihood that the City would be part of a RFA.
Mayor Haakenson clarified Option 4 as presented in tonight’s packet would be on the November 2 agenda
for a public hearing and Council action.
Council President Wilson asked for confirmation that it was the Council’s policy decision that the sale of
the assets would be placed in the General Operating Fund. The Council agreed it was.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, clarified he did not mean to suggest that he did not understand the value of a
representative government or a representative democracy. He was only commenting on the public
hearing process. From his perspective, there had been very good public comment that helped the Council
reach this point and as long as the comments from the public were different and reasonable, they assisted
with the process. His point was there was a difference between a public hearing and public comment
while deliberations occurred. In his view, tonight was the first public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson agreed life gets in the way; people are busy.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on several subjects, 1) the Lake Ballinger situation is being
addressed by the Lake Ballinger Forum, 2) the Friends of the Edmonds Library held their annual book
sale last week, and 3) the Mukilteo Beacon reported Mukilteo’s Mayor did not present the Fire District 1
contract proposal to the City Council.
7. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Council President Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum met today and are considering the formation
of an independent governing authority to address issues associated with Lake Ballinger.
Councilmember Wambolt reported, the Port of Edmonds held their first public hearing on the draft 2010
operating budget at their October 12 meeting. The Port’s interest income is down $200,000 from last
year. Port staff requested a 2.8% pay increase which the Commissioners did not approve. The
Commissioners also discussed moorage rates for 2010. At their October 26 meeting, Commissioners
again discussed moorage rates and requested staff develop scenarios with 2-5% increases in moorage
rates. The Commission also reviewed their 3rd quarter operating results which indicated net operating
income is down 4% year-to-date but the 3rd quarter is up 30% compared to last year. The Harbor Square
Master Plan will be presented to the Commission at their November 16 meeting; the location of that
meeting has yet to be determined.
Councilmember Wambolt reported on the Community Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC), advising
the Superior Court ruled that use of the City’s excess capacity on the City’s high speed fiber optic
communication system by private individuals and non-governmental business and organizations that need
access to ultra high band width communication is a lawful public purpose of the City.
Packet Page 12 of 339
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 27, 2009
Page 10
Councilmember Orvis reported the Health District was holding vaccination clinics on October 31.
Additional information was available at SnoCoFlu.org or via the link on the City’s website. He
encouraged members of the high risk groups to be vaccinated.
Councilmember Bernheim reminded the seasonal flu shot was available at Bartell Drugs as well as the
Swine Flu shot for those who qualified.
Councilmember Bernheim reported Community Transit was also experiencing a budget shortfall due to
their dependence on sales tax revenue. They are considering imposing service and/or personnel cuts as
part of their 2010 budget. Swift Bus service, express service from Aurora Village to the Everett Transit
Center with stops along Hwy. 99 and service every 10 minutes, will begin in November.
Councilmember Plunkett reported on the Downtown Parking Committee, relaying that downtown parking
enforcement was improving. Because Edmonds no longer provides animal control in Mountlake Terrace,
the number of parking tickets issued in September increased from 69 to 225. He explained the purpose of
parking enforcement was to move people through downtown and to ensure parking was available for
shoppers visiting downtown stores.
Councilmember Peterson reported the Council’s Economic Development Committee would be meeting
later this week following the Economic Development Commission’s meeting with the Planning Board.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported next week’s agenda will include an update from Community Transit on Bus
Rapid Transit. He also reported a kick-off meeting for a common CAD system for SnoCom and SnoPac
was held last week.
Mayor Haakenson announced that the next Council meeting will be Monday, November 2 due to the
election on November 3.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson reminded voters to mail their ballots by November 3.
Councilmember Bernheim reported several weeks ago Planning Manager Rob Chave and he attended a
meeting hosted by the Nissan Motor Company regarding their plans to release a large number of
completely electric cars with a 100 mile range in the Pacific Northwest in December 2010. He advised
Mr. Chave and he attended due to the possibility of fleet sales for the City.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Item G on tonight’s Consent Agenda, a proclamation in honor of
Finding an End to Poverty Week, November 2 - 8, 2009. To bring attention to this worldwide issue,
Edmonds United Methodist Church is sponsoring its 4th annual Poverty Conference, Brighter Futures for
the Worlds Children, Education Conquers Poverty on Saturday, November 7.
Councilmember Peterson reminded parents to bring their children trick-or-treating in downtown Edmonds
from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. on Halloween.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Packet Page 13 of 339
AM-2578 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #114982 through #115132 dated October 29, 2009 for $518,862.77.
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:$518,862.77
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 10-29-09
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Finance Lorenzo Hines 10/29/2009 01:57 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 01:59 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 02:08 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 02:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 10/29/2009 11:07
AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 14 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
114982 10/22/2009 072975 THE ESCROW CONNECTION INC 939 Main St PURCHASE OF WETLAND P/A 939 MAIN ST
Purchase of Wetland at 939 Main St,
126.000.390.594.750.610.00 34,664.65
Total :34,664.65
114983 10/29/2009 041695 3M XAM3522 TP81377 Street - Tomato Red 30"x50YD Vinyl Roll
Street - Tomato Red 30"x50YD Vinyl Roll
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 183.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 17.45
Street - Roll Black 30"x50YD VinylTP81378
Street - Roll Black 30"x50YD Vinyl
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 183.75
Roll White 30"x50YD Vinyl
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 183.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 34.92
Total :603.62
114984 10/29/2009 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 274313 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
114985 10/29/2009 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND NOVEMBER 2009 ANIMAL BOARDING EDMONDS - NOV 2009
ANIMAL BOARDING NOVEMBER 2009
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66
Total :2,032.66
114986 10/29/2009 069157 AIONA, CYNDI AIONA11678 HULA CLASSES
1Page:
Packet Page 15 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
114986 10/29/2009 (Continued)069157 AIONA, CYNDI
HULA KIDS #11678
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00
ADULT HULA #11680
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00
Total :392.00
114987 10/29/2009 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 32644 82948
AIR FILTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.28
Total :37.78
114988 10/29/2009 000710 ALASKAN COPPER & BRASS 645242-1 Sewer - LS 1 - 40' - 1 1/4" Brass Pipe
Sewer - LS 1 - 40' - 1 1/4" Brass Pipe
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 623.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 59.20
Total :682.40
114989 10/29/2009 065568 ALLWATER INC 102209058 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 21.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67
Total :22.52
114990 10/29/2009 001528 AM TEST INC 55880 SALT SAMPLES
SALT SAMPLES
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 540.00
Total :540.00
114991 10/29/2009 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON1024 PLAZA ROOM/ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM/ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 75.00
2Page:
Packet Page 16 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :75.0011499110/29/2009 066025 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE
114992 10/29/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4557436 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 47.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 4.47
Total :51.51
114993 10/29/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4533041 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.80
21580001655-4557440
UNIFORM SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.79
Total :202.77
114994 10/29/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4537613 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
Fleet Uniform Svc655-4537614
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
3Page:
Packet Page 17 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
114994 10/29/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4545208
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
PW Mats655-4549674
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
4Page:
Packet Page 18 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
114994 10/29/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4557437
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
Total :151.01
114995 10/29/2009 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 107978 66597
BEARINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,868.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 111.50
Total :1,979.50
114996 10/29/2009 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.86
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.06
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.06
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.06
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.05
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.06
Total :37.15
114997 10/29/2009 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 35.90
Total :35.90
114998 10/29/2009 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 52533 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
5Page:
Packet Page 19 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
114998 10/29/2009 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.65
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.65
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 90.93
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 291.30
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 291.29
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.64
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS52614
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 124.06
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 124.06
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 124.44
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 399.54
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 399.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.79
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.79
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.81
Total :2,087.70
6Page:
Packet Page 20 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
114999 10/29/2009 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 72778 BADGE
BADGE
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 8.75
Freight
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 3.22
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.14
Total :13.11
115000 10/29/2009 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2008-869 INV 2008-869 EDMONDS PD ROBINSON
PRE-EMPLOY SCREENING EXAM
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
115001 10/29/2009 072581 BARK TIME BLOWER TRUCK SERVICE 6441 YARD WASTE
YARD WASTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 151.60
YARD WASTE6442
YARD WASTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 151.60
YARD WASTE6443
YARD WASTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 170.55
YARD WASTE6444
YARD WASTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 151.60
Total :625.35
115002 10/29/2009 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0002781 E8GB.Services thru 09/18/09
E8GB.Services thru 09/18/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 10,936.17
Total :10,936.17
115003 10/29/2009 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 463165 Unit 474 - Repair Supplies
7Page:
Packet Page 21 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115003 10/29/2009 (Continued)002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY
Unit 474 - Repair Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 202.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.22
Total :221.50
115004 10/29/2009 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 128084 Unit 474 - Repair Cushion
Unit 474 - Repair Cushion
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 82.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 7.26
Unit 680 - Repair Cushions128085
Unit 680 - Repair Cushions
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 313.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 26.64
Total :429.90
115005 10/29/2009 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14112095 C-311
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 3,030.39
Total :3,030.39
115006 10/29/2009 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK11388 ART FOR KIDZ
DOODLE DOTS #11388
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 340.20
MINI MARKERS~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 413.00
Total :753.20
115007 10/29/2009 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 90857442 Street - Cement
Street - Cement
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 497.25
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 47.24
8Page:
Packet Page 22 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :544.4911500710/29/2009 018495 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY
115008 10/29/2009 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL11408 OIL PAINTING CLASSES
OIL PAINTING #11408
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80
OIL PAINTING #11409
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20
Total :924.00
115009 10/29/2009 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON11392 ART FOR KIDZ
ADVENTURES IN DRAWING~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 273.00
Total :273.00
115010 10/29/2009 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS 9418013410 Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 50.60
Water - Asphalt9418094010
Water - Asphalt
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 429.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 40.78
Storm - Dump Fees9418100949
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 160.55
Total :681.18
115011 10/29/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 149549 Sewer - Cutoff Wheel
Sewer - Cutoff Wheel
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.54
Total :6.22
115012 10/29/2009 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11577 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11577
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 92.40
9Page:
Packet Page 23 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :92.4011501210/29/2009 064840 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E
115013 10/29/2009 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 21635123 STATEMENT #21635123 ACCT 7898305185
FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 334.39
Total :334.39
115014 10/29/2009 071621 CHINN, LOUIS F CHINN11394 CARTOONING FOR KIDS
CARTOONING FOR KIDS~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 167.70
Total :167.70
115015 10/29/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460534204 OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 130.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.38
VOLS UNIFORMS460534205
Vol hanger rack (credit to be issued
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.90
UNIFORMS460536906
Stn. 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 108.39
Stn. 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 108.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.30
OPS UNIFORMS460536926
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.85
10Page:
Packet Page 24 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115015 10/29/2009 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
OPS UNIFORMS460539064
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 139.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.29
VOLS UNIFORMS460539065
Hanger rack (credit to be issued)
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.90
UNIFORMS460541707
Stn. 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 108.39
Stn. 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 108.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.30
Total :928.00
115016 10/29/2009 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I09002313 Water Quality - Water Analysis Lab Work
Water Quality - Water Analysis Lab Work
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 664.20
Total :664.20
115017 10/29/2009 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I09002363 INV #I09002363 EDMPOLI WSCJTC SATELLITE
TRAINING COSTS - WSCJTC SAT.
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
Total :300.00
115018 10/29/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7330 E3JB.Phse II Sidewalk thru 08/15/09
11Page:
Packet Page 25 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115018 10/29/2009 (Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
E3JB.Phse II Sidewalk thru 08/15/09
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 55,846.44
E3JB.Phse II Watermain thru 08/15/09
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 171,045.58
E3GB.Sewer Laterals thru 08/15/09
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 18,410.89
E3JB.Sidewalk thru 8/24/097340
E3JB.Sidewalk thru 8/24/09
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 17,026.20
E3JB.Water thru 8/24/09
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 10,617.83
Total :272,946.94
115019 10/29/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7394 INV# 7394 CUST#47 EDMONDS NARC SGT.
SHARE OF NARC SGT JUL-SEP 09
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 9,947.63
Total :9,947.63
115020 10/29/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2116583 Fac Maint - Cleaner, Air, Liners,
Fac Maint - Cleaner, Air, Liners,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 505.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.01
Total :553.38
115021 10/29/2009 004579 COMPAAN, ALAN D OCT 20, 09 EXP CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT FOR SCSPCA MEETINGS
COMPAAN MEETING 2/29/09 - SCSPCA
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 13.86
COMPAAN & THOMPSON MEETING 4/17/09
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 26.00
COMPAAN & THOMPSON MEETING 6/19/09
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 32.58
Total :72.44
115022 10/29/2009 069482 COMPRESSORS NORTHWEST 68304 Unit 46 - Filter
12Page:
Packet Page 26 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115022 10/29/2009 (Continued)069482 COMPRESSORS NORTHWEST
Unit 46 - Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.90
Total :21.90
115023 10/29/2009 072513 CONATY, LEANNE CONATY11443 A BRUSH WITH VAN GOGH
A BRUSH WITH VAN GOGH~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00
Total :252.00
115024 10/29/2009 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 510-0128 OPS UNIFORMS
Training chief
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 46.52
OPS UNIFORMS510-0729
BCs
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 73.92
OPS UNIFORMS510-1303
Kuhn
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 6.84
OPS UNIFORMS510-1602
B Mc
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 23.26
ADMIN UNIFORMS510-1884
FC
001.000.510.522.100.240.00 15.07
OPS UNIFORMS510-2341
AC
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 35.58
Total :201.19
115025 10/29/2009 065183 COSMOPOLITAN ENGINEERING GROUP2009137 NPDES CONSULTING
NPDES CONSULTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 7,606.69
Total :7,606.69
13Page:
Packet Page 27 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115026 10/29/2009 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM11653 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #11649
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 147.00
Total :399.00
115027 10/29/2009 065961 CRYOTECH DEICING TECHNOLOGY IN20317 Street - Hwy Deicer
Street - Hwy Deicer
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 12,108.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 1,850.24
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 1,326.04
Total :15,284.28
115028 10/29/2009 065752 DAPHNE R SCHNEIDER & ASSOC 2 Team Development Training Sessions
Team Development Training Sessions
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 2,999.40
Total :2,999.40
115029 10/29/2009 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2010WAR009068 E5MC.Stormwater Permit
E5MC.Stormwater Permit
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 227.00
Total :227.00
115030 10/29/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-3041 MINUTE TAKING
10/20 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 309.00
Total :309.00
115031 10/29/2009 068395 DUO-SAFETY LADDER CORP 425793-00 OPS SM EQUIPMT
aluminum rungs
001.000.510.522.200.350.00 98.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.350.00 28.55
14Page:
Packet Page 28 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :126.5511503110/29/2009 068395 068395 DUO-SAFETY LADDER CORP
115032 10/29/2009 072982 E & E LUMBER 10352 TRAINING SUPPLIES
lumber
001.000.510.522.400.310.00 182.13
Total :182.13
115033 10/29/2009 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 09-15517 WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE TESTING
WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE TESTING
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 972.00
Total :972.00
115034 10/29/2009 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 15234 SUPPLIES
SPARK PLUGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.56
SUPPLIES15410
PLUG
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.29
Total :9.82
115035 10/29/2009 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 14772 Sewer - TV Truck 62 - Ratchet, Allen
Sewer - TV Truck 62 - Ratchet, Allen
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 41.74
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.97
Total :45.71
115036 10/29/2009 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 17389 UPS/DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
UPS/DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 10.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.03
15Page:
Packet Page 29 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :11.9311503610/29/2009 070683 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
115037 10/29/2009 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP MCLEAN1026 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:~
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 59.00
Total :59.00
115038 10/29/2009 062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT DETECTIVES 10/23/09 PETTY CASH DETECTIVES BUY FUND 10-23-09
CELL MINUTES - CONF. INFORMANT - 09-1539
001.000.410.521.210.490.00 27.38
CONTROLLED BUY 09-2865
001.000.410.521.210.490.00 260.00
Total :287.38
115039 10/29/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 54.42
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 46.26
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 33.13
Total :157.61
115040 10/29/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00650 LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
LIFT STATION #81-00925
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.97
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
16Page:
Packet Page 30 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115040 10/29/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 370.91
Public Works Meter Shop1-05350
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 156.08
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 50.50
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 542.60
CITY HALL1-14000
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 115.63
LIFT STATION #32-26950
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 50.50
LIFT STATION #144-34080
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
Total :1,413.39
115041 10/29/2009 068796 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECH INC 10053 DIP STICK PRO/WITH EXTENSION
DIP STICK PRO/WITH EXTENSION
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 299.95
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 30.00
Total :329.95
115042 10/29/2009 072980 ESC ASSOC - SUNSET LANDING PLN20090042 90% refund of application fee.
17Page:
Packet Page 31 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115042 10/29/2009 (Continued)072980 ESC ASSOC - SUNSET LANDING
90% refund of application fee.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 2,929.50
Total :2,929.50
115043 10/29/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0231278 Sewer - Brass Couplings
Sewer - Brass Couplings
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 240.91
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 18.55
Total :259.46
115044 10/29/2009 067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING KING11328 ETIQUETTE CLASSES
ETIQUETTE: STARTING POINT~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00
ETIQUETTE: YOUNG LADIES & GENTLEMEN~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 225.00
Total :365.00
115045 10/29/2009 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 259874 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
Nov-09 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
115046 10/29/2009 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH11657 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 286.00
Total :286.00
115047 10/29/2009 072896 GIBSON & ASSOCIATES 1461.3 Recruiting fee in connection with
Recruiting fee in connection with
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 24,518.80
Total :24,518.80
115048 10/29/2009 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE11528 WATERCOLOR/DRAWING
18Page:
Packet Page 32 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115048 10/29/2009 (Continued)071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE
WATERCOLOR BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 554.40
DRAWING BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20
Total :985.60
115049 10/29/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9087618626 Water - Disposable Wipes
Water - Disposable Wipes
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 94.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.00
Total :103.73
115050 10/29/2009 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 110582/1 Water - Non Inventory Setters
Water - Non Inventory Setters
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,636.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 155.43
Total :1,791.49
115051 10/29/2009 012560 HACH COMPANY 6458791 112830
LAB SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 232.93
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 15.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 23.66
Total :272.54
115052 10/29/2009 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007A9374 036570
19Page:
Packet Page 33 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115052 10/29/2009 (Continued)060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS
PLASTIC SHEET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 354.96
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 35.62
Total :410.58
115053 10/29/2009 013350 HIGHLAND, SCOTT E3JC.9 E3JC.Highland thru 10/24/09
E3JC.Highland thru 10/24/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,260.00
HIghland Mileage thru 10/24/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 13.86
Total :1,273.86
115054 10/29/2009 072869 HINES, JR, LORENZO 10/26/09 Hours worked for the w/e 10/23/09 (34
Hours worked for the w/e 10/23/09 (34
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 2,040.00
Total :2,040.00
115055 10/29/2009 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 74 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 22.52
Total :22.52
115056 10/29/2009 072981 HOLLYWOOD LIGHTS INC 17841 HOLIDAY LIGHTS/DOWNTOWN
HOLIDAY LIGHTS FOR DOWNTOWN AREA
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 3,000.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 285.00
Total :3,285.00
115057 10/29/2009 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1033146 0205
20Page:
Packet Page 34 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115057 10/29/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.62
02054030055
FRAME AND POST HINGES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.19
Total :20.77
115058 10/29/2009 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 360003040332 C/A 360000657091
Oct-09 Basic e-commerce hosting
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 360000764828360003045681
Oct 09 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 430001405909440010160212
Nov-09 P&R Directory Listing
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 125.25
Total :195.15
115059 10/29/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80639056 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 799.04
Total :799.04
115060 10/29/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80619485 INV# 80619485 467070-1005305A3 COMBINED
copier rental 10/13-11/12/09
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 37.83
additonal images
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 58.22
21Page:
Packet Page 35 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :436.0511506010/29/2009 070042 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES
115061 10/29/2009 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 09-05-9 E7MA.Srevices thru May, 2009
E7MA.Srevices thru May, 2009
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 1,507.00
Total :1,507.00
115062 10/29/2009 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 112625 INV#112625 EDMONDS PD
3 PREHIRE PHQ REPORTS
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 36.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 2.75
Total :38.75
115063 10/29/2009 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 412023 Fac Maint - Padlocks, Stock Supplies
Fac Maint - Padlocks, Stock Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 81.84
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.32
Total :95.95
115064 10/29/2009 072978 KNUDSON, JOSH KNUDSON1026 REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 220.00
Total :220.00
115065 10/29/2009 072976 KOMPAN INC INV66104 HICKMAN PARK PLAY TOY SIGNS
HICKMAN PARK PLAY TOY SIGNS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 2,176.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 206.72
Total :2,382.72
115066 10/29/2009 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN LAMPHERE11698 COOLING INFLAMMATION WITH FOOD
22Page:
Packet Page 36 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115066 10/29/2009 (Continued)069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN
COOLING INFLAMMATION WITH FOOD~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.00
Total :168.00
115067 10/29/2009 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 25711 Tree & Stump Removal Policy Development
Tree & Stump Removal Policy Development
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 1,975.00
Total :1,975.00
115068 10/29/2009 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 174118 Street - Dept - Tire Tube
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 0.81
Street - Dept - Tire Tube
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 8.49
Total :9.30
115069 10/29/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102598 Letterhead and envelopes for
Letterhead and envelopes for
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 452.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 42.99
Total :495.49
115070 10/29/2009 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 280371-00 Fac Maint - 50' Rope w/ grab/ hooks
Fac Maint - 50' Rope w/ grab/ hooks
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 120.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 11.40
Total :131.40
115071 10/29/2009 061900 MARC 0400431-IN 00-0902224
23Page:
Packet Page 37 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115071 10/29/2009 (Continued)061900 MARC
DISINFECTANT
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 79.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 5.15
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 7.99
Total :92.14
115072 10/29/2009 068950 MARYSVILLE FIRE DISTRICT 09-056 TRAINING MISC
Nichols Conflct Reslutn
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 99.00
Total :99.00
115073 10/29/2009 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0073225 OVERALLS, JACKET
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.80
OVERALLS, JACKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 82.00
Total :89.80
115074 10/29/2009 063773 MICROFLEX 00018853 Tax Audit Program
Tax Audit Program
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 302.27
Total :302.27
115075 10/29/2009 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 97862 CHAINSAW AIR FILTER
CHAINSAW AIR FILTER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.54
Total :17.71
115076 10/29/2009 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 97673 Wade James - Soil Pipe Cutter Rental
24Page:
Packet Page 38 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115076 10/29/2009 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
Wade James - Soil Pipe Cutter Rental
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 16.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 1.52
Total :17.52
115077 10/29/2009 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0258852-IN Sewer - RKI Calib Gas
Sewer - RKI Calib Gas
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 220.00
Sewer - Rain Gear, Flaggers Vests
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 338.53
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.50
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 11.55
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 21.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 33.26
Total :632.45
115078 10/29/2009 070109 NAUTILUS ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 3791 DMR STUDY
DMR STUDY
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 125.00
Total :125.00
115079 10/29/2009 070788 NETRIVER INC 47048 DOMAIN NAME FEE PUGETSOUNDBIRDFEST.ORG
Annual domain name renewal fee for
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 29.90
Total :29.90
115080 10/29/2009 072700 NETWORK HARDWARE RESALE LLC 271885 QUOTE 260205-1 & 260492-1
25Page:
Packet Page 39 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115080 10/29/2009 (Continued)072700 NETWORK HARDWARE RESALE LLC
Cisco Router & Laser WS-C3560G-24TS-S -310-00129
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 2,790.00
Cisco Router & Laser GLC-ZX-SM -310-00129
001.000.310.518.870.350.00 860.00
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 16.73
Freight
001.000.310.518.870.350.00 5.16
Total :3,671.89
115081 10/29/2009 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB11454 FUN FACTORY
MINI ME FUN FACTORY #11454
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 495.00
FUN FACTORY #11457
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 904.50
Total :1,399.50
115082 10/29/2009 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3073865.001 2091
LAMP
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 311.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 29.58
Total :340.98
115083 10/29/2009 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 6039 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,304.27
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 123.91
Total :1,428.18
115084 10/29/2009 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-024895 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 183.47
26Page:
Packet Page 40 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115084 10/29/2009 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-025649
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-026619
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :563.21
115085 10/29/2009 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 674 Planning Board minutes for 10/14/09.
Planning Board minutes for 10/14/09.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 352.00
Historic Preservation Commission000 00 675
Historic Preservation Commission
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00
Total :480.00
115086 10/29/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 858317 Calculator paper rolls/2010 wall
Calculator paper rolls/2010 wall
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 79.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 7.56
Total :87.12
115087 10/29/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 568763 520437
DESKPAD CALENDAR
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 16.02
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 1.52
520437797150
LAMINATING POUCHES/LABELS/INJET
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 136.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 12.98
Total :167.08
27Page:
Packet Page 41 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115088 10/29/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 693027 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 83.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.92
OFFICE SUPPLIES854897
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 216.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 20.60
Total :328.75
115089 10/29/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 858580 PW Office Supplies - Staple removers,
PW Office Supplies - Staple removers,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 67.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 6.43
Street - Sign Shop - Ink cartridge871054
Street - Sign Shop - Ink cartridge
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 90.40
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 8.59
Total :173.10
115090 10/29/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 793918 Credit for calendar received in error
Credit for calendar received in error
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -11.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -1.05
Credit for calendar received in error793931
Credit for calendar received in error
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -11.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -1.05
28Page:
Packet Page 42 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115090 10/29/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Misc. office supplies including816194
Misc. office supplies including
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 352.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 33.50
Office supplies - 2 back ordered820827
Office supplies - 2 back ordered
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 24.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.35
Total :388.87
115091 10/29/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 668175 INV# 668175 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS
CASE PURELL HAND SANITIZER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 68.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.55
INV# 869598 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS869598
BOISE X-9 PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 332.90
BINDER CLIPS - SMALL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.00
RECYCLED 8.5X11 PAPER PADS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.44
ADJUST. MONITOR STAND
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 30.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 32.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.94
Total :488.55
115092 10/29/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 678673 SEPT-09 LEGAL FEES
Sept-09 Itemized legal fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 7,071.54
29Page:
Packet Page 43 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115092 10/29/2009 (Continued)025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
SEPT-09 RETAINER FEES678675
Sept-09 retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 28,191.74
Total :35,263.28
115093 10/29/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 678675 Pro Serve Legis Legal Fees Sept 2009
Pro Serve Legis Legal Fees Sept 2009
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 6,485.30
Total :6,485.30
115094 10/29/2009 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 11227153 Water - 3V Lithium Batteries
Water - 3V Lithium Batteries
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 92.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.37
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.05
Total :107.42
115095 10/29/2009 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011231336 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
115096 10/29/2009 072954 PARK, SONG CRA20090077 Critical Areas payment refunded. One
Critical Areas payment refunded. One
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 155.00
Total :155.00
115097 10/29/2009 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.883545 Sr Center - Paint Supplies
Sr Center - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 91.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.71
30Page:
Packet Page 44 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115097 10/29/2009 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
Fac Maint - Ext Pole884012
Fac Maint - Ext Pole
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 29.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.79
Total :132.59
115098 10/29/2009 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK11629 PRESCHOOL PREP CLASS
LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 369.60
Total :369.60
115099 10/29/2009 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 179073 Street - Information Display Co. return
Street - Information Display Co. return
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 14.29
Sewer - Cues return postage179367
Sewer - Cues return postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.52
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I179445
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
31Page:
Packet Page 45 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115099 10/29/2009 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I179602
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
Total :67.05
115100 10/29/2009 069685 PRO-VAC 090826-010 Cemetary - CCTV Inspection of Storm &
Cemetary - CCTV Inspection of Storm &
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 972.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 92.41
Total :1,065.16
115101 10/29/2009 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.17
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 47.17
Fire Monitoring F/S 16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 94.50
Total :188.84
115102 10/29/2009 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2009-2956 3rd quarter subscription fees (PD
3rd quarter subscription fees (PD
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 700.00
Total :700.00
115103 10/29/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,295.60
32Page:
Packet Page 46 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,295.6011510310/29/2009 046900 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
115104 10/29/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 847.45
Total :847.45
115105 10/29/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 574.78
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 148.78
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 434.50
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 11.35
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 43.14
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 43.14
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 43.14
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 43.14
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 43.13
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 238.37
33Page:
Packet Page 47 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115105 10/29/2009 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 283.91
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,425.49
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 105.17
Total :3,526.79
115106 10/29/2009 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 10222009 VERIZON/FRONTIER TRANSFER CONSORTIUM
Verizon/Frontier Transfer Consortium
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,572.04
COMCAST CABLE FRANCHISE CONSORTIUM10262009
Comcast Cable franchise negotiations
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 197.45
Total :2,769.49
115107 10/29/2009 032666 ROTO ROOTER 21715239478 Cemetary - Sewer lines Jett
Cemetary - Sewer lines Jett
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 722.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 68.68
Total :791.63
115108 10/29/2009 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 10/20/09 OT for sick leave buy back not bought
OT for sick leave buy back not bought
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 88.31
OT for sick leave not bought back for10/22/09
OT for sick leave not bought back for
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 88.31
34Page:
Packet Page 48 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :176.6211510810/29/2009 071979 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L
115109 10/29/2009 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 138110 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
gloves
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 317.50
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 7.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 30.92
Total :356.41
115110 10/29/2009 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 09-3277 Sewer - Meg Nozzles
Sewer - Meg Nozzles
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 79.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.56
Total :87.06
115111 10/29/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2710014701 MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.05
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION5680012803
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.60
Total :59.65
115112 10/29/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 112-000-511-9 22000 84TH AVE W
Traffic Signal 220th St SW & 84th Ave W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 66.50
SIGNAL LIGHT2060014392
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.54
STREET LIGHT2060015456
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.07
35Page:
Packet Page 49 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115112 10/29/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SIGNAL LIGHT2470018124
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.46
fire station # 162540794324
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,288.10
LIFT STATION #92790012476
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 159.06
SIGNAL LIGHT2900012432
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.12
LIFT STATION #32960019335
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 103.49
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT3380016422
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.53
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK3460019262
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 284.76
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK3460019262
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 4.57
Traffic Control Light3630573867
Traffic Control Light
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 71.97
LIBRARY3720012057
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,941.50
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger3900430020
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.12
36Page:
Packet Page 50 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115112 10/29/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
BLINKING LIGHT3970013599
BLINKING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.48
STREET LIGHT4220016176
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 38.94
SIGNAL LIGHT4320010194
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.65
STREET LIGHT4430018418
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 41.73
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St4670302498
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 183.14
TRAFFIC SIGNAL4680011956
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 91.48
Public Works4840011953
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 74.49
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 283.07
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 283.07
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 283.07
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 283.07
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 283.06
STREET LIGHT4860014960
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.05
37Page:
Packet Page 51 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115112 10/29/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,599.64
CITY HALL5410010689
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,389.21
SIGNAL LIGHT5450011118
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 99.28
TRAFFIC LIGHT5450016042
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 140.27
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS5470012336
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.48
TRAFFIC LIGHT5510015661
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.03
Fire station #167060000275
Fire station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 29.37
Total :13,367.37
115113 10/29/2009 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 43459 Stamp for Building Dept. "Agreed to by
Stamp for Building Dept. "Agreed to by
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 29.17
Stamp for Building Dept. "Northing in43495
Stamp for Building Dept. "Northing in
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 33.04
Total :62.21
115114 10/29/2009 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4155727-01 HIP BOOTS/BOOT SAVERS/DANIELSON
38Page:
Packet Page 52 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115114 10/29/2009 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
HIP BOOTS/BOOT SAVERS/DANIELSON
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 180.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 17.19
Total :198.16
115115 10/29/2009 072979 SPORTSWISE SPORTWISE1026 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT MINUS EXTRA
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 155.00
Total :155.00
115116 10/29/2009 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2005344 Library - Elect Supplies
Library - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 57.97
Park Bldg - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.55
Total :87.00
115117 10/29/2009 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10879441 100323
HEX CAP SCREW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 123.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.69
10032310879442
LATEX GLOVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 370.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 35.15
39Page:
Packet Page 53 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115117 10/29/2009 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
10032310879443
HEX CAP SCREW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 39.75
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.32
10032310880514
HEX CAP SCREW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 57.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.42
10032318884250
HEX CAP SCREW/GLOVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 95.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.06
10032318884490
NUTS & BOLTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 291.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.68
Total :1,075.44
115118 10/29/2009 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 49718 Sewer - 4 Denim Work Shirts, 5 Cotten
Sewer - 4 Denim Work Shirts, 5 Cotten
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 203.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 19.29
Total :222.29
115119 10/29/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1670027 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3757
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 171.00
40Page:
Packet Page 54 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115119 10/29/2009 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
NEWSPAPER AD1670029
Ordinance 3756
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 31.60
NEWSPAPER AD1670030
Ordinance 3755
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 31.60
NEWSPAPER AD1670031
Ordinance 3754
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 36.52
NEWSPAPER AD1670033
Ordinance 3753
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.16
NEWSPAPER AD1670465
10/20 Hearding (FD1)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.84
Total :366.72
115120 10/29/2009 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10015985 1 Yr Subscription - PW Admin~
1 Yr Subscription - PW Admin~
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 168.00
Total :168.00
115121 10/29/2009 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE 102109 MONITOR FOR EC DEV COMM MTG 10/21/09
Monitor for10/21/09 Economic Commission
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
115122 10/29/2009 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE TRUAX1025 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 120.00
Total :120.00
115123 10/29/2009 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8327673 Water - 24 Meter Boxes, 24 Lids
41Page:
Packet Page 55 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115123 10/29/2009 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
Water - 24 Meter Boxes, 24 Lids
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,690.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 160.56
Meter Inventory - M-MTRTRPL-0.625-0108347043
Meter Inventory - M-MTRTRPL-0.625-010
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,933.04
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 278.64
Total :5,062.33
115124 10/29/2009 062693 US BANK 3348 PayPal - APWA Class - N Miller
PayPal - APWA Class - N Miller
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 37.00
Svc Fees
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 2.00
Svc Fees3405
Svc Fees
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 5.30
UPS - Sewer - Cues ReturnPostage3546
UPS - Sewer - Cues ReturnPostage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.80
Dept of L&I - Parks Bldg - Elect Permit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 61.30
Amer PW - Street/Storm WebCast
111.000.653.542.900.490.00 175.00
Bulger Safe & Lock - FS 20 - Lock
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 90.34
Svc Fees
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 2.00
Total :377.74
115125 10/29/2009 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0283902-WA Street - DOT
Street - DOT
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 65.00
42Page:
Packet Page 56 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :65.0011512510/29/2009 068724 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA
115126 10/29/2009 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS S0298897J INV S0298897J EDMONDS PD
PAGER SERVICE 10/27-11/26/09
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 167.29
Total :167.29
115127 10/29/2009 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 9090108 utility locates
utility locates
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 96.17
utility locates
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 96.17
utility locates
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 96.21
Total :288.55
115128 10/29/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 10/10-11/10/09
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 375.97
Total :375.97
115129 10/29/2009 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 94.71
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.48
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.47
43Page:
Packet Page 57 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115129 10/29/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
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 70.68
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
Sewer - Lift Station New Line425-774-1031
Sewer - Lift Station New Line
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 318.85
Sewer lift Station Service
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 44.38
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 160.37
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 297.84
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.63
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.61
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 42.68
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.31
44Page:
Packet Page 58 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115129 10/29/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
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 :1,651.48
115130 10/29/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00
Total :247.00
115131 10/29/2009 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0805999447 C/A 671247844-00001
45Page:
Packet Page 59 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
115131 10/29/2009 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 119.55
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 215.92
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 149.39
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-Fire OPS
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 177.80
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-Fire Admin
001.000.510.522.100.420.00 35.56
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-Parks
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.17
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 57.37
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 608.10
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.34
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.34
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 39.81
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.43
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 3.99
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.17
9/13-10/12/09 Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.00
Total :1,566.94
115132 10/29/2009 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY TIMBROOK/EDHOUSE PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION
2009-2010 PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION FOR
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 200.00
46Page:
Packet Page 60 of 339
10/29/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
12:00:53PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :200.0011513210/29/2009 070717 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY
Bank total :518,862.77151 Vouchers for bank code :front
518,862.77Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report151
47Page:
Packet Page 61 of 339
AM-2570 2.D.
Claims for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
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 Randall Baird (amount undetermined), K. Fred
Breske ($500,000), Donna L. Breske ($500,000), 9330 LLC ($500,000), and Scott Conahan
($686.27).
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
Randall Baird
15638 NE 202nd Street
Woodinville, WA 98072
(amount undetermined)
K. Fred Breske
6621 Foster Slough Rd.
Snohomish, WA 98290
($500,000)
Donna L. Breske
6621 Foster Slough Rd.
Snohomish, WA 98290
($500,000)
9330 LLC
6621 Foster Slough Rd.
Snohomish, WA 98290
($500,000)
Scott Conahan
Packet Page 62 of 339
15927 75th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
($686.27)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Baird Claim for Damages
Link: Breske, K. Fred Claim for Damages
Link: Breske, Donna L. Claim for Damages
Link: Breske - 9330 LLC Claim for Damages
Link: Conahan Claim for Damages
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 09:31 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 10:37 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 12:32 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 10/26/2009 08:51
AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 63 of 339
Packet Page 64 of 339
Packet Page 65 of 339
Packet Page 66 of 339
Packet Page 67 of 339
Packet Page 68 of 339
Packet Page 69 of 339
Packet Page 70 of 339
Packet Page 71 of 339
Packet Page 72 of 339
Packet Page 73 of 339
Packet Page 74 of 339
Packet Page 75 of 339
Packet Page 76 of 339
Packet Page 77 of 339
Packet Page 78 of 339
Packet Page 79 of 339
Packet Page 80 of 339
Packet Page 81 of 339
Packet Page 82 of 339
Packet Page 83 of 339
Packet Page 84 of 339
Packet Page 85 of 339
Packet Page 86 of 339
Packet Page 87 of 339
Packet Page 88 of 339
Packet Page 89 of 339
Packet Page 90 of 339
Packet Page 91 of 339
AM-2573 2.E.
Authorization to Fund Energy Improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign funding agreements with the Washington State General
Administration for an energy efficiency improvement project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign funding agreements with the Washington State General
Administration for an energy efficiency improvement project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
There is a need to replace a failed piece of a major capital equipment component (an electronic
drive for a blower) at the Treatment Plant. The Washington State General Administration
Department administers a program to design and construct capital projects that save energy and
are financed using a low interest loan from the State Treasury. The program is structured such
that the money saved from performing the project is sufficient to pay the debt service on the
loan. The term of the loan from the State Treasury is 10 years, after which energy savings will
continue to provide lower operating expenses. Public agencies are therefore able to complete
energy saving capital projects without increasing their net operating costs.
The proposed project replaces the faulty blower drive and the blower itself, an improved air
diffuser system and a conversion to allow the use of natural gas in place of diesel fuel. These
three improvements are expected to save approximately $37,000 per year in utility expenses.
There is no net capital contribution by the City for this project, due to the ability to receive a low
interest loan. The Snohomish County PUD is expected to provide a rebate of approximately
$145,000 as part of their incentive program to encourage businesses to improve their electrical
conservation. Other participating agencies in the Treatment Plant will pay for approximately 50%
of the remaining capital expense. $300,000 has been allocated for this project in 2009-10 as part
of the Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and the project expenses will be borrowed
and paid back from energy savings. The current CIP is attached, and the line item "Upgrades"
includes $200,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010 for this project.
Packet Page 92 of 339
Engineering audit $25,000
Design fees $98,876
Construction $375,057
Project mngmt fee $31,900
TOTAL COST $530,833
less PUD refund $145,166
Estimated net cost $385,667
less contr from agencies $188,977
Net amount to borrow $196,690
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: GA funding forms
Link: 7 year CIP
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 10/29/2009 10:45 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 12:31 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 12:33 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 01:24 PM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 10/28/2009 12:38
PM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 93 of 339
Packet Page 94 of 339
Packet Page 95 of 339
Packet Page 96 of 339
Packet Page 97 of 339
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
As
s
u
m
e
s
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
$
1
0
0
k
,
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
n
u
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
$
2
0
0
k
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
Al
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
b
i
l
l
e
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
t
o
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
,
w
i
t
h
n
o
n
e
w
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
b
e
i
n
g
p
a
i
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
4
1
4
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
4
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
Re
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
$7
9
,
6
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
St
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
$2
7
6
,
4
6
0
$2
7
6
,
4
6
0
$2
7
6
,
0
4
0
$2
7
1
,
9
1
0
$2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
To
t
a
l
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$3
5
6
,
0
6
0
$2
7
6
,
4
6
0
$2
7
6
,
0
4
0
$2
7
1
,
9
1
0
$2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
Fu
n
d
4
1
4
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$2
0
0
,
0
0
1
$2
0
7
,
9
4
1
$2
3
5
,
4
8
1
$2
1
3
,
4
4
0
$2
1
5
,
5
3
0
$
2
1
8
,
3
4
0
$
2
2
1
,
1
5
0
In
t
e
r
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
$4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
1
)
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
(
b
i
o
s
o
l
i
d
s
,
L
y
n
n
w
o
o
d
,
e
t
c
)
Re
b
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
P
U
D
f
o
r
E
n
e
r
g
y
E
f
f
.
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$4
0
4
,
0
0
1
$5
1
1
,
9
4
1
$4
3
9
,
4
8
1
$3
1
7
,
4
4
0
$3
1
9
,
5
3
0
$
3
2
2
,
3
4
0
$
3
2
5
,
1
5
0
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
$1
6
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
7
0
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
6
4
,
0
0
1
$5
1
1
,
9
4
1
$4
8
9
,
4
8
1
$4
8
7
,
4
4
0
$4
9
4
,
5
3
0
$
4
9
7
,
3
4
0
$
5
0
0
,
1
5
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$3
5
6
,
0
6
0
$2
7
6
,
4
6
0
$2
7
6
,
0
4
0
$2
7
1
,
9
1
0
$2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
F
u
n
d
$2
0
7
,
9
4
1
$2
3
5
,
4
8
1
$2
1
3
,
4
4
0
$2
1
5
,
5
3
0
$2
1
8
,
3
4
0
$
2
2
1
,
1
5
0
$
2
2
3
,
9
6
0
(1
)
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
a
r
n
e
d
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
2
%
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
d
o
n
e
b
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
Re
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$3
6
0
,
0
0
0
$1
6
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
$5
1
6
,
1
5
0
$1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
St
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
$4
2
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
5
0
0
TO
T
A
L
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
O
U
T
S
I
D
E
O
F
F
U
N
D
4
1
4
$6
6
3
,
1
5
0
$1
,
7
7
2
,
5
0
0
$5
6
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
b
y
a
g
e
n
c
y
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
50
.
7
9
%
$
4
6
8
,
8
4
0
$9
5
0
,
9
8
7
$3
6
0
,
5
8
8
$3
4
0
,
2
7
3
$3
4
2
,
8
1
2
$
3
4
2
,
8
1
2
$
3
4
2
,
8
1
2
Mo
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
23
.
1
7
%
$
2
1
3
,
9
3
1
$4
3
3
,
9
3
3
$1
6
4
,
5
3
5
$1
5
5
,
2
6
6
$1
5
6
,
4
2
5
$
1
5
6
,
4
2
5
$
1
5
6
,
4
2
5
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
W
a
t
e
r
&
S
e
w
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
16
.
5
5
%
$
1
5
2
,
7
9
1
$3
0
9
,
9
1
7
$1
1
7
,
5
1
2
$1
1
0
,
8
9
2
$1
1
1
,
7
1
9
$
1
1
1
,
7
1
9
$
1
1
1
,
7
1
9
10/30/2009
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
98
of
33
9
AM-2571 2.F.
Authorization to Surplus Seized Vehicle
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to surplus seized vehicle.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to surplus a vehicle seized by the
Edmonds Police Department with James G. Murphy Auction Company.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Public Works has obtained a vehicle by the Edmonds Police Department. The vehicle is a police
seizure and Public Works would like to surplus this vehicle in the same manner as it has other
non-essential vehicles, by using the James G. Murphy Auction Company.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2009
Revenue:General Fund
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 12:31 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 12:33 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 01:24 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 10/27/2009 11:06
AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 99 of 339
Packet Page 100 of 339
AM-2575 3.
Community Transit
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report from Community Transit on Bus Rapid Transit.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Information.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Joyce Eleanor, Chief Executive Officer with Community Transit, will provide a report on Bus
Rapid Transit.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 09:31 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 10:37 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 12:32 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 10/29/2009 08:57
AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 101 of 339
AM-2577 4.
Public Hearing on Fire District 1 Contract, Option 4.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on Fire District 1 Contract, Option 4. In addition to contracting for services
with Fire District 1, this option includes selling apparatus (engines, aid cars, and
equipment), and keeping fire stations, land and transport fees.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Receive public comment.
Previous Council Action
At the October 20, 2009 City Council Meeting, the City Council voted 5-2 to further consider two
options regarding the Fire District 1 contract offer:
Option 1: Do not enter into a contract with Fire District 1.
Option 4: Contract for services with Fire District 1; sell apparatus (engines, aid cars, and
equipment), and keep fire stations, land and transport fees.
At the October 27, 2009 City Council Meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on the Fire
District 1 Contract, Option 4. It was the consensus of the City Council to hold an additional public
hearing on November 2, 2009.
Narrative
Attached for your consideration are the following documents:
•Attachment 1: Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services with Fire District
1 dated 11-02-09.
•Attachment 2: Exhibits A through J referenced in the Interlocal Agreement dated 11-02-09.
•Attachment 3: Financial Summary of Option 4 and also a Comparison between Options 1 and 4.
•Attachment 4: Excerpt from the October 20, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes regarding
the Fire District 1 Contract.
•Attachment 5: Excerpt from the October 27, 2009 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes
regarding the Fire District 1 Contract.
Packet Page 102 of 339
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attachment 1 - Interlocal Agreement with Fire District 1 Dated 11-02-09
Link: Attachment 2 - Exhibits A thru J Referenced in the Interlocal Agreement Dated 11-02-09
Link: Attachment 3 - Financial Summary of Option 4 and also a Comparison Between Options 1
and 4
Link: Attachment 4 - Excerpt from the 10-20-09 City Council Meeting Minutes re Fire District 1
Contract
Link: Attachment 5 - Excerpt from the 10-27-09 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes re Fire
District 1 Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 10:07 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 10:37 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 12:32 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 10/29/2009 09:40
AM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 103 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 1 of 21 November 2, 2009
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington municipal corporation (the
“District”) and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the “City”) is for the
provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS).
WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through
a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most
elected officials in Southwest Snohomish County;
WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the
City and the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and
District and their stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the City and District have a long-term relationship for providing
Mutual and Automatic Aid toward the delivery of fire and emergency medical service;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with the District to provide fire and
emergency medical services to the City and the District desires to so provide these
services; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of
the Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the
District and the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the
public in the most efficient manner possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows:
Packet Page 104 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 2 of 21 November 2, 2009
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Services Provided. The District shall provide all services necessary for fire
suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials response,
technical rescue, and disaster response to a service area covering the corporate
limits of the City of Edmonds as are provided by the City of Edmonds. In addition,
the District shall provide support services including, but not limited to, fire
marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public information, and
fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal and risk
management pertaining to the operations and delivery of fire department
services.
1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District will provide training
and education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in
accordance with State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District
will offer professional development and educational and training opportunities for
unrepresented and civilian employees.
1.3 City Fire Chief. The District’s Fire Chief shall be designated the City Fire Chief for
purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code.
1.4 District Fire Chief Designates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate
an individual to serve as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel
to support the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and
partially funded by the City (See Exhibit A).
2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICES/STAFFING
2.1 Battalion Chief. The City Battalion Chief unit shall be staffed with a minimum of
one (1) Battalion Chief twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency
incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
2.2 Fire Station Staffing. Fire Station 16 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per
day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2)
firefighter/emergency medical technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station
17 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with
a minimum of one (1) fire captain, and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical
technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station 20 shall be staffed twenty-four
(24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire
captain and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical technicians or
firefighter/paramedics.
2.3 Paramedic Unit. The City Medic Unit will be staffed with a minimum of two (2)
firefighter/paramedics as currently provided.
Packet Page 105 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 3 of 21 November 2, 2009
2.4 Level of Service. The District shall provide the same level of service as currently
provided by the City, which is consistent with the City response objectives per the
City’s Chapter 35.103 RCW Fire Department Compliance Plan (previously SHB
Compliance Plan 1756) approved by the Edmonds City Council on November 28,
2006. If these response objectives are amended to provide an increased level of
service, the District will make reasonable efforts to meet them, provided that
funding is adequate.
2.5 Annual Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance
with the City’s RCW 35.103 Fire Department Compliance Plan.
2.6 Staffing Exceptions. Exceptions to on duty staffing levels may occur in unusual
circumstances such as where there is a significant emergency event(s) in the
District, the City, or other areas which are under a contract for service or
auto/mutual aid agreement with the District. Unusual circumstances and
significant emergencies that affect personnel, equipment, infrastructure and/or
may include, but are not limited to, natural or man-made disasters, a significant
incident, or series of escalating incidents significant to a specific location, multiple
locations, and/or with area or region-wide impact.
2.7 Criteria-Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and
District that the dispatch of units during emergencies is determined by criteria-
based dispatch protocols of the dispatch centers, and automatic and/or mutual
aid agreements. Nothing herein shall require the District to respond first within
the City as opposed to other areas served by the District. The City and District
recognize that responses to emergencies shall be determined by the District
based upon dispatch protocols, the District’s operational judgment, and without
regard to where the emergencies occur.
2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Agreement, service level
changes may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party.
Additionally, either party may desire to change the service level, including but not
limited to, those services identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2
Standards for Services/Staffing. When a service level change is mandated by
law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council as the City’s response objectives as
required by RCW 35.103, or is mutually agreed to by the parties, the City and the
District will renegotiate the contract payment at the request of either party.
Provided that before renegotiation, the District must notify the Union, IAFF 1997,
of the alleged change requiring a change in the level of service and thereafter
negotiate with the Union the impact/affects of such change on the terms and
conditions of employment of bargaining unit personnel.
2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should
consistently exceed the current level of City services, the District Fire
Chief and City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer to address
the cause and potential remedies. In no circumstance will a meet and
Packet Page 106 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 4 of 21 November 2, 2009
confer process be prejudicial to the rights of the parties under this
agreement, or upon the Union, IAFF 1997, to bargain any and all
impacts/effects relating to any remedy incident to the increased response
time.
3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS
3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of existing City fire
stations. The City shall provide three City fire stations or replacement fire stations
for use by the District during the term of this Agreement and as described in
Exhibit B. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and
Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B shall control with respect to fire stations and
fixtures contained therein.
3.2 Fire Station Furnishings. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum purchase
of fire station furnishings that are not built-in or fixed, and consumable and
disposable supplies within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this
Agreement. The District shall accept ownership of furnishings that are not built-in
or fixed in “as is” condition but only if the individual furnishing or ensemble are in
a condition acceptable to the District.
3.3 Purchase Price. The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed
was determined by applying a 15-year depreciation schedule to the estimated
purchase prices of individual furnishings or ensembles. The purchase price for
the estimated consumable and disposable supplies that will be in the fire stations
on the Commencement Date of this Agreement is based on the acquisition price.
The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed with appropriate
depreciation applied, and the price of consumable and disposable supplies is
identified in Exhibit J.
4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS
4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall annually pay the District a sum referred
to as the Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The amount of the
Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract
Payment shall be paid in equal quarterly installments by January 15, April 15,
July 15 and September 15. Failure to pay quarterly installments in a timely
manner shall be considered a material breach as defined in the Definitions
section of this Agreement.
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. The Contract Payment shall be adjusted each
year no later than September 1.
4.3 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The District shall submit to the
City an annual revision to Exhibit C of this Agreement, which shall identify the
Contract Payment for the ensuing year(s). The cost of City Station Personnel
identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted as changes occur by the percentage
Packet Page 107 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 5 of 21 November 2, 2009
increase in labor costs resulting from the negotiated labor agreement between
the District and IAFF Local 1997; provided that the personnel cost shall increase
from one labor agreement to the next no more than the greater of (i) the median
increase in compensation of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase in the
Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton
metropolitan area for the 12-month period ending June 30, or (iii) the percentage
increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase
“comparable fire agencies” shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the
Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the
comparables accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration
proceeding.
4.4 Adjustment Date Not Met. If the labor agreement between the District and IAFF
Local 1997 has not been finalized by December 31 of the year prior to the
upcoming contract for service year, the District Station Personnel costs and the
District Indirect Costs will be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement but
will be retroactive to January 1 and paid by the City within 30 days of execution
of the labor agreement.
4.5 Annual Indirect Operating Cost Adjustments. The District shall adjust the
Contract Payment costs consisting of Indirect Operating Costs determined by the
following:
Overhead which shall be 10 percent of the cost of the City Station Personnel
cost;
Station equipment/maintenance/operation, which shall be 10 percent of the
City Station Personnel cost;
Fire Marshal allocation at 75 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position,
and Fire Inspector at 100 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position
(See Exhibit A); and
Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement
Schedule – City Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The District Indirect Costs identified in Exhibit C shall then be adjusted based
upon the specified percentage of the increased cost of City Station Personnel.
The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Costs shall be the
Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
4.6 Annexation. The City’s Urban Growth Area does contain property within the
boundaries of the District; however, this provision shall not apply to the
annexation of “islands” as referenced in RCW 35.13.182. Should the City seek to
annex portions of the District, the District will not oppose the annexation. In the
event the City annexes portions of the District, the Contract Payment shall be
increased and shall be calculated by applying the then current District levy rate
and emergency medical services levy rate to the annexed property. The
increased amount shall be added to the Contract Payment as a base for
calculations in future years.
Packet Page 108 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 6 of 21 November 2, 2009
4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is
a material and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing
services under this Agreement or an increase in such costs as a result of
a legislative or policy decision that is exempt from the dispute resolution
provisions of Sections 18.1 and 18.2, then at the request of either party,
the City and District shall renegotiate this Agreement and the Contract
Payment to fully compensate the District for actual costs incurred
according to the methodology in Exhibit C. In the event that the City and
District are unable to successfully renegotiate this Agreement through
good faith negotiations, then the Dispute Resolution provision of this
Agreement shall apply.
4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District understands and acknowledges that the City
presently charges fees for basic life support and advanced life support transports
occurring within the City. As the EMS service provider, the District shall receive
and collect all Transport Fees in accordance with District policy for transports that
originate within the City limits. The District shall remit these amounts, less an
administration fee not to exceed the actual cost of collection, to the City
according to the quarterly schedule in Section 4.1. The District shall be
responsible for, and agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, all
necessary or requested documentation and/or reports to the City.
4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates
for increased service by the District without fully compensating the District for
actual costs incurred.
5. CITY EMPLOYEES
5.1 All City Employees Become District Employees. The District shall become the
employer of all City Fire Department employees, including administrative and
unrepresented uniformed, IAFF members, SEIU members, and civilian
employees of the City Fire Department on the Commencement Date of this
Agreement between the City and the District. The City and District recognize that
during the term of the Interlocal Agreement, the uniformed City Fire Department
employees will be integrated into Local 1997 of the IAFF. Labor-represented
employees will continue in their current positions and job assignments as
recognized by the District, or as agreed through collective bargaining prior to the
implementation of this Agreement. Administrative uniformed employees may be
reassigned to job positions that meet the needs of consolidating the two
organizations. Any civilian City Fire Department employee who is reassigned to a
new position shall be entitled to wages and benefits consistent with, or greater
than, the current wages and benefits provided by the City for such employee’s
former position. City personnel shall receive the District’s compensation levels
and benefits as of the Commencement Date of this Agreement.
Packet Page 109 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 7 of 21 November 2, 2009
5.2 Seniority and Rank. Any IAFF member of the City Fire Department shall assume
employment with the District with complete seniority and rank intact. No
additional probationary periods or testing shall be required of any current IAFF
member under the Employees of Merged or Contracted Organization’s article of
the Local 1997 Collective Labor Agreement. For purposes of seniority, the “hire
date” of a City Fire Department employee will be the earliest such employee’s
hire date(s) with Fire District 1, Medic 7, or the City of Edmonds.
5.3 Transfer of Sick and Vacation Leave. Sick and vacation leave of City employees
shall be transferred and maintained as attached in Exhibit E. The City shall pay
to the District the current value of accrued vacation leave banks as of the date of
the transfer. The City shall also pay the cash-out value of City sick leave banks in
accordance with applicable Union contract or City policy. “Cash-out value” shall
be based on termination by layoff due to lack of work by the City as of the date of
the transfer. The District and City may agree to credit this obligation against
monies owed by the District under this Agreement. These payments are intended
to close out the City’s obligations with respect to transferred, accrued leave
banks and the provisions of 5.9 shall not apply to unanticipated costs or
increases associated with the transferred leave banks such as, but not limited to,
increases attributable to changes in statutory or case law relating to the payment
of such banks, their impact on overtime requirements or changes in pension law,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if a transferred employee retires within two (2)
years of the date of the transfer and the Washington State Department of
Retirement Systems (DRS) treats any portion of the leave bank payouts as
excess compensation, the City shall be liable for its proportionate share of such
excess compensation cost as determined by DRS. “Proportionate share” shall be
determined based on the last wage paid by the City and the leave payout cap in
effect as of the date of the transfer and the excess compensation assessment
attributable thereto.
5.4 Layoff Language. For the provisions of layoffs or reduction in force, there shall be
three established Seniority Lists attached as Exhibit F.
Blended Seniority List consisting of the former members of IAFF Local
1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) and the members of IAFF Local 1997
(Snohomish County Fire District 1 Firefighters).
Non-Blended Seniority List of IAFF local 1997 (District Firefighters) prior to
the Commencement Date of the Interlocal Agreement between the District
and the City.
Non-Blended Seniority list of IAFF Local 1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) prior
to the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City.
5.4.1 Layoff Within First 60 Months of Contract. If a reduction in force becomes
necessary within the first 60 months of this Agreement, the reductions in force
shall be initiated utilizing the Blended Seniority List from the most senior to the
least senior giving each member the first right of refusal. In the event that the
said reduction in force is not accomplished through the Blended Seniority List,
Packet Page 110 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 8 of 21 November 2, 2009
the reduction in force shall be incurred upon the least senior members of the
jurisdiction causing the reduction in force. The reduction will be based on the
Seniority Lists established prior to the Interlocal Agreement between the District
and the City.
5.4.2 New Employees. Employees hired after the date of this Interlocal Agreement will
be placed on the bottom of the Blended List and will be first subject to layoff.
5.5 Promotional Language and Probationary Period. The parties agree that two of
three Company Officer promotions required to convert the three-platoon City work
schedule to the District four-platoon work schedule will be made from a
promotional list established by the Edmonds Civil Service Commission and consist
solely of eligible pre-Commencement Date City employees.
5.6 Company Officer Promotion Process. The parties agree that the City Company
Officer promotion process shall occur prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement.
5.7 Probation Process for Newly Promoted Company Officers. The parties agree
that newly-promoted City Company Officers transferring employment to the
District on the Commencement Date shall serve the probationary period of the
IAFF 1997 collective labor agreement and District policy, procedures, and
performance standards for Company Officers.
5.8 Impact of Agreement. Each party has undertaken to collectively bargain the
impact of this Agreement upon the respective labor unions which represent each
party’s employees. The City and District further acknowledge that the integration
of City employees into the District’s organizational structure has been in
conjunction with the respective labor unions which represent each party’s
employees, and that the City and District will have reached agreement with
existing labor unions, and with each other, that the seniority rights of City
Personnel will remain intact and will transfer to their employment with the District.
5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel,
which arise out of, or relate to, the time prior to the date that such City personnel
became employees of the District; provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District’s actions under the
Interlocal Agreement.
6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES)
6.1 Purchase Rolling Stock. The District shall purchase the City Fire Department’s
rolling stock (apparatus and vehicles). The District shall accept title and
ownership of such rolling stock in “as is” condition but only if each individual unit
is in a condition reasonably acceptable to the District.
Packet Page 111 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 9 of 21 November 2, 2009
6.2 Transfer of Title. The City and District shall cooperate and execute such
documents which are necessary to accomplish the transfer of title.
6.3 Rolling Stock Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump
sum purchase of City rolling stock within 30 days after the Commencement Date
of this Agreement, specifically for the ladder (1), engines (3), medic unit (1), aid
units (4), utility (1), the 1938 Ford fire engine (1), and six vehicles.
6.4 Purchase Price. The purchase price of each piece of rolling stock shall be the
retail price determined by Fire Trucks Plus, Inc.; or by the Kelly Blue Book; the
acquisition cost of the 1938 Ford Fire Engine; plus the delivered, set-up and
lettered cost of two 2009 Ford E-450s Aid Units manufactured by Braun and
identified in Exhibit G.
6.5 Rolling Stock Records. The sale of rolling stock includes all service and
maintenance, records, and shop manuals for each purchased unit.
6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current
information regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule
attached in Exhibit D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase
new rolling stock or otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City.
6.7 Public Safety Boat. The Public Safety Boat, acquired with a Department of
Homeland Security grant as a county-wide asset and known as Marine 16,
remains the property of the City. Use by the District of Marine 16 for training and
emergencies as a county-wide asset is described in Exhibit H.
7. EQUIPMENT
7.1 Purchase Equipment. The District shall purchase City Fire Department
equipment identified in Exhibit I. Equipment is divided into two categories – (1)
that on the Fire Department Attractive Asset List, and (2) that equipment on-
board rolling stock. There is no duplication between the two lists. The District
shall accept ownership of equipment in “as-is” condition but only if each
individual piece of equipment or ensemble is in reasonably acceptable condition
as determined solely by the District.
7.2 Equipment Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum
purchase of City equipment within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this
Agreement.
7.3 Purchase Price. (1) The purchase price for items on the Asset List was
determined by applying a straight-line depreciation to the purchase price, invoice,
and/or estimated present value for each individual item. Straight-line depreciation
is calculated by taking the value of the asset and dividing it by the expected life
Packet Page 112 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 10 of 21 November 2, 2009
span, then multiplying the expected life span by the age of the asset (value /
years = yearly depreciation x age = depreciation amount). (2) The price for
equipment on-board rolling stock was determined by applying five years of
depreciation based on a ten-year average replacement schedule to the purchase
price of individual items using fire service reference materials including Galls, Life
Assist (EMS hard and soft gear), PMI (technical rescue equipment), and Heiman
Fire Equipment. This equates to 50 percent depreciation to all equipment. The
purchase price and depreciation of each piece of equipment or ensemble is
identified in Exhibit I.
7.4 Equipment Records and Warranties. The sale of equipment includes all service
and maintenance records, and shop manuals. Wherever permitted under the
terms of a contract to purchase a vehicle or equipment transferred to the District
or a warranty relating thereto, the City hereby transfers and assigns its interest
under such warranties to the District. In the event that only the City may exercise
the warranty, the City will cooperate with and use its best efforts to enforce any
warranty regarding equipment provided to the District.
8. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor
and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for
purposes of RCW 39.34.030. During the term of this Agreement, the District Fire
Chief shall provide the Mayor with quarterly reports concerning the provision of
services under this Agreement. The format and topics of the reports shall be
agreed upon by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor. Additionally, two District
Board Commissioner members and two City Council members, along with the
District Fire Chief and the Mayor, shall meet at least once per calendar year, on
or before April 1, for the purpose of communicating about issues related to this
Agreement. The District Fire Chief and the Mayor shall present a joint annual
report to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31.
8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section
8.1 above, the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1
Commissioners shall meet prior to April 1 of each calendar year at a
properly noticed place and time to discuss items of mutual interest related
to this Agreement.
8.3 Representation on Intergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the
City on intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of
services under this Agreement as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City
reserves the right to represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the
City and the District are not mutual or whenever any matter relates to the
appropriation of or expenditure of City funds beyond the terms of this Agreement.
Packet Page 113 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 11 of 21 November 2, 2009
9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS
9.1 ESCA, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships
with other entities or agencies including the Emergency Services Coordinating
Agency (ESCA) for all City; Snohomish County Communications Center
(SNOCOM) for Fire, Police, and Public Works; and Snohomish County
Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) for Fire and Police. The City shall
maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or
agencies and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its
behalf. At the discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on
behalf of the City on various committees, boards and/or commissions as
requested, as appropriate, and/or as agreed to by mutual agreement of the
parties.
9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The City and District currently have individual
responsibilities and contractual obligations under their respective agreements
with other fire agencies. The District shall assume the City’s contractual
responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid. At
such time as these agreements are renegotiated and re-executed, the District will
represent the City’s interests and shall be signatory to the agreements on behalf
of the City.
9.3 Full Information as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to
coordinate their individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that
the services under this Agreement will be provided in an efficient and cost
effective manner. The City and District agree to keep each other fully informed
and advised as to any changes in their respective relationships with those
entities or agencies, whether or not those changes impact the City and/or the
District obligations under this Agreement. Notice of any change in the
relationship or obligations shall be provided to the other party in writing in a
timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed changes
in relationships or obligations.
9.4 Dispute Resolution. In the event that any dispute between the City and District
cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then
the dispute resolution provision of this Agreement shall apply.
10. TERM OF AGREEMENT
10.1 20-Year Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon its
execution by the City and District. The Commencement Date of this Agreement
shall be January 1, 2010. This Agreement shall continue in effect for a period of
twenty (20) years from the Commencement Date, until December 31, 2030,
unless terminated earlier as provided herein. After the initial twenty (20) year
term, this Agreement shall automatically renew under the same terms and
Packet Page 114 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 12 of 21 November 2, 2009
conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless terminated as
provided herein.
10.2 Material Breach and Wind-Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this
Agreement, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree
otherwise, continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement
for a minimum of twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the
“Wind-Up Period”); provided, however, that the Wind-Up Period shall be 90
(ninety) days if the Material Breach involves the City’s failure to make the
Contract Payment; provided further, that during the Wind-Up Period, the City and
District shall coordinate their efforts to prepare for the transition to other methods
of providing fire and EMS service to the City. The City will be responsible for all
payments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind-Up Period.
11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS
11.1 First Five Years. The City and District acknowledge that in entering into this
Agreement, significant financial and personnel resources have been expended.
Therefore, neither the City nor the District may terminate this Agreement within
the first five (5) years following the Commencement Date except for a Material
Breach of this Agreement which the breaching party fails to cure within a
reasonable amount of time after receiving written notice from the non-breaching
party. The City’s and the District’s intent by this section is to provide both service
stability to citizens and job security to employees.
11.2 Years Six Through Twenty. In addition to terminating this Agreement for a
Material Breach, either party may terminate this Agreement after the first five (5)
years from the Commencement Date by providing the other party with two (2)
years written notice of its intent to terminate during any period of extension.
Notice under this provision may only be given once five years have elapsed after
the Commencement Date.
11.3 Termination Costs. The costs associated with terminating this Agreement shall
be borne by the party who elects to terminate, or in the event of a Material
Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following circumstances, the
costs of termination shall be apportioned.
11.4 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event that this
Agreement is terminated due to a change in law, each party shall bear its own
costs associated with the termination; or, in the event that the City and District
mutually agree to terminate this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs
associated with the termination.
11.5 Regional Fire Protection Service Authority. In the event that the District, along
with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire
Protection Service Authority Planning Committee (“RFA Planning Committee”) as
Packet Page 115 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 13 of 21 November 2, 2009
provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and,
subject to approval of the other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City an
opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the
opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed
as a material breach on the part of the City as defined in the Definitions section
of this Agreement. In the even that a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority
(RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and emergency
medical services is created, inclusive of the City and District, this Interlocal
Agreement will be terminated on the effective date of such Agreement, and
neither the City nor the District shall be considered to have committed a material
breach as defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement.
11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate
their respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to
terminate this Agreement and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs
of termination.
11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City
and District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as
part of this Agreement shall be returned to the City as described below. This
provision shall not apply to the formation of a RFA in which both the City and the
District are participants.
11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock sold under this agreement, or
equivalent apparatus and vehicles in use by the District at the time of termination
shall be purchased back using the same process, methods, and conditions under
which the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the
parties.
11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment sold under this agreement, or
equivalent equipment in use by the District at the time of termination shall be
purchase back using the same process, methods, and conditions under which
the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
11.7.3 Rehire Personnel. In the event of termination within the first five (5) years of this
Agreement by either party for any reason, the City shall rehire the personnel laid
off by the District, up to fifty-four (54) personnel transferred with no loss of
compensation and accumulated benefits. Accrued vacation and sick leave banks
shall be transferred to the City and the District shall pay to the City the current
cash value of the leave banks as determined under the same procedures set
forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement.
11.7.4 Former District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by rehired District
personnel, which arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were
employees of the District, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall
Packet Page 116 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 14 of 21 November 2, 2009
not apply to any claims arising as a result of the City’s actions during the term of
the Agreement.
12. DECLINE TO MERGE
12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement
with any other fire district that is substantially equivalent to a merger, the City
may decline to be included, and elect to end the Agreement without prejudice or
penalty. The terms and conditions of that termination include written notice
provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 to the District of the
intent to end the Agreement not more than 90 days after receiving written
notification provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 from the
District that the District intends to merge with another entity.
12.1.1 Not a Material Breach. The City decision to not merge does not constitute a
Material Breach of the Agreement and none of the penalties associated with a
Material Breach shall apply to the City.
12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The Agreement will end not more than 12 months after the City
officially notifies the District that it declines to be merged, unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties, and the costs of termination shall be split evenly
between the parties.
12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Agreement because
of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction,
the City exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7.
13. CITY FIRE DONATION FUND
13.1 Disposition of Fire Donation Funds. Effective on the Commencement Date of this
Agreement, the amount of funds in the Fire Department Donation Fund on
December 31, 2009 shall be forwarded to the District 1 to acquire fire and life
safety tools and equipment not otherwise affordable through the regular budget
process. Tools and equipment subsequently acquired with Donation Fund
monies by the District will be assigned to Edmonds Fire Stations and apparatus
but shall be used without restriction throughout the District service area.
14. TOWN OF WOODWAY
14.1 No Impact on this Agreement. The provision of fire and emergency medical
services to the Town of Woodway by the District has no organizational or
financial impact on the Agreement between the City and the District or the terms
and conditions of said Agreement.
Packet Page 117 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 15 of 21 November 2, 2009
15. CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
15.1 Civil Service Commission Notification. The City acknowledges that the City of
Edmonds Civil Service Commission has been officially advised of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the
City and District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms
herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing
bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District
shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method
by which the services are provided within the District and within the City unless
otherwise stipulated within this Agreement.
16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it
without regard to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the
operational judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and
obligations of Sections 2.4 through 2.8.
16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth
herein or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the
other.
17. INSURANCE
17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Agreement, each Party shall
maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy
insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and
equipment if any, and “policy” shall be understood to include insurance pooling
arrangements or compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority
(WCIA). The City shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for
accidents occurring on City owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an
amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a
deductible of not more than $5,000. The District shall maintain an insurance
policy insuring against liability arising out of work or operations performed by the
District under this Agreement in an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The
phrases “work or operations” and “maintenance and operations” shall include the
services identified in Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire
Marshal and the District’s Fire Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and
any obligation covered by Exhibit B, Section 9.
17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it
has maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents
Packet Page 118 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 16 of 21 November 2, 2009
and occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of
the Interlocal Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment
claims, labor grievances, and other work-related claims. Such insurance was at
all times in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The City will hold
harmless the District and its insurance provider for any such claims, lawsuits or
accusations that occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the Interlocal
Agreement,
17.3 Claims of Former District Employees. The District represents and warrants that it
has maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and
occurrences which may have occurred during the time period prior to the
Commencement Date of the Agreement, including but not limited to injuries,
employment claims, labor grievances, and other work-related claims. Such
insurance was at all times in an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000.
17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party’s insurance coverage is not voided,
each party agrees to defend and hold harmless the other party, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including
reasonable attorneys’ and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out
of the negligent and intentional acts or omissions of such party’s officers,
officials, employees and volunteers in connection with the performance of this
Agreement. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, and
except in the event of breach of this Agreement, the District and the City do
hereby forever release each other from any claims, demands, damages or
causes of action related to damage to equipment or property owned by the City
or District or assumed under this Agreement. It is the intent of the City and
District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
18.1 Mediation. It is the intent of the City and District to resolve all disputes between
them without litigation. Excluded from mediation are issues related to the
legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to make budget and
appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, or establish levels of service under
Section 2.4 of this Agreement and Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the
City Council shall not be subject to review by a mediator; however, this shall not
abridge the right of the District to pursue an increase in the Annual Contract
Payment as a result of such decision. The City and District shall mutually agree
upon a mediator. Any expenses incidental to mediation, including the mediator’s
fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District. If the City and District cannot
agree upon a mediator, the City and District shall submit the matter to the
Packet Page 119 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 17 of 21 November 2, 2009
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be
appointed. This requirement to mediate the dispute may only be waived by
mutual written agreement before a party may proceed to litigation as provided
within this agreement.
18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in renegotiating the
Contract Payment after having completed mediation, the City and District shall
submit the matter to binding arbitration with the foregoing arbitration service.
Excluded from binding arbitration are issues related to the legislative authority of
the Edmonds City Council to make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions
to contract, or establish levels of service under Section 2.4 of this Agreement and
Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the City Council shall not be subject to
review by an arbitrator; however, this shall not abridge the right of the District to
pursue an increase in the Annual Contract Payment as a result of such decision.
The arbitration shall be conducted according to the selected arbitration service’s
Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. At this arbitration, the arbitrator
shall, as nearly as possible, apply the analysis used in this agreement and
supporting Exhibits to adjust the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate
from such analysis and use principles of fairness and equity, but should do so
sparingly. Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any
binding arbitration session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any
subsequent mediations or arbitrations.
18.3 Prevailing Party. In the event either party herein finds it necessary to bring an
action against the other party to enforce any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof or any instrument executed pursuant to this Agreement by
reason of any breach or default hereunder or there under, the party prevailing in
any such action or proceeding shall be paid all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred
by the other party, and in the event any judgment is secured by such prevailing
party, all such costs and attorneys’ fees of collection shall be included in any
such judgment. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies exclusively in
Snohomish County, Washington.
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder,
shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered
personally, sent by facsimile, sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery
service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail, sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
District Secretary: City Clerk:
Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds
12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5th Avenue North
Packet Page 120 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 18 of 21 November 2, 2009
Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020
Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from
time-to-time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be
deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile
transmission of any signed original document and retransmission of any signed
facsimile transmission shall be the same as delivery of an original document.
19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
City and the District from entering into contracts for service in support of this
Agreement.
19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this
Agreement shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the
Public Duty Doctrine. The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and
execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of
this Agreement.
19.4 Entire Agreement. This entire agreement between the City and District hereto is
contained in this Agreement and exhibits hereto; and this Agreement supersedes
all of their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with
respect to this transaction. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument executed by the City and District subsequent to the date hereof.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2009
.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1
By:_____________________________ By:____________________________
Commissioner Commissioner
By:_____________________________ By:____________________________
Commissioner Commissioner
By:____________________________
Commissioner
Attest:__________________________
District Secretary
Approved as to form:
By:____________________________
Fire District Attorney
Packet Page 121 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 19 of 21 November 2, 2009
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:_____________________________ Attest:_______________________
City Mayor City Clerk
Approved as to form:
By:_____________________________
City Attorney
Packet Page 122 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 20 of 21 November 2, 2009
Definitions
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Agreement.
a. City: City of Edmonds.
b. City Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of the City of Edmonds
c. City Fire Department: The Edmonds Fire Department.
d. City Fire Stations: Currently, Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire
Station 20.
e. Commencement Date: The date at which the performance and
obligations of the City and District as contained herein begin.
f. City Personnel: The employees of the City of Edmonds Fire Department
as of the Commencement Date who are transferring employment to the
District.
g. Contract Payment: The annual amount that the City will pay to the District
pursuant to this Agreement.
h. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
i. Effective Date: The date this Agreement is executed by the City and
District.
j. District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection
District No. 1.
k. Firefighter/EMS Personnel: Full-time, compensated employees,
firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or paramedics
l. Grid Cards: The electronic file within the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
System, which is used to determine fire station response order for Fire
District 1.
m. Insurance: The term “insurance” as used in this agreement means either
valid insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or
carrier approved to do business in the State of Washington by the
Washington State Insurance Commissioner or valid self-insurance through
a self-insurance pooling organization approved for operation in the State
of Washington by the Washington State Risk Manager or any combination
of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if both are
approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington.
Packet Page 123 of 339
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 21 of 21 November 2, 2009
n. Material Breach: A Material Breach means: the District’s failure to provide
minimum staffing levels as described within this Agreement; the City’s
failure to timely pay the Contract Payment as described within this
Agreement, or the City’s or District’s failure to comply within this
Agreement concerning the City’s fire stations, equipment and/or
apparatus.
o. Wind-Up Period: The 12 months immediately following formal notification
of a Material Breach by either party except as defined in Section 10.2.
Packet Page 124 of 339
Packet Page 125 of 339
Packet Page 126 of 339
Packet Page 127 of 339
Packet Page 128 of 339
Packet Page 129 of 339
Packet Page 130 of 339
Packet Page 131 of 339
Packet Page 132 of 339
Packet Page 133 of 339
Packet Page 134 of 339
Packet Page 135 of 339
Packet Page 136 of 339
Packet Page 137 of 339
Packet Page 138 of 339
Packet Page 139 of 339
Packet Page 140 of 339
Packet Page 141 of 339
Packet Page 142 of 339
Packet Page 143 of 339
Packet Page 144 of 339
Packet Page 145 of 339
Packet Page 146 of 339
Packet Page 147 of 339
Packet Page 148 of 339
Packet Page 149 of 339
Packet Page 150 of 339
Packet Page 151 of 339
Packet Page 152 of 339
Packet Page 153 of 339
Packet Page 154 of 339
Packet Page 155 of 339
Packet Page 156 of 339
Packet Page 157 of 339
Packet Page 158 of 339
Packet Page 159 of 339
Packet Page 160 of 339
Packet Page 161 of 339
Packet Page 162 of 339
Packet Page 163 of 339
Packet Page 164 of 339
Packet Page 165 of 339
Packet Page 166 of 339
Packet Page 167 of 339
Packet Page 168 of 339
Packet Page 169 of 339
Packet Page 170 of 339
Packet Page 171 of 339
Packet Page 172 of 339
Packet Page 173 of 339
Packet Page 174 of 339
Packet Page 175 of 339
Packet Page 176 of 339
Packet Page 177 of 339
Packet Page 178 of 339
Packet Page 179 of 339
Packet Page 180 of 339
Packet Page 181 of 339
Packet Page 182 of 339
Packet Page 183 of 339
Packet Page 184 of 339
Packet Page 185 of 339
Packet Page 186 of 339
Packet Page 187 of 339
Packet Page 188 of 339
Packet Page 189 of 339
Packet Page 190 of 339
Packet Page 191 of 339
Packet Page 192 of 339
Packet Page 193 of 339
Packet Page 194 of 339
EXCERPT FROM THE OCTOBER 20, 2009 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT. THE CITY COUNCIL
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS AND WILL SELECT A
PREFERENCE:
(1) WITHOUT FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT
(2) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT
(3) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (REVENUE REMOVED)
(4) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND,
AND TRANSPORT FEES)
(5) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (SELL APPARATUS-REVENUE REMOVED;
KEEP STATIONS, LAND, TRANSPORT FEES)
(6) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (KEEP STATIONS, LAND, APPARATUS, AND
TRANSPORT FEES)
Mayor Haakenson apologized the scenarios were not available on Wednesday on the City’s
website as promised but were made available via the Council packet on Friday.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to a question he sent to Finance Director Lorenzo Hines
regarding the revision made to expenses and asked Mr. Hines to explain the change. Mr. Hines
advised an additional $246,000 was added to the original expenses in Option 1. The change was
the result of “re-staking” the Fire District 1 proposal back to the 2010 budget. The 2010 budget
for the Fire Department is $7.972 million. Because the modeling spreadsheet is continually
updated for CPI, bargaining agreements, etc., he removed all the adjustments in the modeling
software for the Fire Department to return to the original budget of $7.972 million. This provides
an objective basis from which to measure the savings. He summarized if the 2010 budget is
modified as a result of the contract, staff would start with that number.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the original budget contained 4.5% for wages but the
model reduced it to 2%; that 2.5% reduction was virtually all the change. Mr. Hines agreed,
emphasizing that was a fluctuating estimate. When the current forecast is updated, he would
consider whether that amount was viable and whether it needed to be raised or lowered. The
choice was whether to measure the savings from a fluctuating estimate or a stable base of the
original budget.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the comparison of Option 1 versus Option 4, which shows the
Fire Department budget of $7.9 million, fire contract $6.2 million and 2010 savings of $983,000.
One of the differences was the revenue difference because of the loss of the Woodway and
Esperance contract which brings the cost to $6.8 million. He asked the reason for the difference.
Mr. Hines answered the difference was retaining transport fees of $700,000/year.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out transport fees were retained in both Option 1 and 4. Mr. Hines
explained this was a comparison of the General Fund subsidy in the current budget with the
General Fund subsidy with Option 4. The General Fund subsidy in Option 4 is $983,000 lower
than the current situation. The reason it was $983,000 lower was the loss of some overhead costs
and transport fees.
Councilmember Orvis asked what was included in the $6.2 million. Mr. Hines answered that was
the contract amount proposed by Fire District 1 and is based on their estimate of labor costs for
2010. Fire Chief Tomberg explained the $6.2 million was the labor cost to staff stations, plus the
Packet Page 195 of 339
overheads, the Fire Marshal and the Fire Inspector, and vehicle replacement. He advised this was
detailed in Exhibit C of the original August 24 binder.
Council President Wilson referred to Mr. Hines’ response this afternoon to Councilmember
Wambolt’s email, observing the previous numbers included the year-to-date actuals and impacted
the 2010 outlook based on those actuals and the new numbers did not include any actuals and
relied solely on budget numbers. Mr. Hines responded the old numbers factored in estimates, CPI
changes, etc. He reversed out those changes to put the Fire budget back to its original state in
January to allow measurement of the savings from the original budget in January. In that manner,
the 2010 and 2009 budgets are stated using the same budget methodology and rationale and the
savings are measured from the budget.
Council President Wilson commented these are the budget numbers as of January 2009 and not
the actual numbers as of October 20, 2009. He recalled when the budget was developed in
August 2008, the outlook changed based on the collapse in September but the final budget was
developed in October and approved in November. Mayor Haakenson noted the 4.5% was already
factored into the 2009 and 2010 budget. Council President Wilson clarified if the numbers are
the January 1, 2009 numbers, those numbers are from a process that began in August 2008 and
finalized in October. He reiterated they were not the most recent known numbers. Mr. Hines
referred to the 2008 actual column in the current forecast, the actuals as of the end of January
2009, pointing out the spreadsheet was the outlook/forecast but had been modified to reflect the
Fire Department’s original budget to allow an easier comparison of the impact of the proposal on
the Fire budget. His intent was to isolate the Fire budget.
Council President Wilson commented the challenge with looking at the budget was recognizing
that the budget was very conservative and the budgeted savings could be very different than the
actual savings. For example, the EMS transport fees, the budget was $700,000 and he believed
the actual amount would far exceed that. He asked whether Mr. Hines had addressed his
questions regarding transport fees. Mr. Hines answered he had not. He recalled Council
President Wilson anticipated revenue from transport fees would exceed $700,000 in 2009. He
explained the City has received $440,000 in transport fees through the end of September 2009
and he anticipated the $700,000 amount would be achieved for 2009.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether transport fees were projected to increase in future years. Mr.
Hines answered it was projected to increase by 2.5-3% per year. Council President Wilson
answered that amount was appropriate for budgeting but he was certain the revenue would exceed
$700,000 next year because the year-to-date transport fees for 2009 were short at least 1 month
and possibly as much as 3.
Council President Wilson expressed concern with the Council selecting a preferred alternative
tonight when staff had not had enough time to answer the questions he raised two weeks ago. Mr.
Hines responded the questions Council President Wilson’s raised in his PowerPoint had been
answered. He suggested Council President Wilson and he meet to determine which questions had
not been met. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged transport fees would increase in the future. A
modest increase of 2.5-3% was budgeted; he viewed anything more than that as imprudent
budgeting.
Council President Wilson commented the Council had not had enough time or information to
make a decision tonight on a preferred alternative. There were fundamental budgeting
differences between the actuals. For example, the City did not receive any transport fees in
January, 1/12th of the year or 8%. A 2.5% increase was not the same as an 8% increase. Mayor
Packet Page 196 of 339
Haakenson responded staff had prepared the budget and was standing by those numbers. The
Council could add 10% or $70,000 to that revenue stream if they wished. \
Councilmember Bernheim recalled Chief Tomberg mentioned he wanted to move his office from
the third floor of City Hall to be closer to his men. He asked where Chief Tomberg’s office
would be located under the Fire District 1 contract. Chief Tomberg answered if the Council
approved the Fire District 1 contract, he would be assigned to the Fire District 1 Administration
building southeast of Mariner High School and adjacent to the training tower. Fire Station 11, the
largest station Fire District 1 operates with the most personnel, is kitty-corner from the site.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how much closer that office would be to the Fire Department
than his current office. Chief Tomberg answered it was approximately the same or slightly
further but it was a much larger station.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there were plans under the Fire District 1 contract to
abandon the costly training exercises at the North Bend facility and utilize the new Fire District 1
training facility instead. Chief Tomberg answered the only training that was done at North Bend
that could not be done locally was live fire exercises where a building similar to the training
tower is fire loaded and set on fire under strictly controlled conditions. Every Fire Department on
the west side goes to North Bend for that training. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether that
training could be conducted at the new Fire District 1 training facility. Chief Tomberg answered
it was unlikely the Air Pollution Control District would allow that type of burning at the site. The
Fire District 1 training facility does have a smoke room in which non-toxic smoke and conditions
similar to an interior structure fire can be simulated. Exercises with actual flames, heat, etc. are
conducted at North Bend. Councilmember Bernheim concluded even Fire District 1 went to
North Bend for that training. Chief Tomberg agreed.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Edmonds Fire Department planned to use the Fire
District 1 facility for training if the contract were not approved. Chief Tomberg answered there
would be opportunities to use it on Fire District 1’s schedule.
Councilmember Bernheim commented levels of service for Edmonds residents under the contract
would not change. Chief Tomberg answered the response time aspect of level of service would
not change much because the fire stations would be in the same locations, staffed by the same
personnel and at the current levels. The level of service of all the other services offered by Fire
District 1 would increase via the contract such as enhanced career development opportunities for
firefighters, improved training, a dedicated Public Education person, a dedicated Public
Information person, three Medical Service Officers, a dedicated Safety Officer, as well as other
programs that Edmonds could not provide.
Councilmember Orvis commented because both Options 1 and 4 included transport fees, the
projected revenue from transport fees did not affect the savings.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the discussion regarding transport fees was only relevant
in the option where the City sold the land and the transport fees were collected by Fire District 1;
in the options where the City retained the land and the transfer station, the savings would be
greater if the transport fees exceeded the projected $700,000.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented she did not receive the information until today and wanted
additional time for review. If the Council chose to select an option tonight, she recommended
Packet Page 197 of 339
selecting an option that retained the transport fees and did not require spending down the ending
cash balance. However, if that were done, the contract with Fire District 1 no longer solves the
City’s budget issues and the Council was likely to approve placing a levy on the ballot. She
suggested allowing the public to vote in February whether to contract with Fire District 1 for fire
service at the same time as the levy.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the taxpayers had invested a great deal in the fire station,
apparatus and equipment. He agreed with the suggestion to allow the citizens to vote whether to
contract with Fire District 1.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, thanked firefighters Doug Dahl and Tim Hoover for spending time
with Dr. Senderoff and her to review the contract, the RFA concept, and the history of the
contract offer. Information provided at last week’s meeting was also very helpful. She
recommended slowing down the process and taking another 2-4 weeks to discuss the issue
because many citizens were still confused.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Wambolt summarized the options:
1. Without Fire District 1 Contract - business as usual, expenses exceed revenue in 2010;
General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2011.
2. With Fire District 1 Contract - sell all the Fire Department assets to Fire District 1, place
the proceeds in the General Fund to operate the City, lose transport fees of
$700,000+/year, expenses exceed revenue in 2013, General Fund ending cash balance
goes negative in 2015
3. With Fire District 1 Contract (revenue removed) - sell all the Fire Department assets to
Fire District 1, place the proceeds outside the General Fund, lose transport fees of
$700,000+/year, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, General Fund ending cash balance
goes negative in 2012
4. With Fire District 1 Contract (sell apparatus; keep stations, land, and transport fees) - sell
all the depreciating assets and retain all the appreciating assets. Place the proceeds in the
General Fund to operate the City, retain transport fees, expenses exceed revenue in 2011,
General Fund goes negative in 2013.
5. With Fire District 1 Contract (sell apparatus-revenue removed; keep stations, land,
transport fees) - sell all the depreciating assets and retain all the appreciating assets, place
the proceeds outside the General Fund, retain transport fees, expenses exceed revenue in
2011, General Fund goes negative in 2012.
6. With Fire District 1 Contract (keep stations, land, apparatus, and transport fees) -
expenses exceed revenue in 2011 and General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in
2012.
Councilmember Wambolt commented regardless of the option the Council chose, the City would
still need to take a levy lid lift to the voters next year. This was not a permanent fix. He did not
agree with taking the issue of whether to contract with Fire District 1 to the voters, remarking it
would be a monumental achievement if everyone in the Council Chambers understood the issue;
getting 26,000 voters to understand would be impossible. This was a decision for the Council to
make.
Council President Wilson commented although he could see how he was going to vote
eventually, he did not want to be pushed into it. The service level increases were not enough to
justify contracting. For example there would be no change in response times and no
Packet Page 198 of 339
change/increase in emergency services. There would be public information benefits and it would
be easier to calendar training at a training tower the Fire Department already has access to. The
question of finances was the primary issue and the Council was still working on that.
Council President Wilson pointed out the Council had not been provided any numbers with
regard to the passage of I-1033, which polls currently estimate has a 61% approval rate. He
anticipated if the City had to fix its General Fund to inflation, at the end of the first five years of
the contract, the City would have a $7 million budget deficit. If the Council did not approve
contracting for fire service with Fire District 1, at the end of five years, the City would still have a
$7 million deficit. This did not solve the City’s financial problems. The issue of ensuring that
fire services were secure had not been addressed. Council President Wilson summarized the
information provided did not address I-1033, which the voters would decide on in two weeks, nor
did it address how to ensure the stability of fire services into the future. He was unable to vote on
a preference until the numbers were provided because the question was not about service, it was
about finances.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
WILSON, TO CONTINUE FURTHER DISCUSSION UNTIL NOVEMBER 24, 2009
WHEN FINAL NUMBERS WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed this was not a permanent fix. It was a sale of Fire Department
assets in order to generate income to cover a short term gap of 3-4 years. He used the analogy of
selling one’s home and using the equity to pay rent, concluding that was a short term recipe for
disaster. He anticipated the City would get rid of its Fire Department and in 10-12 years when
contract rates had increased substantially, citizens would question why the Council sold the Fire
Department. He did not view this as an urgent issue, recalling a very successful plan was
developed to place a levy on the ballot. He recalled the levy included funds for the Fire
Department. If money was an issue, he suggested placing the levy on the ballot rather than
selling the City’s assets to generate short term capital.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the current fire service was outstanding and questioned
why anyone wanted to tinker with it. He objected to the rush to approve the contract by the end
of the year, noting the only thing that would achieve was end of the year advantages for
employees. He pointed out it was clear the union wanted new management. He referred to the
frustration voiced by the firefighters with funding issues in every budget which led to their desire
to get out of the current system and under new management. He reminded the firefighters had
contracts and if there were give-backs, it was due to the panic in the economy and the alternative
of layoffs.
Councilmember Bernheim summarized the reason he was recommending postponing further
discussion was because it was not an urgent financial problem, the Council should be focusing on
the levy rather than selling off its assets, the union clearly wants new management, and he wanted
time to see the real numbers. He suggested there were alternatives such as working out the
management problems.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment that Mr. Hoover had
described management problems last week rather than revenue problems and the City’s inability
to fund the Fire Department each year. He asked Mr. Hoover if he had mentioned management
problems.
Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, responded he did not talk about
management problems; he talked about the annual fight for funding to maintain levels of service.
Packet Page 199 of 339
Councilmember Plunkett suggested narrowing the options to a preferred option which would
allow the public to learn more about and speak to that option. He did not support a motion to set
a date to continue discussion, noting the selection of a preferred option would lead the Council to
that.
Councilmember Orvis agreed with selecting a preferred option, pointing out staff did not need to
continue generating numbers for selling the land if none of the Councilmembers supported that
option. Similarly, the projection for transport fees was not relevant unless the Council was
interested in selling the stations. He was in favor of retaining the land and the stations. He
commented Option 1 was always under consideration and recommended moving forward with
discussion on Option 4 which saves the City a significant amount of money operationally. If the
Council narrowed the Options to 1 and 4, it was not a final decision but would focus the
discussion. He suggested having the contract rewritten to reflect Option 4 and to hold another
public hearing on the scenario of Option 1 versus 4 at the next meeting.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the suggestion to narrow the options. He asked
Councilmember Bernheim what new numbers he was waiting for. Councilmember Bernheim
responded his understanding was the numbers were not final, referring to an email sent late this
afternoon. Mr. Hines explained the email was simply an explanation of why some of the numbers
changed; the numbers provided to the Council were final.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the fire service contract would not be a solution to I-1033.
The solution to I-1033 would be a levy. Council President Wilson responded the question of
what the City would do if I-1033 passed and how it affected this decision needed to be addressed.
There were other solutions to consider such as creating an independent Woodway-Edmonds Fire
District or reverse annex into Fire District 1 rather than contract for fire service with Fire District
1. Mayor Haakenson pointed out if I-1033 passed, the City would be in a better position with a
contract with Fire District 1 than its own Fire Department in an amount of approximately $2
million/year. The deficit in 2011 without the contract is $635,000; with the contract it is $2.3
million. He summarized the City would have issues with I-1033 regardless.
Councilmember Wambolt clarified Council President Wilson’s point was the City would be
worse off with I-1033 and a contract with Fire District 1 because the City would be stuck with a
contract payment. Council President Wilson agreed, noting the City would be unable to terminate
the contract for five years. He recommended waiting until the outcome of I-1033 was known
before entering into a contract that would tie the City’s hands for five years. Mayor Haakenson
stated he would prefer a contract for $6.2 million for five years rather than a $9 million Fire
Department. Council President Wilson clarified there were many figures in the $9 million that
were not direct financial savings such as non-departmental costs.
Councilmember Wambolt commented his analysis showed the $6.2 million was definitely less
than the City could provide fire service for and less than the Fire Department payroll. Even if the
City’s finances were in tremendous shape, the City should be evaluating this because it made the
Fire Department more efficient.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM
VOTING IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, OLSON, PETERSON AND WAMBOLT
OPPOSED.
Packet Page 200 of 339
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO DRAFT AN AGREEMENT FOR OPTION 4 AND PLACE IT FOR
PUBLIC HEARING WITH COMPARISON FROM OPTION 4 (WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1
CONTRACT - SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES)
TO OPTION 1 FOR THE NEXT MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON
SECONDED THE MOTION.
If the Council planned to pursue a contract with Fire District 1, Councilmember Orvis
recommended it be via Option 4.
Councilmember Peterson supported narrowing the options which would give staff and the public
an opportunity to focus on one option. If this wasn’t the preferred option at the end of the
discussion, Council could focus on a different option.
Councilmember Wambolt asked if the intent was to have the contract rewritten to reflect Option
4. Councilmember Orvis answered yes. Mayor Haakenson explained the contract for service did
not change with any of the options. The Interlocal Agreement would change if the stations and
land were not part of the sale.
Council President Wilson clarified the motion was to schedule this on next week’s agenda. He
asked Mayor Haakenson if the updated information would be available for public review by
Friday. Mayor Haakenson stated all the information would be available on the City’s website by
the end of the week.
Council President Wilson asked whether that was enough time for the public to review and
comment and for the Council to make a decision next week or if Councilmember Orvis
envisioned additional public hearings. Councilmember Orvis responded he was uncertain
whether he would be ready to make a decision next week but anticipated he could by the
November 2 meeting.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 27 ON OPTION 4 (WITH FIRE
DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT - SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND
TRANSPORT FEES).
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON,
PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT, ORVIS AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED.
(Council President Wilson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m.)
Packet Page 201 of 339
EXCERPT FROM THE OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4. IN ADDITION TO
CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1, THIS OPTION INCLUDES
SELLING APPARATUS (ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT), AND KEEPING
FIRE STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the question posed by the public regarding how Fire District
1 could provide fire service to Edmonds for $6.2 million/year, explaining in reality the amount
was approximately $7.3 million. The City would pay Fire District 1 $6.2 million/year and Fire
District 1 would no longer pay Edmonds approximately $700,000 to provide fire service to
Esperance. In addition, Fire District 1 would likely negotiate a contract with Woodway which
would generate additional revenue.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dave Page, Edmonds, asked if the City had held other public hearings. Mayor Haakenson
answered there had been five opportunities for public comment. Mr. Page spoke in favor of
contracting for fire service with Fire District 1, envisioning it would be beneficial to the City, the
citizens and the Fire Department employees. He anticipated everyone would look back on this in
the future as a win. He urged the Council to embrace regionalization and vote in favor of the
contract.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained the City previously discussed fire service consolidation with
Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Brier when Laura Hall was the mayor. He reported
Lynnwood signed a medical services contract with Mukilteo. He relayed a report in the Mukilteo
Beacon that Edmonds and Mukilteo were involved in ongoing discussions with Fire District 1.
He remarked that Lynnwood was considering cancelling their December meetings as a cost
saving measure.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented research that has been done indicates Edmonds received
less that it should have from Fire District 1 for providing fire service to Esperance. In addition,
Woodway has been getting a good rate for fire service from Edmonds. He envisioned the rates
for Esperance and Woodway residents would increase when fire service was provided by Fire
District 1 and expressed concern that representatives from those communities had not been
involved in the discussions.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, was glad the Council was no longer considering the sale of the fire
stations and land. With regard to the public hearing process, he pointed out the difference
between public comment and a public hearing. Public comment to date has been useful in
providing the Council feedback during their deliberations. Public hearings should begin once the
final proposal is made and the deliberations have reached an end. He pointed out often life got in
the way and citizens did not have time to follow issues being considered by the Council. Citizens
often wait until the Council has completed their deliberations and a proposal has been finalized
before providing comment.
George Murray, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Wambolt for the work he has done on the
proposal, Council President Wilson for the questions he has raised, and Ms. Buckshnis and Ms.
Packet Page 202 of 339
Petso for their questions. He remarked the contract for fire service represented approximately 20-
30% of the City’s budget. Consideration of the contract for fire service differed when it was for
revenue purposes versus something the firefighters want. He suggested the Council contract with
an outside, independent analyst to review the numbers, particularly assumptions such as fuel
costs, the cost of department heads, and growth rates. He urged the Council not to rush into a
contract.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented the City’s website had been down and she had only
recently received the information regarding this agenda item. She remarked citizens are still
confused and according to the Firefighters Union lost revenue could be as much as $2.5 million.
She requested the City provide accurate information regarding the amount of revenue that would
be lost via contracting with Fire District 1. She pointed out this was not a valid public hearing as
information regarding Option 4 had not been available to the public.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4
In response to comments made during the public hearing, Council President Wilson reported the
Council took public comment regarding the Fire District 1 contract on September 15 and 22 and
October 6 and 13; public hearings were held on October 20 and tonight; and another public
hearing was scheduled for November 2.
To Dr. Senderoff’s comment that life gets in the way, Mayor Haakenson agreed people did not
have time to attend Council meetings or make their wishes known to the Council and that was
why they elected the Mayor and Councilmembers.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 2.9 of the Interlocal Agreement regarding response
time, recalling in the past the Edmonds Fire Department met six of the eleven standards. This
section indicates if more than six of the standards are met, the City and Fire District 1 would meet
to discuss how to pay for the difference. He asked whether Fire District 1 would increase the cost
of the contract if response times improved so that eight of the eleven standards were met. Fire
Chief Tom Tomberg answered no, anticipating the only way Fire District 1 would increase the
cost would be if the City asked to add services such as another fire station or additional personnel.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out this section also provided a process if Fire District 1’s response
times did not meet the City’s expectations.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 4.8, and asked why the Interlocal Agreement still
included the EMS transport fee language. Chief Tomberg answered the language was provided
by the City Attorney. Fire District 1 will provide the EMS service, collect a transport fee and
remit the fee to the City on a quarterly basis less the cost of collection. That process was the
result of three opinions from the Office of the Inspector General that stated in order to collect
Medicare, the cost must be collected by the provider of the service. He offered to email the
Council the three opinions.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 6.3, sale of the rolling stock, and asked if the City
would be retaining any vehicles. Chief Tomberg answered the City would not retain any
vehicles.
Council President Wilson expressed appreciation for the addition of Section 8.2, a joint annual
meeting. With that language, he was less concerned about also having an annual meeting with
Packet Page 203 of 339
two Fire District 1 Commissioners and two Councilmembers. Mayor Haakenson suggested
retaining the language and a decision could be made annually regarding whether a meeting was
necessary.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 11.1 regarding the first 5 years, questioning why the
Interlocal Agreement did not allow the City to terminate the contract until 5 years had elapsed
plus 2 years notice. Chief Tomberg answered this was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace and
Brier contract. The reason for the 5 year period was the substantial investment made by Fire
District 1. Council President Wilson questioned the reason for a 2-year notice rather than 12
months. Chief Tomberg answered it would give both the Fire District 1 and the City an
opportunity to ensure the termination occurred in an orderly manner. Council President Wilson
preferred to change the notice from 2 years to 1 year, anticipating since the Council would
complete this process by December, it could be unwound in less than 2 years. He suggested
termination of the contract be allowed to occur in 3 years.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 11.5, Regional Fire Protection Service Authority,
expressing concern that this section gave all the decision-making and policy-making authority to
Fire District 1. He suggested the City retain the authority to enter into an RFA without Fire
District 1 if they wished. Chief Tomberg explained the City Attorney and Fire District 1’s
attorney drafted this section. He recalled until fall 2008, the City was involved in RFA
discussions with the south county service providers, a process that was led by Fire District 1.
Mayor Haakenson explained this section allowed Edmonds to opt out of a RFA if Fire District 1
wanted to form a RFA and Edmonds did not want to join. He remarked realistically Edmonds
would never be part of a RFA that did not include Fire District 1.
Council President Wilson agreed with Mayor Haakenson’s assumption regarding a RFA,
commenting at some point he wanted to examine the concept of a Fire District comprised of
Edmonds and Woodway or Edmonds, Woodway and Mountlake Terrace or reverse annexation
into Fire District 1. He wanted to provide the Fire District 1 the same opportunity to opt out that
was provided to the City in Section 11.5. The same was true for Sections 12.1 and 12.1.3 which
provides the City the opportunity to opt out if the City declined to merge into a Fire District. He
requested language be added that would allow Fire District 1 to opt out if they declined to merge
into a Fire District or if they were opposed to the City annexing into Fire District 1.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Murray’s comment about the City continuing to pay for
department heads, explaining under the proposed contract, the Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief
and the Executive Assistant would all transfer to Fire District 1.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comments that Esperance and Woodway were not involved in the
contract discussions, Councilmember Wambolt advised Woodway’s Mayor Pro Tem attended the
joint meeting between the Council and Fire District 1 Commissioners. He agreed it was likely
Esperance and Woodway would experience a greater expense for fire service. He remarked a
total of 12 different citizens spoke regarding the Fire District 1 contract, 27 times.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the financial situation was very compelling. He agreed
there needed to be some refinement such as suggested by Mr. Murray regarding fuel projections,
however, that refinement would be very slight. He pointed out under Option 1, expenses through
2016 would exceed revenues by $21.1 million. Under Option 4, expenses through 2016 would
exceed revenues by $12.4 million. Over that seven year period, the City would be $10.6 million
better off under Option 4 than Option 1. He summarized contracting for fire service with Fire
District 1 did not solve the City’s financial problem; a levy lid lift would still be necessary.
Packet Page 204 of 339
Mayor Haakenson referred to Ms. Buckshnis’ comment that the Firefighters Union indicated
there would be a $2.5 million loss by contracting with Fire District 1. Tim Hoover, President,
Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, responded he was not aware of that.
Councilmember Bernheim commented he wanted to be certain he understood the basis for the
Union’s support: to stabilize public safety funding and staffing levels. He asked whether there
had been a lack of stability in the actual funding levels of the Fire Department. Mr. Hoover
answered there had been the threat of lack of funding every year. Last year through the work of
the City Council as well as Fire Administration and the Union, the EMS levy was increased and
transport fees were initiated which generated an additional $1.5 million. To date, the threat of
insufficient funding has been circumvented by identifying additional revenue sources.
Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged there had been threats but actual funding for the Fire
Department had remained stead and stable. Mr. Hoover agreed it had but the Fire Department
was included in discussion regarding across-the-board cuts every year. He pointed out the Fire
Department’s budget had been cut in the past including the loss of the Assistant Fire Chief five
years ago.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how this proposal accomplished regionalization and why
regionalization was the best way to provide the highest level of service. Mr. Hoover answered
savings were based on economies of scale by reducing overhead costs while maintaining levels of
service. This was beneficial to citizens because instead of relying on automatic aid, assistance
was provided by the neighboring fire station that was within the same organization.
Councilmember Orvis requested page 545 of 1057 of last week’s packet, Option 1 versus Option
4, also be available on the City’s website.
Councilmember Orvis commented after talking with Chief Tomberg as well as the Fire District 1
Chief, he learned Fire District 1 sends its firefighters for live fire training in North Bend on
overtime. Because Edmonds cannot afford to pay overtime, when Edmonds firefighters go to
North Bend, there is a hole in service in the City. Fire District 1 does a much better job providing
coverage for firefighters attending training.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out the required 2 year written notice in Section 11.2 could be
beneficial to Edmonds. In the event Fire District 1 wanted to terminate the contract, Edmonds
would need at least that much time to establish its own fire service. He summarized the 2 year
written notice was beneficial to both the City and Fire District 1. He agreed with the 5 year
termination clause in Section 11.1 in view of the significant outlay of resources by Fire District 1.
He noted the 5 year period was also important for the firefighters who transferred to Fire District
1. He summarized the 5 year period was appropriate from both a contractual as well as a service
aspect.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Councilmember Orvis whether he envisioned the Council would
vote on the contract at the November 2 meeting. Councilmember Orvis responded yes,
explaining he crunched the numbers this weekend and was unable to find any flaws; contracting
with Fire District 1 would save the City money in the long run. He did not anticipate terminating
the contract unless Fire District 1 charged the City more than the City could provide the service
itself which he did not envision would happen. He spoke in support of Option 4 and suggested
the November 2 agenda include a public hearing as well as state that the Council may take action
on Option 4.
Packet Page 205 of 339
Councilmember Bernheim noted the contract was a 20 year term and the base rate could be
renegotiated after 20 years. Mayor Haakenson agreed the base rate in 20 years would be different
than the base rate today. The contract language states the contract would be negotiated
identically as it was today.
Councilmember Bernheim observed the base rate of $6.2 million was established for next year
and each year it would be adjusted depending on the factors identified in the contract such as
labor costs, equipment replacement, etc. Chief Tomberg advised the contract would be adjusted
annually for CPI. Mayor Haakenson advised a larger increase would occur when labor contracts
were negotiated. Councilmember Bernheim asked if all the potential cost increases were limited
to CPI. Chief Tomberg advised that information was detailed in Section 4.5. Councilmember
Bernheim summarized if the City retained its own Fire Department, in 25 years the City would be
in charge of how much the fire service cost which was not necessarily true if the City contracted
for fire service.
Councilmember Bernheim remarked he was impressed with the competency, command, capacity
and confidence of the Fire District 1 Commissioners. However, he was concerned with turning
over the City’s fire service to Fire District 1 when the citizens would not have an opportunity to
vote for the Commissioners.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if the contract addressed the new base rate when the contract
expired in 20 years. Mayor Haakenson answered it did not. Councilmember Bernheim
responded that was his primary reservation with this contract. He agreed the City’s financial
situation was dire and that the City budget would be easier over the next five years if the City
contracted with Fire District 1. If citizens wanted to retain control of the Fire Department, they
should expect to pay the full cost of the Fire Department. He favored placing a levy on the ballot
to allow the voters to indicate whether they were willing to pay for services. He supported the
levy and the Edmonds Fire Department but was hesitant to give up control of the Fire
Department.
Council President Wilson commented he had sufficiently vetted the service and financial
questions but did not feel the public has had sufficient time to vet the financial questions. He was
inclined to vote for the contract but was concerned 7 years was too long to obligate the City
without any flexibility. He asked whether in 2002 Mayor Haakenson would have been in favor of
obligating the City for 7 years. Mayor Haakenson answered he has been reviewing the contract
proposal since April 2009 with the Fire Chief, two Finance Directors, the City Attorney, and 5
public hearings where 12 people have spoken 27 times. During that time he had not received any
calls from citizens expressing concern with the contract. Also during that time he held a
neighborhood meeting where the only person who raised the issue was a Lynnwood Fire
Department employee who lives in the City. He has attended meetings where political questions
were raised and no one has brought up the issue of the fire service contract with Fire District 1.
The issue has been on the front page of both newspapers for months, on the City’s website, and
on Channel 21. He assured he would not have offered the contract to the Council if he did not
believe in the contract terms, that there were financial savings, and that the citizens would be
better served. Whether it was 2002 or 2009, the believed this was the right thing to do.
Mayor Haakenson commented in 2002 he had no idea what would happen in the next 7 years, nor
did he know what would happen in the next 7 or even 20 years. This contract would put the City
in good stead for the next 2-3 years although a levy would still be necessary. He concluded the 5
year termination clause protected the City as well as Fire District 1 due to the huge investment
they were making in taking on the Edmonds Fire Department employees and equipment. If the
Packet Page 206 of 339
Council preferred a 1-year notice, that could be negotiated; however, he had no issue with the 2-
year period. If he were Mayor and the Council decided in 5 years to opt out of the contract, he
would want as much time as possible to set up the City’s Fire Department.
Council President Wilson reiterated he felt 5 years plus a 2-year notice was too long. Pointing
out the Council would be completing the contact over the course of 2 months including the sale of
the fire apparatus, he envisioned that could be reversed in 12 months. He anticipated it would be
a totally different world in 5 years; the situation was much different today than it was in 2003.
He acknowledged a termination clause of less than 5 years or a notice period of less than 2 years
may be totally unacceptable to Fire District 1. He also planned to work with City Attorney Scott
Snyder to develop opt out language in the contract for Fire District 1.
Mayor Haakenson suggested Council President Wilson determine whether at least four
Councilmembers agreed with having the City Attorney develop that language, noting the City
Attorney’s policy of not spending more than on hour on an issue unless at least four
Councilmembers agreed. Council President Wilson assured his request would not consume more
than one hour of the City Attorney’s time.
With regard to the 2-year notice, Councilmember Peterson commented the formation of a RFA
would be a lengthy process. If Edmonds wanted to form a RFA with Mountlake Terrace and
Woodway, the 2-year notice would be desirable and as beneficial to Edmonds. He cautioned the
Council should not pursue a contract with the idea of getting out of it; if the concerns were that
great, the City should not enter into the contract. Council President Wilson stated the 2-year
notice period was for any reason other than a RFA.
Councilmember Wambolt commented there was no relationship between the term of the contract
and the notice period. If it were a 3-year contract, a 2-year notice may still be desirable. He
commented if the City wanted to terminate the agreement, planning could occur before notice
was given; if Fire District 1 wanted to terminate the agreement, the entire 2-year period may be
necessary. He asked Chief Tomberg whether a Fire Department could be established in one year,
noting the contract with Fire District 1 was able to be completed relatively quickly because all the
staff were transferring to Fire District 1. If Fire District 1 terminated the contract, the employees
may not necessarily transfer to the City and recruitment may be necessary. Chief Tomberg
responded he was hopeful the City was not contracting for fire service in 20 years; he hoped a
RFA would be formed in the near future. He commented although the discussion was about
regionalization, the concern seemed to be Edmonds having its own Fire Department again. He
relayed the Mukilteo Beacon reported last week that the offer Fire District 1 made to Mukilteo
was not presented to the Mukilteo City Council. Mukilteo is watching Edmonds and may
consider Fire District 1’s offer. With regard to setting up a standalone Fire Department, he
remarked the more time, the better.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he had no issue with the 5 year termination clause in light
of the significant investment Fire District 1 was making. With regard to the notice period, he
commented a great deal would need to be accomplished in the event the contract was terminated.
Council President Wilson explained his primary concern was 2 years following 5 years. He
would accept even 2 years within the 5 years or ideally 2 years with 3 years. He pointed out the
City had not done any planning with regard to the impacts of I-1033. If I-1033 passes, it will be
even more difficult for future Council’s to address the constraints of a 7-year wait before the
contract with Fire District 1 which comprises approximately 20% of the City’s budget, could be
Packet Page 207 of 339
terminated. He was concerned the Council had not discussed how it would effectively manage
the budget in a post I-1033 world.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the passage of I-1033 would require a levy lid lift.
Council President Wilson pointed out all other City services, including police and parks, would
be at greater risk if I-1033 passed, a levy failed and the Council did not have the ability to
terminate the fire service contract for 7 years. Mayor Haakenson responded if I-1033 passed the
Police Department and Fire Department would continue to be funded, parks may not. Further,
fire service would cost the City $1 million less via contracting with Fire District 1 than the City
having its own Fire Department. He commented if I-1033 passed and the City were in dire
straits, the only option to reduce the cost of fire service would be to close a fire station or lay off
firefighters. He suggested the Council deal with I-1033 if it passed, commenting it had no effect
on the fire service contract.
Council President Wilson clarified he was not suggesting that a fire station be closed or that
firefighters be laid off. He was interested in exploring other options such as annexing into Fire
District 1 or a standalone Fire District with Mountlake Terrace or Woodway. If the Council
planned to pass the fire service contract next Monday with the outcome of I-1033 unknown, he
preferred to have some flexibility with regard to termination of the contract. Mayor Haakenson
responded he had no interest in forming a new Fire District today or if I-1033 passed because it
was not a good thing for Edmonds citizens. Mountlake Terrace and Brier have a good contract
with Fire District 1 and were not interested in forming a Fire District with Edmonds; they are
interested in a RFA with Fire District 1. He summarized the City’s future was with a RFA, not an
Edmonds/Woodway or Edmonds/Mountlake Terrace Fire District.
Councilmember Orvis commented he found the proposed language acceptable and viewed
contracting for service with Fire District 1 as a more stable situation for the Fire Department. He
did not envision addressing budget problems by reductions in the Fire Department under any
circumstances.
Councilmember Plunkett also found the proposed language acceptable, both the 5-year
termination clause as well as the 2-year notice, noting those time periods provided stability and
flexibility. He noted the contract did not restrict the City from taking action with regard to the
formation of a RFA. If I-1033 passed, he would rather be in a contract for service with Fire
District 1 than the City having its own Fire Department because it costs more for the City to
operate its own Fire Department. He did not envision making cuts to the Fire Department even if
I-1033 passed.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting the City was better
off with a contract with Fire District 1 than on its own.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, IN SECTION 11.2 RELATED TO YEARS 6
THROUGH 20, TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO READ, “EITHER PARTY MAY
TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AFTER THE FIRST FOUR YEARS...BY
PROVIDING THE OTHER PARTY WITH ONE YEAR WRITTEN NOTICE...ONCE
FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT DATE.”
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Packet Page 208 of 339
Councilmember Bernheim questioned the language in Section 4.5. Chief Tomberg referred to
Exhibit C in the binder where the costs were detailed. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the labor
cost increase for 2010 was 2.14%.
Council President Wilson commented if Councilmembers were not interested in making any
change to the contract, he would not propose alternate language. There were no changes
requested by any Councilmember.
Mayor Haakenson suggested any changes be discussed tonight to allow the public time for
review.
Councilmember Bernheim questioned whether the term of the contract should be lengthened.
Mayor Haakenson agreed with Chief Tomberg that it was unlikely the contract for fire service
would be in place in 20 years because of the likelihood that the City would be part of a RFA.
Mayor Haakenson clarified Option 4 as presented in tonight’s packet would be on the November
2 agenda for a public hearing and Council action.
Council President Wilson asked for confirmation that it was the Council’s policy decision that the
sale of the assets would be placed in the General Operating Fund. The Council agreed it was.
Packet Page 209 of 339
AM-2569 6.
Transfer of Control of Verizon Northwest to Frontier Communication Corporation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:20 Minutes
Department:Community Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report to Washington Consortium regarding the transfer of control of Verizon Northwest
Inc. to Frontier Communication Corporation - Workshop.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
The attached report from River Oaks includes a recommendation that "consent should be given by
each Consortium member to the transfer of control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier subject to
a mutually acceptable Transfer Resolution or Ordinance". This being said, the City Council will
not be asked to take formal action until November 17, 2009.
Previous Council Action
February 26, 2008 - The Edmonds City Council directed the City Attorney to continue with a
schedule which outlined possible "Next Steps" regarding negotiations with Verizon.
March 25, 2008 - The Edmonds City Council authorized Mayor Haakenson to sign an Interlocal
Agreement Consortium For Negotiation of Cable Television Franchising, in addition to preparing
and executing a Consultant Agreement with River Oaks.
July 22, 2008 - The Edmonds City Council conducted a first reading and public hearing related to
the proposed Cable Franchise Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Verizon Northwest
Inc.
July 29, 2008 - The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3693 adopting a Cable Franchise
Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Verizon Northwest Inc. The City Council also
authorized Mayor to execute the Franchise Agreement on behalf of the City.
June 16, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council authorized Mayor Haakenson to sign, on behalf of the
City, an Interlocal Agreement related to the Consortium for Negotiation of Transfer of Cable
Franchise Agreement from Verizon Northwest, Inc. to Frontier Communications Corporation.
The City Council also authorized Mayor Haakenson to sign, on behalf of the City, a Conflict of
Interest Waiver.
Narrative
On May 13, 2009, Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications system to
Packet Page 210 of 339
On May 13, 2009, Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications system to
Frontier Communications. According to a May 19, 2009 letter to the City of Edmonds from both
entities, the transaction includes Verizon’s residential and small business telephone lines, internet
service, long-distance voice accounts, as well as Verizon’s fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) assets;
Frontier will provide video services after the completion of the merger.
Due to the complexities related to processing this type of transaction application, a
multi-jurisdictional Consortium was created similar to the process used to negotiate the Verizon
and Comcast Interlocal Agreements. Participating jurisdictions contracted with River Oaks
Communications Corporation and Ogden Murphy Wallace in June, 2009 for common services as
well as a mechanism for each entity to utilize the consultant’s services, as that entity sees fit, and
for additional support in reviewing or negotiating the transfer to meet specific needs of each
participating jurisdiction.
City staff and a representative from the City Attorney’s office met with representatives of Verizon
and Frontier Communications on June 11, 2009. This allowed City representatives an opportunity
to ask questions and to prepare for a potential transfer. Staff from jurisdictions participating in the
Consortium also conducted similar meetings with Verizon and Frontier representatives.
As required by the Federal Communications Commission, Form 394 must be used when applying
for franchise authority approval to assign or transfer control of a cable television system. The
franchise authority in this case is the City of Edmonds. In addition to the information requested on
Form 394, cable operators are required to submit all information required by the cable franchise
agreement or applicable local law or that the franchising authority deems necessary or appropriate
in connection with the transfer determination. A franchise authority has only 30 days in which to
review Form 394 to determine whether all necessary information has been provided and is
complete. Under Federal law, the members of the Consortium have a duty from a due diligence
standpoint to examine this transaction from a financial, legal and technical standpoint and
ultimately approve or deny transfer of control based on these criteria.
According to Section 617(e) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992, the franchise authority shall have 120 days from the date of filing Form 394 (complete with
all exhibits and any information required by the franchise agreement or applicable state or local
law) to act upon such request. If the franchise authority fails to render a final decision on such
request within 120 days, the request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the
franchise authority agree to an extension of time. In this particular case, the timeframe was
mutually extended by all parties until November 30, 2009.
An October 21, 2009 report (Attachment 1) from River Oaks Communications Corporation
includes a recommendation that "consent should be given by each Consortium member to the
transfer of control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier subject to a mutually acceptable Transfer
Resolution or Ordinance". This being said, the Edmonds City Council will not be asked to take
formal action until November 17, 2009. The attached report also contains an executive summary,
and information related to the following: background; a description of initial documents provided
by Verizon/Frontier; the Consortium’s data requests #1 and #2 and request for information;
Frontier Communication’s legal qualifications; plans and capabilities; customer rates and
financing the transaction; prior ownership of cable systems; governmental and educational access
channels and franchise fees; build-out of Verizon’s cable systems; data request #3; standstill
Packet Page 211 of 339
agreement and reimbursement to the consortium members; technical capabilities of Frontier
Communications; future customer service; programming; financial risks; and a conclusion.
A draft Template Transfer Ordinance (Attachment 2) is also attached for your review. The
ordinance, if approved by the City Council, consents to the transfer in accordance with the terms
of applicable law, subject to and contingent upon three conditions. Language in the Template
Transfer Ordinance notes that if the transfer does not close for whatever reason, then the consent
provided for within the Ordinance shall be null and void, and the City shall be deemed to have
disapproved the transfer of control under the Franchise and federal law, and all remedies under the
Franchise and applicable laws shall be available to the City. In the event the Transfer does not
close before January 2012, Verizon and Frontier will provide notice of that event to the City and
an update on the reasons for such a delay in closing or notice of the termination of the Transfer.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attachment 1 - Report from River Oaks Communication Corporation
Link: Attachment 2 - Template Transfer Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 02:28 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 02:31 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 02:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 10/23/2009 04:15
PM
Final Approval Date: 10/29/2009
Packet Page 212 of 339
1
River Oaks Communications Corporation
Colorado Springs Office:
3 South Tejon, Suite 200
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
Telephone: (719) 477-6850
Fax: (719) 477-0818
E-Mail: tduchen@rivoaks.com
Denver Office:
6860 South Yosemite Court, Suite 2000
Centennial, Colorado 80112
Telephone: (303) 721-0653
Fax: (303) 721-1746
E-Mail: bduchen@rivoaks.com
REPORT TO WASHINGTON CONSORTIUM REGARDING
THE TRANSER OF CONTROL OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.
TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
October 21, 2009
Executive Summary
Verizon Northwest Inc. is the cable television franchisee in ten jurisdictions that comprise the
Consortium. Approximately ten months after the franchise agreements were finished, Verizon
Communications Inc. (“Verizon”), the parent company of Verizon Northwest Inc., announced
that it had signed an agreement to transfer control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier
Communications Corporation (“Frontier”) for approximately $8.6 Billion ($5.3 Billion in stock
and $3.3 Billion in new debt). Frontier offers wireline telephone service and Internet service and
acts as an agent for Dish Network which provides satellite television service.
On June 1, 2009, FCC Form 394, its Exhibits and related materials were received by Consortium
members. Under federal law, had the application been complete, the local franchise authorities
would have had 120 days to approve or deny the transfer of control. Due to disagreements over
the completeness of the submittal, the timeframe was mutually extended with Verizon and
Frontier until November 30, 2009.
The criteria for review are whether the transferee, in this case Frontier, has the legal, financial
and technical qualifications to own and operate the cable television systems. The Consortium
prepared Data Requests #1, #2 and #3 along with Requests for Information in order to be
provided with necessary information to conduct its due diligence and evaluation. After
reviewing several hundreds of pages of information, it is clear that there are questions as to
whether this transaction will work from financial and technical standpoints. There are risks
associated with it and no guarantees, but it is the responsibility of Frontier to make it work from
ownership and operations perspectives.
Packet Page 213 of 339
2
Frontier has indicated that it intends to abide by existing franchise requirements, has no plans to
increase rates (although they do not guarantee this due to market conditions), will continue
providing Governmental and Educational Access Channels and build-out the systems in
accordance with the franchise. Frontier prides itself on its customer service and will be retaining
the bulk of Verizon’s customer service personnel. As a result of the transaction, a smaller
company is acquiring a larger one and the company’s debt to EBITDA (EBITDA is earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) ratio is being reduced from about 3.8 to 2.6.
Frontier continues to work on Video Transport Agreements and obtaining Programming
Agreements. It is confident in its ability to address both of these issues as well as obtaining
financing. Closing of the transaction is planned for April, 2010. Much additional detail with
respect to these and other matters is provided below.
Neither the local government members of the Consortium nor River Oaks Communications
Corporation (“River Oaks”) is expressing an opinion as to whether Frontier will ultimately be
successful financially, operationally or otherwise. We have not audited Verizon or Frontier or
prepared independent financial projections. During the past five months, River Oaks and the
Consortium Members have conducted an extensive review of information, including meetings
between Verizon/Frontier and Consortium members, conference calls and a diligent and
thorough review of these documents as required by federal law.
River Oaks believes Frontier meets the criteria of being legally, financially and technically
qualified. Thus, we recommend consent should be given by each Consortium member to the
transfer of control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier subject to a mutually acceptable
Transfer Resolution or Ordinance. It is Frontier’s and Verizon Northwest Inc.’s responsibility to
make this transfer of control and acquisition successful from a business, technical, financial and
customer standpoint.
Background
In response to public information that Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) was
transferring Verizon Northwest Inc., the cable system operator in the Northwest area, to Frontier
Communications Corporation (“Frontier”), a Consortium was formed to consolidate resources
and effectively perform due diligence as required by federal law. The Consortium is comprised
of Snohomish County and the Cities of Everett, Edmonds, Marysville, Bothell, Mountlake
Terrace, Kenmore, Mukilteo, Woodinville and the Town of Woodway (the “Consortium”).
On June 1, 2009, Verizon filed the FCC Form 394, its Exhibits and related materials with the
Consortium members. Federal law, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §537 provides in part that a
franchising authority shall have 120 days to act upon any request for approval of a sale or
transfer that contains or is accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with
FCC Regulations and by the franchising authority. 47 CFR §76.502 also provides certain
timeframes in which local governments are required to raise substantive and procedural
questions if they believe that the FCC Form 394 is not complete.
Packet Page 214 of 339
3
With this legal and regulatory backdrop, the Consortium retained Ogden Murphy Wallace and
River Oaks Communications Corporation (“River Oaks”) to represent it in this process. Peter
Camp, the Executive Director of Snohomish County, was an integral part of this team as it
worked on its process, responses, negotiations and related matters with respect to Verizon and
Frontier.
Initial Documents Provided by Verizon/Frontier
Documents provided to the Consortium members included: FCC Form 394, Request For
Consent To Transfer Control of Franchisee, Exhibit 1 with a Corporate Organizational Chart,
Exhibit 2 with respect to Conditions of Service and Operations, Exhibit 3 with respect to
Corporate Ownership, Directors and Officers, Exhibit 4 describing how Verizon Northwest Inc.
would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Frontier Communications Corporation, Exhibit 5
with respect to other Litigation, Exhibit 6 regarding no Pledge of Stock, Exhibit 7 with respect to
Frontier Financial Matters along with the 10-K of Frontier for the year ending December 31,
2008, Exhibit 8 with respect to Frontier’s Technical Qualifications and a Model Resolution
whereby Verizon sought to have each local jurisdiction consent to the transfer of control.
This transfer involves a publicly traded company acquiring a company held by a much larger
company. As indicated by Frontier in Exhibit 7 in the submittal:
“. . . the transaction . . . will reduce significantly the Company’s debt to EBITDA
ratio. Currently, Frontier’s leverage is approximately 3.8 x EBITDA; after the
transaction its leverage will be reduced to 2.6 x EBITDA. (EBITDA is earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). The increased financial
strength is expected to improve Frontier’s access to capital and lower its cost of
capital, which will inure to the benefit of the franchisee and its customers.”
Additionally, the submittal also contained the Distribution Agreement by and between Verizon
Communications Inc. and New Communications Holdings Inc. dated as of May 13, 2009. Also
included was the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of May 13, 2009 by and among
Verizon Communications Inc., New Communications Holdings Inc. and Frontier
Communications Corporation. Subsequently the Consortium also received Amendment No.1 to
the Distribution Agreement and Amendment No.1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Consortium’s Data Request #1, Data Request #2 and Request for Information
Following the submittal of the FCC Form 394, Frontier and Verizon representatives met
individually with the staff and elected officers of several of the Consortium members. Within 30
days of receipt of the FCC Form 394, the Washington Consortium prepared and submitted Data
Request #1 and Data Request #2 to Verizon and Frontier. Copies of Data Request #1, Data
Request #2 and the Request for Information Letter with its accompanying questions are attached
to this Report. For purposes of brevity, we will not address the specifics and level of detail
contained in those Requests for Information. Rather we will focus on salient issues and their
current status. It is important to note that under federal law, the key issues are whether the
transferee will have the Financial, Legal and Technical capability to own and operate the cable
Packet Page 215 of 339
4
television systems. It was the position of the Consortium that the FCC Form 394 and Exhibits,
as submitted, were incomplete and deficient. Furthermore, it was the view of the Consortium
that, given that all necessary materials were not filed, the 120 day timeframe under Federal law
had not commenced. If the 120 day timeframe had commenced, each jurisdiction would have
been required to either approve or deny the transfer within 120 days, or the transfer would be
deemed approved. The Consortium, Verizon and Frontier had significant disagreements as to
whether the shot clock had been triggered.
Legal Qualifications, Frontier’s Plans and Capabilities
Following the transfer, Verizon Northwest Inc., the current franchisee, will continue to be the
franchisee after the completion of the transfer to Frontier. However, given that Frontier will
become the new controlling entity of Verizon Northwest Inc., it was essential that the
Consortium members inquire about Frontier’s Legal Qualifications, plans and capabilities
concerning:
• the character qualifications of Frontier,
• the cable holdings owned by Frontier,
• the existing Service Area and Line Extension Policies,
• Frontier’s planned Channel Capacity, System Design and Customer Service policies, and
• the proposed Signal Carriage, including the Educational and Governmental Access
Channels, Channel Allocation, and Community Access Programming.
In addition, the Request for Information inquired about the planned employment practices,
whether any franchise modifications were expected, and the financial impact of the transaction
on Frontier.
Customer Rates and Financing the Transaction
Of importance to cable subscribers were questions as to whether Frontier planned to increase
rates as a result of this transaction. Additionally, Member communities wanted to know whether
Frontier would have the financial wherewithal to successfully operate the cable television
systems. The responses from Verizon and Frontier were that Frontier does not plan to increase
cable rates as a result of this transaction. It should be noted, however, that while this process
was underway, Verizon increased its rates to subscribers. Given that this transaction involves the
exchange of approximately $5.3 Billion in stock from Frontier to Verizon shareholders and the
creation of approximately $3.3 Billion in debt, many questions arose as to whether Verizon
Northwest Inc. would be able to continue as an ongoing entity. Much discussion has taken place
to date regarding the financial issues. This includes a presentation that was made by David
Whitehouse, the Treasurer of Frontier, in which he detailed that Frontier will be selling
unsecured notes with a maximum cost of 9.5% in order to finance this transaction. His view is
that the Capital Markets will be receptive to the offering based on a previous debt sale by
Frontier of $600 Million to $700 Million in unsecured debt. More detail regarding the financial
matters will be addressed below.
Packet Page 216 of 339
5
In response to Data Request #1 and Data Request #2 along with narrative questions, Frontier
indicated that it planned to close this transaction in April, 2010. They also indicated that they
intend to honor the build-out requirements contained in each of the existing Franchises. While
Frontier works with Dish Network in other regions, its view is that it wants to grow its wireline
cable television business. It is the position of Frontier that its responses to the Request for
Information including Data Request #1 and Data Request #2 are intended to be interpreted in
conjunction with the Franchise Agreements. Also, it is important to note that consummation of
the transaction is dependent upon approvals at the Federal Regulatory level and from several
States as well.
Frontier’s Prior Ownership of Cable Systems
In the past, Frontier has previously owned some smaller cable systems ranging in size from 255
customers to 2,728 customers. Most of these systems were either sold or discontinued. It is
Frontier’s position that by retaining many of the Verizon Northwest personnel and bringing in
people with other cable television operating experience, it has the ability to successfully manage
and operate the cable television systems in the Consortium jurisdictions. Frontier has said that it
does not have post-closing plans to sell any of the cable systems in the Washington member
jurisdictions.
Governmental and Educational Access Channels and Franchise Fees
With respect to the Educational and Governmental Access Channels, Frontier has stated that the
Franchise commitments and obligations will continue to be met. This would include retention of
the existing Educational and Governmental Access Channels. With respect to payments of
Franchise Fees, Frontier has stated that it will use the same basis for calculation of Gross
Revenues called for in the Franchises and the methodology of the computations will not change.
Build-Out of Verizon’s Cable Systems
The issue of the system build-out was of concern to the local governments. Thus, a meeting
occurred in which the build-out for each community was addressed. The range of the build-out
completed varies from more than 1/3 to more than 3/4 complete. The following is a break-down
by jurisdiction of the approximate build-out completion:
• Snohomish County: More than three quarters complete
• City of Everett: Approximately two thirds complete
• City of Edmonds: More than three quarters complete
• City of Marysville: More than a third complete
• City of Bothell: Almost three quarters complete
• City of Mountlake Terrace: More than three quarters complete
• City of Kenmore: Almost half complete
• City of Mukilteo: Almost half complete
• City of Woodinville: More than half complete
• Town of Woodway: More than three quarters complete
Packet Page 217 of 339
6
Data Request #3, Standstill Agreement and Reimbursement to the Consortium Members
In August, the Consortium, dissatisfied with the original responses to its Data Requests, sent
Verizon and Frontier Data Request #3. A copy of Data Request #3 is attached to this Report. In
order to prevent the 120 days from hampering the Consortium members’ decisions, each member
of the Consortium, Verizon and Frontier entered into a Standstill Agreement whereby the date
for approval or denial was extended until November 30, 2009. Also during this time and as a
continuation of issues raised in June 2009, the Consortium continued to seek reimbursement
from Verizon and Frontier for costs and expenses incurred in connection with this transaction.
When the Franchises were negotiated between Verizon Northwest Inc. and each of the
Consortium members, Verizon stressed that it was committed to providing cable service to the
communities for the long term. It was in this spirit that the Consortium members and Verizon
worked collaboratively to create Franchises that would best ensure the highest quality service for
the citizens. At the time the proposed transfer was announced, Verizon had held many of the
Franchises for about 10 months. Verizon and Frontier through Verizon’s attorney have
committed to reimbursing the Consortium members for a significant portion of the members’
costs and expenses. A letter of intent from Verizon will be provided shortly by Verizon.
In Data Request #3, more inquiry was made into the Legal, Technical and Financial
qualifications of Frontier. Questions were again asked as to whether rates would be increased.
Frontier responded by saying that it cannot guarantee that rates will not increase. However, in
one of the meetings, the Frontier representative said there are no plans to raise rates because of
this transaction.
Technical Capabilities
In a September meeting regarding Frontier’s technical capabilities, Frontier indicated that it was
going to use another method to transport its signals from Florida to Washington State than
originally presented. The Video Transport Plan includes utilizing space at a facility in Florida,
then sending the signal to Bloomington, Illinois, operating a transport network from
Bloomington, Illinois to Ft. Wayne, Indiana and then transporting programming to Oregon and
Washington. Frontier has stated that this network does not involve deploying significant new
fiber; rather, it involves leasing existing transport capacity from third party providers and
configuring that network by installing off-the-shelf equipment so it can transport the video
signals. Presentations in September by Michael Golob, the Head Engineer for Frontier, to
Consortiums in Washington and Oregon addressed these matters.
Customer Service
Frontier espouses a customer first and peace-of-mind culture for its service offering that
empowers its representatives to offer its customers an array of promotions and packages so that
its customers are satisfied with the services requested. Frontier empowers local supervisors and
General Managers so that if a customer is unhappy with his or her current bundle of services,
they have the authority to resolve the issue to the customer’s satisfaction. The names of
Frontier’s General Managers and Regional Managers are listed on Frontier’s website and in
telephone directories should customers need immediate access and additional assistance.
Packet Page 218 of 339
7
Frontier has indicated that it plans to hire General Managers and is committed to “extending its
local engagement model to newly acquired properties in Washington”. Under this model,
Frontier will appoint General Managers with responsibility and authority for operations,
including profit and loss, installation and maintenance, responses to customer issues, charitable
contributions and coordination with local government officials. Frontier indicated that it expects
to appoint multiple General Managers in Washington, but did not state in which cities they
would be located.
With respect to Customer Service, Frontier is retaining the Call Center and Customer Dispatch
Center in Everett, along with the Verizon Customer Service personnel. Frontier prides itself on
its Customer Service in the telecommunications business. Since there will be cable television,
telephone and internet components of their business, their financials are predicated upon
customer retention and growth in these areas. To the extent there is attrition, Frontier has
indicated that it will hire additional personnel to handle Customer Service.
Programming
With respect to programming matters, Frontier is in the process of securing content agreements.
It has teams of people involved in negotiations in New York and Los Angeles with two content
aggregators – either one of which could provide up to 90% of Verizon’s existing content.
Frontier has also retained the well-known Los Angeles based law firm of Latham and Watkins to
assist it in programming acquisition and negotiations.
Financial Risks
While Frontier is confident of the financial and operational success of this transaction, there are
risks associated with it. In response to Data Request #3, Frontier provided Verizon Northwest
Inc.’s Financial Statements for the years ended 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and the first and second
quarters of 2009.
In summary, based upon information provided by Verizon and Frontier, Verizon Northwest Inc.
will have approximately $2.18 Billion in assets, $930 Million in revenue per year and about $116
Million in net income for 2009 on an annualized basis. There is no way to know or predict
whether this transaction will work from a financial standpoint because of the current state of the
economy (the recession) and significant competition from Comcast, other telephone providers
and DBS providers (DirecTV and EchoStar) are all variables that cannot be quantified.
Additionally, there have been instances of other financial issues in Hawaii and elsewhere
involving Verizon transfers to another company or companies that raise questions as well. In the
context of an $8.6 Billion transaction, there is a possibility that Frontier and Verizon Northwest
Inc. could cease or scale back doing business at some point in the future. The local governments
cannot require them to stay in the cable television business, and it is up to Frontier’s
management to retain customers and grow the business.
Additionally, it appears that the Transport Agreements will not be for the length of the
Franchises. Further, Programming Content Agreements could lapse or not be renewed once they
Packet Page 219 of 339
8
are initially agreed upon between Frontier and the NCTC, Frontier and NRTC or Frontier and
direct providers of video programming.
The Verizon/Frontier response to Data Request #3 contained significant narrative and 11
Attachments which were several hundred pages in length. Those documents still presented
questions for the Consortium as to whether this proposed transaction will be viable from a
financial and technical standpoint.
Frontier believes that by completing this transaction, synergies will result in cost savings of
approximately $500 Million which, according to them, represents more than 20% of the cash
operating expenses of Verizon’s separate telephone operations in 2008. Projections with respect
to Revenues, Debt Service, Expenses and Capital Expenditures were requested for the next three
years. The response was that the requested projections do not exist and the financials reflect a
combination of cable, phone and internet businesses. Without those projections, it is not possible
to test the assumptions for this transaction to determine if they are reasonable or more or less
favorable than could be reasonably anticipated.
Based on information provided, the combined company of Frontier and Verizon Northwest Inc.
will have projected revenues of approximately $6.5 Billion as compared to the $2.2 Billion for
Frontier on a stand-alone basis. Frontier has stated that the EBITDA ratio of the combined
company will be less than that for Frontier presently, and combined with other actions detailed in
the S-4, Frontier has stated that it anticipates that these factors will allow it to achieve an
investment grade credit rating after the transaction. Frontier hopes to increase Broadband
Revenue per customer as it bundles voice, video and data products tailored to customers’ needs.
Its view is that the FiOS properties being acquired are an important part of this strategy because
they are state-of-the-art in terms of video product offerings. By being actively involved in the
community and empowering local managers with their interaction with subscribers, Frontier
hopes to use its local engagement model to increase customer loyalty, which would help with
both customer retention and gaining new customers.
Frontier does not plan to have to draw on its $250 Million Revolving Credit Facility to finance
this transaction. It plans to maintain at least $100 Million in cash at all times. With the “back-up
liquidity” provided by the Revolving Credit Facility, it anticipates having access to funds on
hand if there were to be unanticipated or unforeseen events. While the financing commitments
will not be in place before November 30th, Frontier will not be able to close this transaction in
the absence of ultimately obtaining them. Frontier anticipates that potential investors could
include commercial banks, institutional loan investors and institutional fixed income bond
investors. In order to close this transaction, Frontier wants to complete the $3.3 Billion financing
at a maximum cost of 9.5%. Their preference is to secure financing entirely with senior
unsecured notes. It is their belief that equity and corporate bond valuations are improving and
that cash stockpiles held by investors could be reinvested and economic data indicates to
investors that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Obviously, every person and entity will have
their own opinion and risk tolerance, and there is no certainty as to how this will all play out
from a financial standpoint.
Packet Page 220 of 339
9
Thus, in order to close this transaction, Frontier will need to have financing in place. Similarly,
it could be reasonably anticipated that Frontier will need to have Transport Agreements, Network
Lease Agreements and Programming Agreements in place acceptable to Frontier in order to have
viability in terms of acquiring Verizon Northwest Inc. and operating the cable systems.
Conclusion
Under Federal law, the members of the Consortium have a duty from a due diligence standpoint
to examine this transaction from a Financial, Legal and Technical standpoint and ultimately
approve or deny this transfer of control based on these criteria. With respect to being legally
qualified, both Verizon Northwest Inc. and Frontier appear to meet this standard. In its response
to Data Request #1 and Data Request #2, Verizon and Frontier indicated that the proposed
ownership structure complies with any and all State and Federal restrictions regarding ownership
of cable communications systems. Further, the transferee is a U.S. citizen and Verizon
Northwest Inc. is qualified to do business in Washington and will remain qualified after the
closing of the transaction. Verizon and Frontier are seeking regulatory approvals with the
Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice and nine states including
Washington. According to Verizon Northwest Inc., they currently hold all necessary licenses
from the FCC to operate the cable systems. With respect to the character qualifications of
Frontier, Frontier has never been convicted in any criminal proceeding involving violations of
FCC Regulations or the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
By consenting to the transfer of control, local governments are not opining as to whether Frontier
will ultimately be successful from a Financial, Technical or business standpoint. Similarly,
River Oaks is not expressing an opinion as to whether Verizon Northwest Inc. or Frontier will be
successful from a Technical, Financial or Operations standpoint. Competition for retention and
customer growth in the broadband market among cable television, telephony and other providers
is significant. Other business risks exist including handling the debt load, reductions in
telephone revenues and the costs inherent in deploying and maintaining broadband systems.
This could be a positive acquisition for Frontier or it could result in a situation where some day
in the future, Verizon Northwest Inc. and/or Frontier scale back or cease doing business as a
cable television provider in one or more of the jurisdictions that comprise the Consortium.
However, given the totality of the information presented and reviewed, River Oaks recommends
that consent to the transfer of control be given by each member of the Consortium subject to a
mutually acceptable Transfer Resolution or Ordinance. After a process that has spanned almost
five months, extensive production of information and a diligent and thorough review of the
Financial, Legal and Technical qualifications of the transferee, River Oaks believes that Frontier
meets the criteria of being Financially, Legally and Technically qualified per the FCC Form 394,
related materials and supplemental information to own and operate the cable systems in the
Member Communities (via transfer of control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier
Communications Corporation). While there are no guarantees as to Verizon Northwest Inc.’s or
Frontier’s post-closing Operational, Financial and Technical viability, it is the responsibility of
Frontier Communications Corporation and Verizon Northwest Inc. to make this transfer of
control and acquisition work from a business, Technical, Financial and Customer standpoint.
Packet Page 221 of 339
Template
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF __________,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF
THE FRANCHISEE (VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.) FROM
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. TO FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION WITH CONDITIONS
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of _____________ has granted a cable television franchise
(“Franchise”) to Verizon Northwest Inc. (“Franchisee”) which is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”); and
WHEREAS, Verizon has entered into an agreement with Frontier
Communications Corporation (“Frontier”) to effectuate a transfer of control of Franchisee from
Verizon to Frontier (“Transfer”); and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Transfer, Franchisee will become an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Frontier and, as a result, control of the Franchisee will be transferred
from Verizon to Frontier; and
WHEREAS, following the Transfer, Franchisee will continue to hold and be
responsible for the performance of the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, Franchisee has requested that the City consent to the Transfer and, in
accordance with the requirements of the Franchise and federal law, Verizon has filed an FCC
Form 394 together with Exhibits and related materials (all hereinafter collectively the
“Application”) with the City; and
WHEREAS, to evaluate Franchisee’s request, the City has participated in a
Consortium of jurisdictions including Snohomish County, the cities of Bothell, Edmonds,
{ERZ746656.DOC;3\13060.080001\ }1
Packet Page 222 of 339
Everett, Kenmore, Marysville, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Woodinville and the Town of
Woodway (the “Consortium”); and
WHEREAS, the City and the Consortium examined the legal, financial and
technical qualifications of Frontier in order to consider and act upon the Transfer request and
considered the comments of interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City has relied upon the Application and supplemental written
information provided by Frontier and Verizon; and
WHEREAS, on ____________, 2009, the City Council held a public meeting to
review the Transfer request [if applicable]; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to consent to the Transfer, subject to the closing
of the Transfer between Verizon and Frontier and the appropriate approvals by the Washington
State Utilities and Transportation Commission and federal regulatory entities; and
WHEREAS, Franchisee has agreed to continue to unconditionally accept the
terms of the existing Franchise and to comply with any other agreements existing between the
Franchisee and the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ____________ DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City hereby consents to the Transfer in accordance
with the terms of applicable law, subject to and contingent upon the following conditions:
a. In all respects and without exception, Franchisee agrees to
continue to abide by all terms of the existing Franchise and acknowledges that the transfer of
control will not affect, diminish, impair or supersede the binding nature of the Franchise and any
other valid ordinances, resolutions, and agreements applicable to the operation of the cable
{ERZ746656.DOC;3\13060.080001\ }2
Packet Page 223 of 339
system in the City and Franchisee shall continue to meet its obligations under the Franchise.
Franchisee agrees that subject to the Franchise, that Franchisee shall comply with all lawful and
applicable provisions related to cable service of ______________ Municipal Code Chapter
______, as amended, and all related applicable federal and state laws, and lawful orders,
contracts, agreements, commitments, side letters [if applicable], Franchise amendments and
regulatory actions.
b. The City’s consent to the transfer of control shall not be construed
to constitute a waiver or release of any rights the City may have now or in the future under
federal, state or local law, the Franchise, or any separate written agreements with the Franchisee.
Franchisee shall remain responsible for any and all Franchise requirements (including but not
limited to payment of Franchise fees and other amounts due under the Franchise, and
indemnification of the City as provided in the Franchise) and non-compliance issues under the
Franchise or any obligation that may now exist or may later be discovered to have existed during
the term of the Franchise, even if prior to the closing of this Transfer.
c. The Transfer between Frontier and Verizon shall be substantially
and materially consistent with the Application and the supplemental information provided by
Frontier and Verizon through the request for information process undertaken by the City and the
Consortium.
Section 2. In the event that the Transfer which is the subject of this ordinance
does not close for any reason; or in the event approval is not granted by the Washington State
Utilities and Transportation Commission and appropriate federal regulatory entities, or in the
event that the Transfer closes on terms substantially or materially different from the terms
described in the Application and supplemental written information provided by Frontier and
{ERZ746656.DOC;3\13060.080001\ }3
Packet Page 224 of 339
Verizon that is relied upon by the City; or Franchisee does not accept each and every condition
of the transfer of control required of it as set forth in this ordinance; then the consent provided
for herein shall be null and void, and the City shall be deemed to have disapproved the transfer
of control under the Franchise and federal law, and all remedies under the Franchise and
applicable laws shall be available to the City. In the event the Transfer does not close before
January 2012, Verizon and Frontier will provide notice of that event to the City and an update on
the reasons for such a delay in closing or notice of the termination of the Transfer.
Section 3. By consenting to the transfer of control, the City does not waive or
release any rights of the City in and to the streets as provided by state law and the
_________Municipal Code, nor does the City waive or release any claim or issue of non-
compliance it may have, known or unknown, now or in the future, against the Franchisee or any
successor in interest to the Franchisee.
Section 4. The City shall not amend, revoke or otherwise alter this Ordinance
without providing reasonable prior notice to the Franchisee.
Section 5. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be fully in force five (5) days
after publication of the attached approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
{ERZ746656.DOC;3\13060.080001\ }4
Packet Page 225 of 339
PASSED by the Council of the City of ________ this day of _____, 2009.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of _______ this ____ day of _____, 2009.
CITY OF _______________
MAYOR
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{ERZ746656.DOC;3\13060.080001\ }5
Packet Page 226 of 339
{ERZ746656.DOC;3\13060.080001\ }6
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.________
of the City of ___________, Washington
On , 2009, the City Council of the City of
____________, Washington, approved Ordinance No. , the main points of which are
summarized by its title as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF __________,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF
THE FRANCHISEE (VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.) FROM
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. TO FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION WITH CONDITIONS
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request.
APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of , 2009.
CITY CLERK
Packet Page 227 of 339
AM-2572 8.
City of Edmonds Website - City Council and Council Member Web Pages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
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 and
Council member web pages, the Cities of Bellevue and Shoreline provide policies/guidance which
would serve the City of Edmonds well, if adopted. Until such time as City staff create a website
standards or coordinating committee and further examine policies as they relate to City Council
and Council member web pages, the following interim measures are proposed:
Content:
“All content on the city's web site will be sponsored or co-sponsored by the city or directly linked
to the city’s policy objectives or departmental activities. Content will accurately reflect City
Council and management policy positions. Political advocacy by individuals or interest groups,
including current and former elected officials, is not appropriate material for the City of Edmonds
web site.”
Links:
“Types of sites to which the city does not provide links are:
• Candidate sites and sites advocating positions on ballot propositions (See “Fair Campaign
Practices” section below)
• Individual personal homepages”
Fair Campaign Practices:
“To avoid the appearance of endorsement of political content, links will not be made to sites that
are associated with, sponsored by, or serve a candidate for elected office, any political party or
organization supporting or seeking to defeat any candidate for elective office, or any ballot
proposal. Links to factual information prepared by the city or other public organizations--such as
the King County Voters’ Pamphlet, Municipal League, and League of Women Voters--may be
provided as public information.”
When considering the kind of information the City Council wishes to place more specifically on
City Council member web pages, using an Option 1 format would provide the most consistent
information to web users. This option could include the following on each City Council member
web page:
• City Council name and position number
Packet Page 228 of 339
• Contact information
• Year elected to the City Council
• Number of terms served
• Current Council committees and appointments
• Former Council assignments?
• Regional Representation
• Community Service
• Employment
• Education
• Personal factual biographical information (this could include birthplace, marital status, length of
residency, children, etc.)
If the City Council wishes to expand upon Option 1, then Option 2 could include the above
information in addition to general goals of City Council members and address pending issues of
note within the Edmonds community.
Previous Council Action
The City of Edmonds currently uses an access and linkage policy discussed during the 2002 City
Council retreat. While the existing policy does not contain specific guidance on what can be
placed on the City Council web page or Council members’ web pages, it does provide clarification
that the City of Edmonds does not provide web site hosting for the general public, but does
provide internet links to the web sites of designated government, non-profit, civic and local
organizations that have a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds.
Narrative
See attached October 29, 2009 Staff Report.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: October 29, 2009 Staff Report
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 Puget Sound Cities
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/29/2009 03:21 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/29/2009 03:22 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/30/2009 07:43 AM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 10/27/2009 03:53
PM
Final Approval Date: 10/30/2009
Packet Page 229 of 339
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Economic Development Department
Date: October 29, 2009
To: Mayor Haakenson and Edmonds City Council
From: Stephen Clifton, AICP
Community Services and Economic Development Director
Subject: City of Edmonds Website - City Council and Council Member Web
Pages
Background
Over the past several months, City staff have been updating City of Edmonds 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 web pages 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 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
{ERZ706668.DOC;1/00006.080057/}City of Edmonds Community Services and Economic
Development
Packet Page 230 of 339
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 re-election, and it would be prudent to establish standards for what is
expected on a biography page of the City’s website.
City Council and City Council member web pages policies
The City of Edmonds does not currently have policies specifically related to the content of
City Council or Council member web pages. As such, City of Edmonds staff contacted many
cities to request information about website policies and viewed the websites of these cities
to see what is actually on their individual City Council member web pages.
City Council web pages
As noted above, City of Edmonds staff contacted several cities to request policies related to
posting information on City Council web pages. We received responses from the cities of
Bellevue, Kent, Federal Way, Everett, Kirkland, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Redmond, Renton and
Shoreline. Only the Cities of Bellevue and Shoreline contained references related to City
Council information; these include the following:
Bellevue:
Content: “All content on the city's web site will be sponsored or co-sponsored by the
city or directly linked to the city’s policy objectives or departmental activities.
Content will accurately reflect City Council and management policy positions. Political
advocacy by individuals or interest groups, including current and former elected
officials, is not appropriate material for the City of Bellevue web site.”
Links: “Types of sites to which the city does not provide links are:
Candidate sites and sites advocating positions on ballot propositions (See
“Fair Campaign Practices” section below)
Individual personal homepages”
Fair Campaign Practices: “To avoid the appearance of endorsement of political
content, links will not be made to sites that are associated with, sponsored by, or
serve a candidate for elected office, any political party or organization supporting or
seeking to defeat any candidate for elective office, or any ballot proposal. Links to
factual information prepared by the city or other public organizations--such as the
King County Voters’ Pamphlet, Municipal League, and League of Women Voters--may
be provided as public information.”
Shoreline:
Links: “The City does not provide links to:
Sites associated with, sponsored by or serving a candidate for elected office
Sites supporting, endorsing or seeking to defeat any candidate for elective office,
or any ballot proposal
Individual personal homepages”
City Council member web pages
{ERZ706668.DOC;1/00006.080057/}2
Packet Page 231 of 339
City staff have also compared existing Edmonds City Council member web pages with
examples from ten cities within the Puget Sound region, i.e., Bellevue, Kent, Federal Way,
Everett, Kirkland, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Redmond, Renton and Shoreline. 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, committee
assignments, places and basic factual biographical information with limited philosophical
narrative or references to pending legislative issues. This is also the case with eight of the
ten cities reviewed. The Cities of Renton and Lynnwood included statements that could, to
a minor extent, be interpreted to relate to both Options 1 and 2. None of the ten cities
provide information related to Option 3.
City of Edmonds website access and linkage policy
The City of Edmonds currently uses an access and linkage policy discussed during the 2002
City Council retreat. While the existing policy does not contain specific guidance on what
can be placed on the City Council or Council members’ web pages, it does provide
clarification that the City of Edmonds does not provide web site hosting for the general
public, but does provide internet links to the web sites of designated government, non-
profit, civic and local organizations that have a recognized relationship with the City of
Edmonds.
City Administration Recommendation
As mentioned earlier, City staff are in the process of updating City website web pages in an
attempt to provide more effective and useful information to website visitors. City staff is
also discussing creating website standards or coordinating committee to create, maintain,
and monitor information placed on the City’s website. As such, City staff expects to address
this issue further when a committee is formed.
When considering the kind of information the City Council wishes to place on City Council
and Council member web pages, the Cities of Bellevue and Shoreline provide
policies/guidance which would serve the City of Edmonds well, if adopted. Until such time
as City staff create a website standards or coordinating committee and further examine
policies as they relate to City Council and Council member web pages, the following interim
measures are proposed:
Content:
“All content on the city's web site will be sponsored or co-sponsored by the
city or directly linked to the city’s policy objectives or departmental activities.
Content will accurately reflect City Council and management policy positions.
Political advocacy by individuals or interest groups, including current and
former elected officials, is not appropriate material for the City of Edmonds
web site.”
Links:
“Types of sites to which the city does not provide links are:
Candidate sites and sites advocating positions on ballot propositions
(See “Fair Campaign Practices” section below)
Individual personal homepages”
Fair Campaign Practices:
“To avoid the appearance of endorsement of political content, links will not be
made to sites that are associated with, sponsored by, or serve a candidate for
elected office, any political party or organization supporting or seeking to
{ERZ706668.DOC;1/00006.080057/}3
Packet Page 232 of 339
{ERZ706668.DOC;1/00006.080057/}4
defeat any candidate for elective office, or any ballot proposal. Links to
factual information prepared by the city or other public organizations--such as
the King County Voters’ Pamphlet, Municipal League, and League of Women
Voters--may be provided as public information.”
When considering the kind of information the City Council wishes to place more specifically
on City Council member web pages, using an Option 1 format would provide the most
consistent information to web users. This option could include the following on each City
Council member web page:
City Council name and position number
Contact information
Year elected to the City Council
Number of terms served
Current Council committees and appointments
Former Council assignments?
Regional Representation
Community Service
Employment
Education
Personal factual biographical information (this could include birthplace, marital
status, length of residency, children, etc.)
If the City Council wishes to expand upon Option 1, then Option 2 could include the above
information in addition to general goals of City Council members and address pending issues
of note within the Edmonds community.
Packet Page 233 of 339
Packet Page 234 of 339
Packet Page 235 of 339
Packet Page 236 of 339
Packet Page 237 of 339
Packet Page 238 of 339
Packet Page 239 of 339
Packet Page 240 of 339
Packet Page 241 of 339
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 242 of 339
{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 243 of 339
Packet Page 244 of 339
Packet Page 245 of 339
Packet Page 246 of 339
Packet Page 247 of 339
Packet Page 248 of 339
Packet Page 249 of 339
Packet Page 250 of 339
Packet Page 251 of 339
Packet Page 252 of 339
Packet Page 253 of 339
Packet Page 254 of 339
Packet Page 255 of 339
Packet Page 256 of 339
Packet Page 257 of 339
Packet Page 258 of 339
Packet Page 259 of 339
Packet Page 260 of 339
Packet Page 261 of 339
Packet Page 262 of 339
Packet Page 263 of 339
Packet Page 264 of 339
Packet Page 265 of 339
Packet Page 266 of 339
Packet Page 267 of 339
Packet Page 268 of 339
Packet Page 269 of 339
Packet Page 270 of 339
Packet Page 271 of 339
Packet Page 272 of 339
Packet Page 273 of 339
Packet Page 274 of 339
Packet Page 275 of 339
Packet Page 276 of 339
Packet Page 277 of 339
Packet Page 278 of 339
Packet Page 279 of 339
Packet Page 280 of 339
Packet Page 281 of 339
Packet Page 282 of 339
Packet Page 283 of 339
Packet Page 284 of 339
Packet Page 285 of 339
Packet Page 286 of 339
Packet Page 287 of 339
Packet Page 288 of 339
Packet Page 289 of 339
Packet Page 290 of 339
Packet Page 291 of 339
Packet Page 292 of 339
Packet Page 293 of 339
Packet Page 294 of 339
Packet Page 295 of 339
Packet Page 296 of 339
Packet Page 297 of 339
Packet Page 298 of 339
Packet Page 299 of 339
Packet Page 300 of 339
Packet Page 301 of 339
Packet Page 302 of 339
Packet Page 303 of 339
Packet Page 304 of 339
Packet Page 305 of 339
Packet Page 306 of 339
Packet Page 307 of 339
Packet Page 308 of 339
Packet Page 309 of 339
AM-2579 9.
Review of Construction Easement Reserved by Ordinance 3729
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:11/02/2009
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
Review of construction easement reserved by Ordinance No. 3729. The easement involves
the vacated right of way of a platted but unbuilt public alley lying between the 700 block of
8th Ave. N and 9th Ave. N and parallel to and north of Daley Street. The reserved
construction easement is for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall on property
lying north of the alley and east of 8th Ave. N.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On 06-24-08, the Council adopted Resolution 1178, setting a pubilc hearing on the alley vacation.
On 07-22-08, a public hearing on the alley vacation was held, and the public hearing was
continued.
On 09-16-08, the continued public hearing on the alley vacation was held and the construction
easement was voted on.
0n 03-17-09, the Council adopted Ordinance 3729 that vacated the alley and reserved the
construction easement.
Narrative
Council President Wilson prepared the attached document titled “Narrative on Motion to
Reconsider Ord 3729E” for a complete explanation of the proposed action.
In addition, attached is a document titled "Timeline of the Theusen-Reidy Case" prepared by
Mauri Moore (submitted by Council President Wilson).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Resolution 1178 - Setting a Public Hearing on the Alley Vacation
Link: Exhibit 2: Excerpt of Council Minutes dated 06-24-08, 07-22-08, 09-16-08, 03-17-09
Packet Page 310 of 339
Link: Exhibit 3: Ordinance 3729 - Vacating the Alley and Reserving the Construction Easement
Link: Exhibit 4: Narrative on Motion to Reconsider Ord 3729E
Link: Exhibit 5: Timeline on Theusen-Reidy Case
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/30/2009 09:45 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/30/2009 09:47 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/30/2009 09:49 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 10/29/2009 12:39
PM
Final Approval Date: 10/30/2009
Packet Page 311 of 339
Packet Page 312 of 339
Packet Page 313 of 339
Packet Page 314 of 339
Packet Page 315 of 339
EXCERPT FROM THE 06-24-08 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
11. PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE VACATION OF THE UNOPENED
ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND 9TH
AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF DALEY STREET.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this was an unopened alley 7.5 feet in
width that was dedicated as part of the original plat of the City. He noted alleys were typically 16
feet in width; he assumed it was anticipated the unplatted area to the north would dedicate the
other half of the alley which did not occur. The City has no improvements in the alley. The
residents asked to have the alley right-of-way vacated and requested the City initiate that action.
The proposed resolution sets July 22 as the date for the required public hearing.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he looked at the property, finding it useless and very steep.
Councilmember Bernheim asked which residents requested the vacation, noting there were 12
adjacent properties. Mr. Bowman answered nearly all the property owners to the south as the
property came from their properties as part of the original plat of Edmonds and the vacated right-
of-way would be returned to those parcels. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council was
scheduling the public hearing to hear from the property owners. Several property owners met
with Councilmembers Wambolt and Olson and requested the City initiate the vacation. Mr.
Bowman explained there were two ways to initiate a vacation, either by petition or the Council
passes a resolution initiating the vacation.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how many people asked to have the property vacated. Mr.
Bowman stated five property owners on the south side requested the vacation. He noted these
property owners were aware there were issues to be resolved with regard to access, etc.
particularly at the east end of the alley.
Councilmember Bernheim asked the disadvantage of the City not vacating the property. Mr.
Bowman answered the City would continue to have an unopened 7.5 foot wide right-of-way that
was of no use to the City due to the steep grade in the center. Councilmember Olson commented
the City took property in the 1890s with the intent of installing an alley which never happened.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out Daley did not go through from 8th to 9th. City Attorney Bio
Park commented vacating the property would return it to the tax rolls and would eliminate any
liability associated with injury on the property due to the City’s negligence.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NO. 1178. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution approved reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, INITIATING REVIEW OF VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN
UNOPENED PUBLIC ALLEY LYING BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND 9TH
AVENUE NORTH, PARALLEL TO AND NORTH OF DALEY STREET, AND SETTING
A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 22, 2008.
Unopened
Alley Right-
of-Way
Between 8th
Ave N & 9th
Ave N
Res# 1178
Set Hearing
re: Vacate
Unopened
Public Alley
Packet Page 316 of 339
EXCERPT FROM THE 07-22-08 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE UNOPENED ALLEY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND 9TH AVENUE
NORTH, NORTH OF DALEY STREET.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman questioned whether the Council had received all
the materials that Eric Thuesen provided. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council had received a
40-page letter from Mr. Thuesen tonight. Mr. Bowman distributed additional information
received this afternoon from Mr. Theusen. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested proceeding with
the hearing and if the Council deems the new material worthy of review, they could consider
continuing the hearing. Mr. Bowman noted the Council also received a letter from Jim Wold.
Councilmember Dawson advised the information she just received included correspondence with
her husband’s law firm and she did not find it appropriate for her to participate if her husband’s
law firm were potentially involved in litigation regarding this matter. She recused herself and left
the room.
Mr. Bowman recalled on June 24, 2008, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1178 initiating
this vacation action. He displayed an aerial photograph and identified the property owned by Mr.
Thuesen that was currently developed with a single family house and a small detached garage in
the east corner. He also identified the 7.5 foot unopened alley right-of-way located north of
Daley Street, between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, identifying the area where the
alley was used for access as well as the Wold and Olson residences and 9th Avenue. He explained
the Wolds had an easement across properties 847 and 853. He identified the portion of the alley
to the west where the topography was very steep and displayed a topography map that identified
the contours of the block between 8th and 9th.
Mr. Bowman displayed a drawing of the 800 block of Daley Street prepared by Jim Wold that
illustrated uses along the alley. The alley was created with the original plat of Edmonds and had
never been used by the City. It was originally intended when the area to the north subdivided that
the other half of the alley would be dedicated to the City which never happened. The alley had
never been used with exception of the east portion. He noted the Wolds (third property on the
southeast side of the alley) had a private easement across the other two properties on the southeast
side of the alley, providing that property access from the alley as well as the easement. He
identified the Olson property (on the northeast end of the alley) which had access to their garage
from 9th Avenue. He identified the location of the new house on the Thuesen property and a
garage in the southeast corner, advising Mr. Thuesen had preliminary subdivision approval to
create two additional lots.
Mr. Bowman relayed the criteria that the Council must consider for an alley vacation, a) the
vacation is in the public interest, and b) no property will be denied direct access as a result of the
vacation. He pointed out the Reidy’s primary vehicle access was via Daley. The recently
approved short plat for the Thuesen property allows a lot in the center of his property. It was
originally a two-lot subdivision; however, following a court case, Mr. Thuesen was allowed to
reapply and he received approval for a three lot subdivision. He displayed the approved
preliminary plat for the short subdivision of the Thuesen property, identifying the existing house,
a center lot with access via an access easement to 8th Avenue and a third lot on the western end.
He displayed the conceptual development plan reviewed as part of the short subdivision,
identifying the existing home at the east end with a detached garage, the generalized location of
Packet Page 317 of 339
the home on the center lot that did not utilize the 7.5 foot alley for its access, and the third house
with access onto 8th.
With regard to the first criteria, the vacation is in the public interest, Mr. Bowman advised the
City had no planned or existing improvements in the alleyway. It would be in the public interest
to vacate the right-of-way and return it to the tax rolls. Regarding the second criteria, no property
will be denied access as a result of the vacation, he advised access was currently available to all
properties. The most likely issue would be the Olsons access to their garage via the alley which
he explained could be accomplished via an exchange of easement by the property owners to the
south granting access over the existing alleyway. He concluded no property was deprived of
direct access or uses the alley for access. With regard to compensation, staff did not recommend
any compensation for the recommended right-of-way, it came from the properties to the south
and vacating the unused right-of-way reduced the City’s liability for any of the existing unused
conditions.
Council President Plunkett asked whether there was a pending lawsuit. Mr. Bowman advised
there was no lawsuit, only a threat of a lawsuit. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified the Council
was not giving the property away, the City would simply vacate its interest, the property goes
where it goes by operation of the law. Title issues were not part of the Council’s role; the
Council’s only considerations were whether the vacation was in the public interest and ensuring
no one was denied direct access as a result of the vacation.
Pointing out the materials Mr. Thuesen provided referenced legal action and a Councilmember
chose not to participate due to potential legal action, Council President Plunkett was uncertain
what legal activity surrounded this matter. Mr. Bowman explained the City was involved in a
lawsuit with Mr. Thuesen during the subdivision of his property regarding the wetland area; Mr.
Thuesen prevailed and the court decision allowed him to apply for the third lot on the property
and fill the wetlands. The other issue was the Reidys have a small shed on the rear of their
property that encroaches into the alleyway and a corner that projects onto Mr. Thuesen’s
property. The City began an enforcement action to compel the Reidys to move their shed out of
the City’s right-of-way. The Reidys chose to pursue the vacation request and prevailed in the
Council initiating the vacation request. He attempted to get the Reidys and Mr. Thuesen to work
out an agreement to rectify the situation; Mr. Thuesen would like to use the alley for a retaining
wall to improve the access to his third lot; the Reidys want to preserve their shed. The parties
were unable to reach an agreement and Mr. Thuesen was opposed to the alley vacation and the
Reidys want to pursue the vacation to allow them to reclaim the property.
Mr. Snyder explained the City may grant a temporary encroachment permit to use the public
right-of-way; absent that permit the City had a right to compel removal of any object in the public
right-of-way. The only way the shed could remain would be if the City vacated the right-of-way.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Mr. Thuesen’s 40+ page document that states approval of any alley
vacation will result in suit for damages from the petitioner against the City. Mr. Snyder trusted
the Council to apply the criteria and he would defend a lawsuit if necessary.
Councilmember Bernheim referenced Mr. Snyder’s comment that it was the duty of the City to
compel the removal of the shed, pointing out to the east there were fences, landscaping and other
structures in the right-of-way. Mr. Snyder acknowledged much of the unopened rights-of-way in
the City were occupied by fences, landscaping and structures. The City acts on complaint; when
a complaint was received, the City must investigate and take necessary action.
Packet Page 318 of 339
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the
Council had received a 40-page and a 10-page letter from Mr. Thuesen and a letter from Jim
Wold.
Laurie Niven, Edmonds, expressed her support for vacating the alley with no compensation to
the City. Although she did not know everyone’s opinion with regard to the vacation, she urged
that whatever the decision, there not be any divisiveness among the neighbors and that access to
garages be maintained.
Jim Wold, Edmonds, was uncertain whether the easement to his property from 9th Avenue was
legally established. He explained the builder who built the five homes along Daley Street from
9th to 8th lived in the house he now owned. He assumed at that time the builder moved the fence
line back of the two houses between his house and 9th Avenue North to provide access to his
garage. In the late 1960’s the owner prior to the Olsons removed their original garage and built a
garage on the back accessible only by the 7.5 foot right-of-way and the “easement” developed by
the builder. Those two homes were the only ones using the right-of-way. When he moved in
they removed the garage in the rear and replacing the pad with landscaping. He noted he still
used the right-of-way and easement on occasion for transporting landscaping materials. He
concluded the alleyway was not essential for him and he was in favor of the vacation.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented 118 years had passed and the City had not established any
public use for the 7.5 foot unopened alley right-of-way between 8th and 9th and the City has no
future plans for the right-of-way. He found it in the City’s best interest as well as the public’s
best interest to vacate the right-of-way, pointing out public rights-of-way must be maintained by
the City for the safety and convenience of the public. He was unaware of any City maintenance
of the right-of-way; its unmaintained condition coupled with the steepness of the slope created an
unnecessary liability for the City and managing a right-of-way was a burden to the City requiring
additional administrative effort to monitor its status. The public would benefit from vacation of
the right-of-way by the property being subject to property taxes. He noted in 1980 via ordinance
15 feet of the right-of-way was vacated. In 1993 using this vacation the prior owner of his home
purchased the 15 foot section of the right-of-way. He concluded the alley right-of-way was not
continuous to 8th as the first 15 feet were privately owned. He supported the vacation of the
remaining 7.5 feet of unopened alley right-of-way. He noted the status of his shed was separate
from the issue of vacation and assured the shed would be removed.
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, commented the issue was not the vacation of the entire alley but only
the unused portion where the two arrows meet on Mr. Wold’s drawing; the other portion of the
alley had been in use since 1956. He provided background on his property, explaining after
purchasing the property in 2004, he applied for a short plat utilizing a portion of the alley for
access; the final approved short plat shows use of the alley. In July 2007 a construction survey
revealed the Reidy’s shed encroached onto the alley. He filed a complaint with the City against
the encroachment due to his intent to utilize the alley. Engineering plans he received after
receiving the short plat approval in July 2007 showed the use of the alley for access to the first
lot. That was approved by the Engineering Department with the exception of an encroachment
permit, needed to build a retaining wall in an alley. The retaining wall encroachment permit was
not granted; the wall could not be constructed until an encroachment permit was finalized and
issued for the structure encroaching into the alley. He referred to conversations in early July
2007 with the Reidys attorney and his request that the City pursue code enforcement to remove
the shed. He filed an objection to the proposed vacation of the alley and referred to Section
20.70.040B that states the City cannot proceed with vacation if 50% or more of the property
abutting the street or alley file written objection. He advised he had a vested interest due to the
Packet Page 319 of 339
approved building permit that included alley access. He was opposed to the alley vacation,
finding it a violation of his vested rights and 20.70.040B.
Mr. Snyder commented in a vacation, the City could reserve easements and still vacate the
property. He asked whether the Council reserving an easement for embankments or retaining
walls would address his issue. Mr. Thuesen answered his problem was with Mr. Reidy’s shed
which Mr. Reidy had elected not to remove. He noted the retaining wall would be used to
support the land; the roadway would be adjacent to the retaining wall. Mr. Snyder concluded
from Mr. Thuesen’s comments that a portion of his access road would be within the 7.5 foot alley
right-of-way. Mr. Thuesen agreed, explaining because of the Reidy’s shed, he had to make
adjustments to move the retaining wall out of the right-of-way. He objected to the vacation as it
did not resolve the problem of the Reidy’s shed.
Greg Olson, Edmonds, whose property was on the northeast corner of the alley, explained his
objectives were to, 1) maintain access to his garage, 2) improve the safety and security of the
alley, and 3) prevent any increase in traffic or parking in the alley. He noted their original garage
was moved to the rear when their home was remodeled in 1967 and their sole access to the garage
was via the alley. The previous owner granted a permanent easement to Mr. Thuesen on the
north side of this property which provides access to the buildings on the 509 9th Avenue North
property. He requested a permanent easement be granted on the alley right-of-way to retain
access to his garage. He used the access on a daily basis and it was used occasionally by Mr.
Wold; he wanted to prevent any further parking by the buildings to the west. He noted the fences
on both sides of the alley were quite low and the owners at 853, 847 and 841 Daley as well as he
were best equipped to ensure the safety and security of the alley. He expressed support for
vacation of the alley.
Forest Wold, Edmonds, urged the Council to favorably consider vacation of the right-of-way,
commenting it made economic and public policy sense.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Plunkett asked whether with some thought/time there would be a way to allow
the retaining wall to be built and the right-of-way vacated in the future. Mr. Snyder requested
this matter be continued to allow staff to consider the material submitted tonight and to compare
the plat approvals to determine what was vested. If there are prescriptive rights, that was for the
court to decide. He suggested the Council ask any questions and ensure the record accurately
reflected what rights are vested under plat approvals.
Councilmember Wilson commented the packet Council received on Friday did not include the
40-page letter Mr. Thuesen provided tonight. He agreed with Mr. Snyder’s suggestion to
continue the matter to a later date to provide the Council and staff an opportunity to consider all
the material. He asked about the comment that the Reidy property included the first 15-feet of the
alley from 8th Avenue North. Mr. Bowman answered his research revealed there were some
street and alley vacations done but it was not clear that the alley was vacated and the survey
submitted by the Reidys did not show the alley as part of their property. The ordinance that did
the original vacation on 8th Avenue and the ordinance that vacated the portion on the east side
where the Reidy’s is located does not affirm in fact that 7.5 feet on the westerly portion of the
alley was vacated. The east 15 feet of 8th Avenue was in fact vacated.
Mr. Bowman referred to Council Resolution No. 474, dated August 19, 1980, that shows 100 feet
plus 7.5 feet. Unfortunately the ordinance did not show this same drawing that vacated the east
Packet Page 320 of 339
15 feet of 8th Avenue North and he requested an opportunity to research the matter further. He
agreed the Council may need to continue the matter, noting some of the parties may not be able to
attend a meeting until late August or early September. Mr. Snyder agreed with Mr. Thuesen that
the code states the City shall not proceed with the vacation if the owners of 50% or more of the
property abutting the street or alley or part thereof object. He recommended the record accurately
reflect the abutting property ownership.
Mr. Bowman disagreed with Mr. Thuesen’s assertion that only a portion of the alley was
proposed to be vacated; the proposal was to vacate the entire alley between 8th and 9th Avenue.
The neighbors have discussed establishing easements on the portion identified on Mr. Wold’s
drawing as in use since 1956 (the east end of the alley). Mr. Snyder agreed a written staff opinion
would be helpful.
Mayor Haakenson encouraged the Council to ask any questions and staff would provide a report
with answers to their questions at a later date. Following a brief discussion regarding scheduling
and availability of property owners, Council President Plunkett agreed to schedule the matter as
time was available on the agenda. Mr. Snyder suggested continuing the public hearing to allow
the property owners to comment on staff’s response.
Councilmember Wilson asked if this vacation arose due to the location of the Reidy’s shed.
Mayor Haakenson explained the neighbors contacted him to discuss issues of access to their
property. Staff and he cannot bring a vacation request to the Council; it must be generated by the
Council. Councilmembers Wambolt and Olson met with the neighbors and proposed the
vacation. He advised the Reidy’s shed was a separate issue. Mr. Bowman explained when a
complaint was filed regarding the Reidy’s shed, the options were to remove the shed or vacate the
right-of-way; a portion of the shed would be required to be removed even if the alley were
vacated. Mayor Haakenson explained the neighbors on both sides of the east side end of the alley
inquired about vacating the alley due to concern with access to their property and concerns with
parking in the alley when houses were constructed to the west. Councilmember Wilson advised
he would defer any further questions until staff provided a written report.
Councilmember Bernheim commented Mr. Thuesen’s submission of materials was timely; he was
entitled to present material at the hearing. For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. Snyder explained
the City owned a right-of-way easement and did not own the underlying fee. When the City
vacated the easement, the property reverted to the owner of the underlying fee. In most cases it
was to the middle of the roadway, however, when the entire dedication originally came from the
same tract of land, it reverted to those properties. It would appear it would revert to the owners of
the property in the original Town map.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any basis for Mr. Thuesen’s assertion that he
owned 50% of the property abutting the property to be vacated. Mr. Snyder wanted to ensure the
record clarified the application and Mr. Thuesen’s abutting ownership. Councilmember
Bernheim asked Mr. Snyder to research whether the middle lot in the subdivision would have
direct access. Mr. Snyder noted another issue was vesting.
Mayor Haakenson advised the hearing would be continued to a date as yet unknown. Mr.
Bowman advised the hearing would be re-advertised and the property owners notified.
Packet Page 321 of 339
EXCERPT FROM THE 09-16-08 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE
UNOPENED ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH
AND 9TH AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF DALEY STREET.
Councilmember Dawson recused herself from this item as her husband’s law firm was involved
in this matter. She advised she had not reviewed the materials in the Council packet. She left the
dais and the room.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained a public hearing was held by the
Council on this matter on July 22 and continued to an unspecified date. The area proposed to be
vacated is a 7½ foot alley that was platted as part of the old plat of the City of Edmonds that runs
between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North. He explained there were no public
improvements in the alley. A portion of the alley has been used as access for the property at 503
9th and the property owner has used that along with an area on the back side of the parcels at the
east end of the alley. He identified the property owned by Eric Thuesen that has preliminary
approval for a three lot short subdivision. He identified an existing house on the Thuesen
property and garage. He also identified the location of the Reidy property at 771 Daley Street.
Mr. Bowman recalled at the July 22 hearing a great deal of information was submitted by Mr.
Thuesen and several questions arose:
1. Mr. Thuesen alleged he had a “vested right” to utilize the alley in question for purposes of his
previously-approved development project. Staff’s response was his proposed retaining wall
in the alley right-of-way requires an encroachment permit which is a discretionary permit and
is temporary in nature. In the subdivision context, the vested rights doctrine essentially
'freezes' the local land use and zoning regulatory framework in place and provides an element
of certainty and stability for developers in planning their projects. The purpose of the doctrine
is to protect applicants from after-the-fact zoning changes that could potentially undermine
their development proposals. A developer's "vested rights" attach at the point where a fully
complete subdivision application has been submitted to the City for processing. There are no
"vested rights" accruing to Mr. Thuesen under these circumstances, particularly when the
City has not approved a discretionary permit needed to complete the development proposal in
question.
2. Mr. Thuesen states as the owner of 50% of the property which abuts the proposed vacation
area and can legally terminate the vacation proceedings for that portion by formally
objecting. Mr. Bowman explained Mr. Thuesen does not own 50% of the property abutting
the alley right-of-way area for which vacation has been proposed and in fact only owns
37.9% of the abutting property. The proposal is to vacate the entire right-of-way between 8th
and 9th, not only the portion on the west end.
3. Vacation of the alley would deprive access to a portion of Mr. Thuesen’s property in
violation of applicable code standards. Staff response is that none of Mr. Thuesen's three lots
depend upon the alley in any manner for access. Lot 3 enjoys direct, unobstructed access to
8th Avenue. The access route for Lot 2 (the center lot) according to the development plan
would be accessed by a 15-foot access easement to 8th Avenue. Lot 1, the lot with the
existing house and the detached garage, has an access easement to 9th Avenue. Mr. Thuesen
can clearly develop his property without the use of the alley way as demonstrated in the
preliminary development plan he submitted with his approved three lot short subdivision.
Packet Page 322 of 339
4. Has the west 15 feet of the alleyway been vacated? In reviewing the past ordinances, it
appears it may have been. However in further research, Mr. Bowman determined when the
City considered vacating a portion of 8th Avenue and the east 15 feet of the alley, the property
owner who predated the Reidys was not interested. That property owner later wanted the
portion of 8th Avenue vacated and paid compensation for 110 feet x 15 feet, currently
westerly 15 feet of the Reidy’s property. It is clear from the record that the previous owner
paid for 15 feet x 110 feet, not the 7½ feet. He concluded the west 15 feet of the alley had
not been vacated.
Mr. Bowman advised additional information submitted by Mr. Thuesen was contained in the
Council packet.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Reidy’s street number began with 7 instead of an 8. Mr.
Bowman answered it was a corner lot with access from Daley.
Council President Plunkett read a statement from Mr. Thuesen “access would be impossible
without this approval,” pointing out this was very different from Mr. Bowman’s determination
regarding access. Mr. Bowman responded he did not know why Mr. Thuesen believed access
would be impossible. He acknowledged the lot was steep and would require grading and a
retaining wall to gain access to the back of the lot but it could be done as Mr. Thuesen illustrated
in his predevelopment plan submitted as part of the short subdivision. Council President Plunkett
asked which lot would require grading. Mr. Bowman answered the center lot.
Council President Plunkett recalled reference to the steepness of this area and the fact that would
prevent access. Mr. Bowman advised Mr. Thuesen could achieve grades in that location but may
be required to do additional grading to accomplish it.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the applicable requirement in State law was the right of
direct access which was typically interpreted to mean access to a public street or way that touches
the property. As noted, all three of the lots owned by Mr. Thuesen meet that requirement. State
law also states access should not be substantially affected. He explained when the Council
vacates a roadway, it was not uncommon for the City to retain easements in the vacation such as
for sewer. If Mr. Thuesen’s point was that it would be impossible for him to construct the
roadway on his property at the location shown without a City easement, that could be addressed
by reserving an easement for construction purposes to install the retaining wall and for a slope
easement or easement of lateral and subjacent support to allow him to install the retaining wall
from the vacated easement.
Council President Plunkett asked Mr. Bowman if this had been considered. Mr. Bowman
answered this option only arose late this afternoon. He agreed it could be done if the Council
found it necessary; however, he believed Mr. Thuesen could construct the retaining wall without
a construction access. Council President Plunkett asked about the slope easement. Mr. Bowman
was uncertain why a slope easement would be necessary from the vacated easement but did not
believe a slope easement would be detrimental. Mr. Snyder suggested the easement be a
construction easement, noting according to the plans, the retaining wall would be constructed on
the subdivision side. Mr. Bowman agreed a construction easement was more appropriate than a
slope easement. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council’s motion could reserve a construction
easement.
Packet Page 323 of 339
Councilmember Orvis asked about the access easement on the east end of the alley. Mr. Bowman
responded it was his understanding that those property owners had reached an agreement
regarding an access easement to ensure current access was maintained. Councilmember Orvis
asked if Exhibit 7 was Mr. Thuesen’s preliminary plot plan. Mr. Bowman answered it was and
showed the three lot configuration and how the lots would be accessed. For Councilmember
Orvis, Mr. Bowman identified the area where the retaining wall would be constructed.
Council President Plunkett asked if reserving a construction easement would be detrimental to the
other property owners. Mr. Bowman answered no, explaining typically a construction easement
was not a permanent easement and suggested the adjacent property owners provide feedback on
that issue.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if there was a need for access to construct the retaining wall as
well as to access the property, noting under the current proposal there was a driveway across the
front of the property. Mr. Snyder explained there were two issues with access, first, the right of
direct access. The preliminary approval which creates the second lot provides access to that lot
via a flag lot configuration. All four lots have direct access from a public street, therefore, in his
legal opinion, every lot had direct access. The courts have at times applied a test that considers
whether a vacation substantially affects access. That is a measure of damages and a fact intensive
inquiry. To reduce the potential for substantially affecting access, he recommended reserving a
construction easement to ensure Mr. Thuesen had the same ability to construct the improvements
shown in his subdivision as existed before the Council vacated the property.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, expressed support for the vacation of the 7½ foot wide alley right-of-way
between 8th and 9th, north of Daley Street, finding it in the City’s best interest as well as the
public’s best interest to vacate the right-of-way. The majority of the right-of-way had remained
unopened and unused since originally dedicated in 1890, the City has no planned or existing
improvements within the right-of-way and he was uncertain what use the City might make of this
narrow, steep, overgrown property. Further, City ownership exposes the City to unnecessary
potential liabilities and the ongoing burden of administration. Vacating the right-of-way would
allow the land to revert to the south side owners who would resume payment of taxes for the
property, a public benefit. He was strongly opposed to the Council reserving a construction
easement, anticipating it would impact his home and construction of a retaining wall would place
his shed in jeopardy. He suggested it would be easier to construct the retaining wall further down
the slope rather than cutting into the slope.
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, referred to Mr. Reidy’s comment that he did not see the necessity of
the retaining wall, explaining that the property was very steep. He noted that due to code
requirements regarding the height of a retaining wall in a setback as well as the prohibition on
driveways over 14% grade, construction would be impossible without the retaining wall and the
only place the retaining wall could be constructed was in the alley. He referred to the Reidy’s
illegal building in the alley and suggested the City honor its codes and require the Reidys to move
the building as was described to him in November 2007. Next, he suggested the dispute
regarding the alley could be resolved via, 1) the alley vacation be eliminated and the City require
the Reidys to remove their building, 2) the City grant the encroachment permit along the alley
abutting the Reidy property for construction of the retaining wall and access to the middle lot as
originally agreed, 3) legal agreements between the Olsons, himself and the neighbors abutting the
portion entered from 9th be created to ensure access across the property from 9th to his garage and
the Olsons, 4) dangerous trees in the alley be removed, and 5) Mr. Reidy grant an exclusive
Packet Page 324 of 339
easement to him across the alley effective after the vacation. He summarized once those matters
were concluded, he would support the alley vacation.
Jim Wold, Edmonds, speaking for the four property owners on the east end of the right-of-way,
the Olsons, Morgans, Nivens and Wolds, read a letter signed by the four homeowners stating they
have met to discuss issues and concerns with ingress and egress to the Olsons, Morgans, Nivens
and Wolds properties should the Council vote in favor of vacation. They believed vacation was
in their collective best interests and urged the Council to approve the vacation. They are in the
process of hiring an attorney to draft the details of their agreement into the easement which would
be recorded within 30 days should the Council approve the vacation.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, expressed support for vacation of the alley. She recalled Mr. Thuesen at
one time expressed interest in building a road in the alley and asked whether a construction
easement would allow him to construct a road from 8th to 9th.
Chuck Olson, Edmonds, commented the proposed vacation would not affect him except, 1) if a
road was constructed his property might slough off and 2) he would like to be able to trim the
overgrown vegetation in the alley.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Ms. Bloom’s question, Mr. Bowman explained there were no plans to extend a
road from 8th to 9th through to Mr. Thuesen property. He has an access easement on the north
side of the Olson property that serves the house and detached garage. Access to the two proposed
lots would be via direct frontage onto 8th Avenue and the center lot has a pipe stem access to 8th
Avenue.
Council President Plunkett inquired about the construction easement. Mr. Bowman answered the
construction easement would not be permanent but would allow Mr. Thuesen to build the
retaining wall on the property line and access the former alley right-of-way to facilitate
construction if necessary. He displayed Mr. Thuesen’s preliminary development plan, noting the
proposed house locations were only conceptual. He noted Lot 3 abuts directly on 8th Avenue and
the preliminary development plan shows the road would be developed to access the house on Lot
2. He identified the potential location of the retaining wall, suggesting a construction easement
be granted to where Lot 2 intersects the alley.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman identified the location of the Reidy’s building and
referred to the survey drawing in the packet that shows the Reidy property and location of the
outbuilding/shed. He noted a small portion of the building encroached over the property line onto
Mr. Thuesen’s property. Councilmember Orvis asked if the Reidy’s building and the retaining
wall would overlap. Mr. Bowman explained the Reidy’s building would need to be modified or
the Reidys would need to bring an adverse possession claim against Mr. Thuesen for the location
of the building. Mr. Snyder noted no one could adversely possess against the City and if the
easement remained in effect, the City had a legal obligation to remove an obstruction. Nothing
the Council did would change the portion of the Reidy’s building that was on Mr. Thuesen’s
property, that was outside the Council’s responsibility.
Council President Plunkett observed the Reidy’s building was in the City’s right-of-way
currently. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting the outbuilding was inside the 7½ feet and a point of it
projected onto Mr. Thuesen’s property. The outbuilding straddled the alley, the Reidy’s property
and a small portion of Mr. Thuesen’s property.
Packet Page 325 of 339
Councilmember Bernheim asked if there were privately owned retaining walls, outdoor garden
structures or other structures in the right-of-way further east. Mr. Bowman answered not that he
was aware of. Councilmember Bernheim asked if there was any encroachment by Mr. Thuesen
or the adjacent property owner into the right-of-way. Mr. Bowman answered not that he was
aware of.
Councilmember Wilson asked if construction easements had time constraints. Mr. Bowman
answered it would depend on how the easement was structured; they typically had a time limit.
Councilmember Wilson suggested there be a time restriction. Mr. Snyder asked how long the
preliminary subdivision was effective. Mr. Bowman answered five years. Mr. Snyder noted that
would be the period of time during which improvements for lot 2 would be constructed.
Councilmember Wilson commented the distance from the east to west property lines of Lot 2 was
approximately 30 feet and asked if the intent was a 30-foot retaining wall. Mr. Bowman
commented the difficulty will be developing the house; Mr. Thuesen’s intent by using the alley
was to maintain a 14% grade. Mr. Snyder commented that was the reason he mentioned a slope
easement to allow Mr. Thuesen to regrade so that there was less impact from the retaining wall.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON, TO APPROVE THE VACATION AS PROPOSED.
Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged there were many competing interests but the code
permits the vacation if it was in the public interest and no property would be denied access. He
noted the public interest was eliminating the City’s liability and increasing the tax base. The
vacation would not deny access; the retaining wall could be constructed from within his property
line and the plat provides for access without the easement. He concluded the proposed vacation
met the criteria without an easement.
Councilmember Wilson commented he considered Mr. Thuesen’s position that as the owner of
50% of the property that abuts the proposed vacation area he had the right/authority to object to
the vacation. However, staff and the City Attorney had convinced him that the vacation was
appropriate.
Council President Plunkett concurred that Mr. Snyder and staff had demonstrated to the Council
more than adequately that the vacation was appropriate. He made the following amendment in an
effort to make everyone as whole as possible.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RESERVE A CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT.
Councilmember Wilson commented a five year limit on the construction easement would be
appropriate.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Dawson returned to the dais.
Packet Page 326 of 339
EXCERPT FROM THE 03-17-09 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
9. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE VACATION OF THE
UNOPENED ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH
AND 9TH AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF DALEY STREET.
City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled the Council made a decision several months ago; at the time
the property owners at the east end of the alley indicated they needed 30 days to develop
easements to allow access to a garage. Development Services Director Duane Bowman and he
held meetings with two property owners at the west end of the alley, Mr. Thuesen and Mr. Reidy,
in the hopes of reaching a consensus on how certain actions would occur but that process was
unsuccessful.
Council President Wilson suggested Mr. Reidy speak to the Council. Mr. Snyder advised the
Council could reopen the public hearing but cautioned against allowing only one party to speak.
For Council President Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained Mr. Reidy has very strong adverse
possession claims with regard to portions of Mr. Thuesen’s property. The difficulty for staff is
these claims were not asserted in either of the subdivision processes that resulted in the grant of a
2-lot subdivision and now preliminary plat approval for a 3-lot subdivision on Mr. Thuesen’s
property. This is one of the cases that went to Superior Court that the City lost and the judge’s
order confirmed the rights of Mr. Thuesen to develop the property and vested him in three lots.
The retaining wall shown in the 2-lot subdivision as well as the 3-lot subdivision preliminary plat
lies immediately on the property line adjacent to the right-of-way and what will be, upon eventual
vacation, Mr. Reidy’s property.
Mr. Snyder relayed Mr. Reidy believes strongly that he should not have raised that issue to the
Council; however, his intent was to identify a way to permit the vacation of property the City had
no use for and at the same time recognize the City had given approval for construction of a
retaining wall immediately adjacent to the property and if the easement is vacated it would be
very difficult for the wall to be constructed. Staff had been trying to identify a way to recognize
Mr. Thuesen’s right to develop his property as previously approved while vacating the property
as the property owners have sought.
By vacating the property and retaining a construction easement, the City would not be done with
this process. The City will be utilizing the right-of-way construction process to balance the
property owners’ interests and review construction mechanisms, provide for bonding and
insurance for constructing the wall as well as consider whether there are any options to removing
a portion of Mr. Reidy’s shed. Mr. Reidy has a permitted garage with an unpermitted shed
extension that lies within the right-of-way. Notice to remove the shed extension has been
previously given to Mr. Reidy. The City’s goal was to reach a compromise that would allow
construction of the retaining wall without removing the shed.
Council President Wilson asked if during the 9-month process the Reidys had been fined for the
portion of the shed that is illegal. Mr. Snyder answered no, acknowledging an intrusion into a
right-of-way was not allowed and the City had the obligation to clear it which was one of the
reasons the vacation was appropriate.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
Packet Page 327 of 339
WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN EIGHTH AVENUE NORTH AND
NINTH AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF DALEY STREET, RESERVING AN EASEMENT
FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Councilmember Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he had not been involved in
the previous discussion.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ABSTAINED.
Packet Page 328 of 339
Packet Page 329 of 339
Packet Page 330 of 339
Packet Page 331 of 339
Packet Page 332 of 339
Packet Page 333 of 339
Packet Page 334 of 339
Packet Page 335 of 339
Packet Page 336 of 339
On March 17, 2009, via Ordinance #3729, an alley right-of-way easement (“ROW”) was vacated
concurrently and jointly with the reservation of a Temporary Construction Easement
(“EASEMENT”).
I think our passage of that EASEMENT may have been premature and I would like for Council
to consider a Motion to Reconsider Ordinance #3729 in which Council both granted the vacation
and the EASEMENT .
It’s possible our reservation of the EASEMENT in favor of Mr. Thuesen is improper for several
reasons.
First, contrary to the requirements of EDC 20.70.090 and other EDC code provisions, the fact
that the EASEMENT was going to be imposed as a condition of vacating the ROW was not
included in the public notice of the vacation hearing, leaving the public completely unprepared to
comment before or during the September 16, 2008 hearing. In addition, the public was unable to
submit written comments before the September 16, 2008 hearing.
That limitation of due process is may not have been proper.
Second, according to our own ordinance governing this procedure (20.70.140) the EASEMENT
should have been conditioned by Resolution, subject to a 90 day period to grant the
EASEMENT. It is my understanding that this was not done.
Third, even if the EASEMENT had been adopted by Resolution, there is a question about
whether it complies with any allowable condition the City may impose as a condition of ROW
vacation pursuant to EDC 20.70.140. This matter is appears unclear as meritorious arguments
are made on both sides of the matter.
Fourth, it is undisputed public record that the EASEMENT was reserved solely to allow Mr.
Thuesen to make use of the area while he constructs his retaining wall. As such, I don’t see how
it serves any public purpose. Because the City’s interest in the alley is limited to public ingress
and egress, it is beyond the scope of the City’s interest to reserve an EASEMENT solely to
benefit one private party (EDC 20.70.030 says: In vacating a street, alley, or easement, the city
council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and grant any easements
for public utilities and services.) and may be considered illegal for that reason alone.
SOLUTION:
Mr. Thuesen has appealed Ordinance 3729, which relates to the ROW VACATION as well as
the EASEMENT. As Mr. Thuesen and Mr. Reidy now apparently both oppose the EASEMENT,
it makes sense to Reconsider Ordinance 3729 for a date certain a few weeks from now.
Packet Page 337 of 339
TIMELINE ON THUESEN-REIDY CASE
Prepared By Mauri Moore 10/29/09
2005
Mr. Thuesen appealed a hearing examiner decision on this issue, which ended up in superior
court.
2007
April 25 - Superior Court Judge Lucas referred it back to hearing examiner with instructions to
get the survey and wetlands delineation verified.
June 11 - Hearing Examiner took two letters, from surveyor and wetlands company, stating they
had done their work properly. Hearing Examiner then approved the development project. City
appealed the decision. (It is unclear why the appeal was made.)
July 2 - LUPA appeal period expired, meaning neighbors could no longer appeal.
July 5 - Mr. Thuesen put stakes in the ground. Mr. Reidy says this was his first knowledge there
could be an encroachment, as surveys hadn’t shown it.
July 5-16 - City finds out about encroachments via a site visit from Jeannie McConnell.
July 11 – Thuesen filed a code enforcement request to force removal of Reidy’s encroachment.
July 18 – Reidy attorney Matt Cruz met with Duane Bowman. Bowman informed him city was
in process of settlement agreement with Thuesen over his threat to sue over delay of project.
July 24 - City settled for paying Thuesen $20,000 and granting the 2 lot short plat.
August 14 – Mr. Thuesen cleared the wetland. LUPA says 21 days to appeal before
development vests. This was 22 days after he got the permit for the development.
August 15 – State Department of Ecology came to inspect the wetland, found it cleared and was
denied access by Thuesen, saying he had a Corps of Engineers permit.
2008
January – Mr. Reidy did his own survey, confirming the encroachments.
June - neighbors, including Mr. Reidy, met with two councilmembers to ask the council to
initiate a right of way vacation. Council passed a resolution to establish a public hearing.
July 22 - public hearing continued to Sept 16, 08, after Mr. Thuesen filed a heavy file.
Sept 16 - Public Hearing at city council, advertised ONLY for ROW vacation. Interested parties
testified only to the vacation.
Mr. Bernheim moved and I seconded a motion to vacate the alleyway.
Packet Page 338 of 339
Then Mr. Plunkett moved, on Mr. Snyder's suggestion, that we reserve a temporary
construction easement for Mr. Thuesen. Mr. Wambolt seconded it.
Our planning director Duane Bowman opposed it, saying it was not necessary and the developer
had no vested rights. Mr. Thuesen never requested it. But, we passed it.
2009
So, March 17 - via Ordinance No. #3729, an alley right-of-way easement was vacated
concurrently and jointly with the reservation of a Temporary Construction Easement… all
part of the same ordinance. The council voted on an easement which had not been drawn yet.
Staff did the property description after the fact for inclusion in the ordinance.
March 20 - Mr. Reidy filed for quiet title action in Superior Court. This is 2 days before the
Ordinance was published; seven days before it became effective.
April 7 – Mr. Thuesen appealed Ordinance No. 3729 (which includes both the vacation and the
easement.)
August 24 - A corrected Order to Correct was issued to Ken Reidy related to the temporary
construction easement... meaning he was told to tear down his shed.
August 31 - Mr. Reidy appealed the Order to Correct.
October 1 – Ms. Bullis represents she mailed notices to adjacent property owners with a list
provided by Mr. Reidy and posted it in public places.
October 9 - Mr. Reidy got first notice of Hearing Examiner hearing set for October 15. Public
notice was inadequate, so it was postponed until November 5.
October 23 – Mr. Reidy met with Detective Steve Morrison and a perjury investigation is
opened against Ms. Bullis and Ms. Coccia relating to sworn statements about notifications.
Packet Page 339 of 339