Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006.12.12 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Brackett Room 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds December 12, 2006 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Legal Matter 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1.Approval of Agenda 2.Consent Agenda Items A.Roll Call B.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2006. C.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 28, 2006. D.Approval of claim checks #92491 through #92652 for November 30, 2006, in the amount of $514,720.49, and #92653 through #92830 for December 7, 2006, in the amount of $433,413.74. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #44242 through #44290 for the period of November 16 through November 30, 2006, in the amount of $757,903.85. E.Report on bids opened November 30, 2006 for the 2005 Waterline Replacement Program and award of contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. ($1,380,020.98) F.Mike Doubleday Intergovernmental Services Contract. G.Police Towing Contracts First Amendment. H.Contract for Deceased Animal Disposal Services with The S. Morris Company. I.Professional Services Contract with Jeannie Dines. J.Contract for Animal Kenneling Services with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats. K.Proposed Ordinance - Approval of Findings of Fact for the Closed Record Review held on 11/21/06 on the application by Michel Construction to rezone property from Single Family Residential (RS-6) to Multi Family Residential (RM-2.4). The site is located at 546 Paradise Lane. (File No. R-06-77) L.Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on the Regional Transportation Package being developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District in conjunction with Sound Transit, expressing recommendations from the City of Edmonds for transportation investments in Snohomish County. 3. (10 Min) Water Rate Increase Public Hearing and Ordinance. 4.(45 Min) Discussion and action on the Architectural Design Board's findings concerning the proposed refurbishment of Old Milltown, located at 201 5th Avenue South. 5. (60 Min) Continued Council deliberation and action on the public hearing held on September 18, 2006 on the draft "BD - Downtown Business Zones" intended to be applied to the downtown area to implement the Comprehensive Plan. 6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 7.Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for the AgendaQuick©2005 - 2006 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 1 of 369 7.(5 Min) Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for the Frances Anderson Center Seismic Structural Retrofit Project -Phase 2- Design and Construction Documents in the amount of $169,299. 8.(15 Min) Report on City Council Committee Meetings. 9.(5 Min)Mayor's Comments 10.(15 Min)Council Comments 11.Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2006 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 2 of 369 AM-738 2.B. Approval of 11/21/06 Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2006. Previous Council Action Narrative Please refer to the attached draft minutes. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 11-21-06 Draft Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/05/2006 09:58 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/05/2006 10:10 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/05/2006 10:48 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/05/2006 09:53 AM Final Approval Date: 12/05/2006 Packet Page 3 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 21, 2006 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 Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Plunkett requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2006. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #92059 THROUGH #92229 IN THE AMOUNT OF $354,030.01 FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2006, AND #92230 THROUGH #92347 IN THE AMOUNT OF $213,715.89 FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2006. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL HOLIDAY BUY BACK CHECKS #44062 THROUGH #44164 IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,248.52 FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2006. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM FINIS G. TUPPER ($600.00+). E. ORDINANCE NO. 3611 – 2007 NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE SALARY ORDINANCE. Packet Page 4 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 2 G. ORDINANCE NO. 3612 – 2006 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. I. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2004 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT/PHASE III AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. J. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) TO ESTABLISH A CITY-WIDE BROADBAND NETWORK. ITEM F: WATER RATE ORDINANCE Councilmember Plunkett pointed out this ordinance would enact a 3% increase in utility rates. He inquired regarding the Council’s interest in scheduling a public hearing regarding the utility rate increase. It was the consensus of the Council to remove the Water Rate Ordinance from the agenda and schedule it for a public hearing, possibly on December 5. Mayor Haakenson recognized long-time Edmonds Councilmember John Nordquist in the audience who served as a Councilmember for over 30 years. Councilmember Plunkett recalled when he came of age to vote in approximately 1972, his mother encouraged him to always vote for Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson and John Nordquist. He commented on his pleasure serving with Mr. Nordquist for five years, noting he always brought a lot to Councils meeting in a dignified and respectful manner. Mr. Nordquist recognized former Councilmembers Natalie Shippen and Norma Bruns also in the audience. 3. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2007-08 BUDGET AND ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET A. PUBLIC HEARING Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained this item had two parts, first the public hearing; the packet contained staff’s fourth response to Council questions as well as a list of proposed Council amendments. The second part, if the Council chose to adopt the budget tonight, the packet contained a budget ordinance and property tax ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Utility Engineer position would be paid from existing rates and there was an inference that this position would save the City money as a consultant would not be hired to do the work. Mr. Clements answered that was potentially correct. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the position would not be filled until 2008; he preferred to bring it back as a mid-year budget adjustment if a determination was made to add that position, thus it was not necessary to include it in the proposed 2007- 08 budget. Council President Dawson asked staff to comment on the compensation consultant. Mr. Clements explained this was a Council initiated concept. When reviewed by the Finance Committee, it was deemed necessary due to the number of years since a classification/compensation study had been conducted as well as the desire to link compensation with a performance measurement via a corporate work plan which would require a consultant. Council President Dawson inquired about the funding source for the compensation consultant. Mr. Clements answered the proposal was for the majority of the cost to be funded from the General Fund as well as funds from Utilities and Fleet Management based on the number of employees. Council President Dawson asked how adding $61,500 to the General Fund would impact Packet Page 5 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 3 the 2007-08 budget. Mr. Clements acknowledged it would reduce the ending balance by that amount. Council President Dawson asked his level of comfort with that proposal. Mr. Clements answered this was a policy decision for the Council. He recalled discussion by department heads whether it was cost justified when the cost of the study exceeded the amount of the compensation increases. He recalled the Finance Committee’s discussion, that because a compensation/classification study had not been done for ten years, the actual annual cost was not as significant. Mayor Haakenson recalled an email he sent to Councilmembers stating the cost of the compensation consultant, originally estimated to be $100,000 although that amount had been reduced to $75,000, was more than would be spent on the salary increases proposed in the replacement plan for the L-5 salary plan. He suggested the Council again consider the proposed salary compensation plan that staff developed rather than spending $75,000 for a consultant. Mr. Clements commented on the difficulty to cost out the study; when a consultant was hired, the scope would need to be specific. Mayor Haakenson advised the memo in the packet indicated funding for the Main Street pedestrian lights would be from Fund 112 and 125. He noted taking funds from 112 and 125 reduced the amount that could be used for walkways, street improvements, stabilization, and citywide pedestrian lighting. He commented although these expenditures may not sound like a lot individually, they represented a significant amount when added together. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the comment that the cost of the classification/compensation study was more than the increases, pointing out that was for the increases for two years. He suggested since a compensation study had not been conducted for ten years, the amount of increases would need to be multiplied by the number of years since a study had been done. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the issue of a compensation study arose. He did not recall a Council- proposed amendment or any written materials with regard to the study including pros and cons other than comments by Mayor Haakenson and members of the Finance Committee. Mr. Clements recalled a long process of considering non-represented compensation, including a number of meetings with the Finance Committee and a special Finance Committee meeting that included Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt and Olson and staff. The Finance Committee proposed a compensation consultant due to concerns with the replacement plan to the L5 salary policy that was developed by staff. He advised the documentation of those discussions was contained in the October Finance Committee minutes and the background information was contained in the first response to Council questions regarding the budget. He recalled proposed funding for the study was $61,500 from the General Fund, $11,700 from Utilities and slightly less than $2,000 from Fleet Maintenance. Mayor Haakenson recalled that due to concerns with the L5 salary policy, the Finance Committee directed the Human Resources Department to develop a new plan to replace L5. When staff presented the replacement plan to the Finance Committee, it was summarily dismissed and a suggestion was made to hire a consultant. Councilmember Plunkett agreed, noting that was the last that had been said about a compensation study, yet now it was proposed as a one-line budget amendment without further explanation. He asked whether Mr. Clements was proposing/advocating for the compensation study. Mr. Clements answered he was not; he was presenting and tracking proposed changes to the budget. Councilmember Orvis recalled the intent was to put in place a stop-gap policy to provide raises for non- represented employees and hire a compensation consultant to compare the City’s salaries with other cities from an independent viewpoint which would require the use of a consultant. He recalled the current policy for non-represented employees was put in place with the hope that a compensation consultant would be hired to study non-represented employees’ salaries. Mr. Clements recalled the intent was also a fundamental shift to a pay-for-performance system geared to a work plan. Mayor Haakenson asked Packet Page 6 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 4 whether that discussion went beyond the Finance Committee to the City Council for full discussion. Councilmember Wambolt recalled it had. Councilmember Marin recalled when staff presented a replacement plan for the L5 salary policy, some Councilmembers had concerns about the proposed plan. He recalled the issue was deferred pending further study. He felt staff made a good recommendation for replacing the L5 salary policy; however, some Councilmembers wanted additional study. Councilmember Plunkett presented his proposed amendments, first $75,000 for lighting on Main Street between 5th and 6th. He explained the merchants in this area feel they need lighting for safety reasons. This area had not received the same attention that other areas had received; providing an example of the bulbs and streetscape south of 5th & Main, wider streets and pavers south on 5th, and the 4th Avenue Corridor north on 5th. He summarized the area that remained the same was Main Street between 5th and 6th. He advised the Council packet contained a recommendation for funding; he preferred not to reduce funding to other projects in the City, his proposal was to use ending cash balance. Councilmember Plunkett’s second proposed amendment was $4,000 for plaques for the Historic Preservation Commission, $2,000 in 2007 and $2,000 in 2008. He explained the Historic Preservation Commission has operated from two grants obtained by Planning Manager Rob Chave. The Commission has not previously sought any funding from the Council. He advised approximately eight properties that wanted to be recognized as historic properties would be presented to the Council in January and potentially another 5-10 properties the following year. The plaques would be installed to recognize historic buildings and sites. He identified several of the historic properties/sites including the old Stevens Hotel (now a condominium), the International Order of Odd Fellows, the log cabin, First Congregational Church, a pioneer house associated with development in early 1890, and Brackett’s feed barn which was also the first school. He commented with development occurring in Edmonds, this was an opportunity to demonstrate the City’s interest in historic preservation. He suggested funding from ending cash balance. Councilmember Moore asked if the plaques would be installed on buildings that no longer exist. Councilmember Plunkett explained historic preservation acknowledged structures as well as sites. Councilmember Moore referred to staff’s memo regarding installation of the lighting on Main between 5th &6th and a suggestion to combine that project with the removal and replacement of street trees in that area. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained funding for the street tree program was a combination of park and street maintenance funds. The trees were being removed and replaced with a more suitable species because as the trees matured, the roots were lifting the sidewalk causing tripping hazards. Councilmember Moore asked when staff planned to replace the trees on Main between 5th and 6th. Mr. Miller answered plans were to replace the trees on the south side of Main between 5th and 6th in 2007 and the north side in 2008. Councilmember Moore acknowledged it made sense to install the lighting at the same time. Mr. Miller agreed. She asked whether it would be possible when replacing trees to do art projects in the sidewalks as had been done in other areas of downtown. Mr. Miller answered that could be discussed with Parks & Recreation. Mayor Haakenson asked if the wiring for the lighting could be done at the time the street trees were replaced. Mr. Miller answered the underground wiring would be installed regardless of funding for the street lighting. Council President Dawson inquired about the savings to install the street lighting now as part of the street tree replacement versus delaying the lighting. Mr. Miller answered it would be significantly more if the street trees were replaced, the sidewalks restored and the lighting done as a separate project in the future, enough to be a public relations problem. Council President Dawson asked whether not having the street lighting in the CIP was an issue. Mr. Gebert answered the CIP was updated every spring and could be updated to include the street lighting Packet Page 7 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 5 project in 2007. Council President Dawson concluded it made sense to install the street lighting at the same time the street trees were replaced. Councilmember Moore complemented Mr. Gebert on his letter to Ms. Archer, finding it very polite and thorough. Council President Dawson presented her proposed amendment, $1,000 per year in both 2007 and 2008, a total of $2,000, for the City to become a member in the Transportation Choices Coalition, a group that provided greater transportation choices by improving pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, applauded the City’s efforts to reduce expenditures, commenting the City also needed to consider ways to increase revenues. He displayed a photograph of the former Albertson’s property, identifying the trees behind and its location in a valley. He also displayed photographs of the underutilized strip mall across the street. He displayed several photographs of Firdale Village, which he noted was in dire need of redevelopment. He displayed several photographs of mixed use developments in Seattle as examples of how these properties could be redeveloped so that they would generate real estate excise taxes (REET), sales taxes and property taxes as well as provide more affordable housing for seniors and families on transit routes. He anticipated little increase in the City’s net expenses due to the existing infrastructure. Redevelopment of these areas would also reduce the need to cut trees on hillsides and ravines to comply with GMA, and reduce C02 emissions and increase O2. Rowena Miller, Edmonds, referred to the photographs Mr. Kreiman displayed, pointing out Seattle’s efforts to restore their green canopy following their determination they had fewer trees than surrounding cities. Seattle is replanting trees and attempting to change citizens’ attitude about cutting trees. Next, she expressed concern with decisions made by Council Committees that were not discussed by the full Council. She also cautioned the Council to be careful about increases, siting the upcoming EMS levy and increasing property taxes to the limit. She questioned why it was necessary to raise taxes when property valuations were increasing. She recalled Mayor Haakenson’s comment last year that although property valuations increased it did not necessarily mean taxes increased, commenting her taxes certainly had increased. Mayor Haakenson clarified no matter how much the assessed valuation of Edmonds property increased, the City was capped at 1% of what they collected the previous year. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson commented other taxing districts were not limited by the 1% cap. Mayor Haakenson agreed, pointing out on a tax bill of $5,000, only 16% went to the City of Edmonds, over 80% went to the Edmonds School District. He summarized the City’s $50 million budget was operated on only 16% of residents’ tax bill. B. BUDGET ADOPTION I. 2007-2008 BUDGET ORDINANCE COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2007-2008 BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. 3613. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO INCLUDE $75,000 FOR A COMPENSATION CONSULTANT. Councilmember Orvis commented if the Council did not approve a compensation study, they would need to work out a salary policy for non-represented employees. The current system in the budget was a stop gap to changing the L5 policy. He supported a compensation consultant to allow objectivity in the study. Packet Page 8 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Wambolt recalled that staff developed an alternate policy due to concern with the L5 policy. The Finance Committee was unable to reach a conclusion with regard to staff’s proposal and made no recommendation to the Council. The Council discussed the alternate policy and was not satisfied. The Finance Committee met again, including Councilmember Orvis due to his experience with the L5 policy. The outcome of that meeting was a compensation consultant was needed because although the new proposal had a number of refinements, it was basically paying employees for showing up, not for performance. Because this was a major change, a compensation consultant was necessary. He recalled that was proposed and accepted by the Council. He acknowledged before becoming a Councilmember, he often voiced his objection to the City hiring consultants. However, there were times a consultant was necessary; in his career, the only consultants that provided any value were compensation consultants. He encouraged the Council to support the amendment. Council President Dawson commented there may be merit to hiring a compensation consultant; however, she was not prepared to spend $75,000 in this year’s budget and preferred the Council take another look at staff’s proposal. The Council may conclude it was necessary to hire a compensation consultant which could be accomplished via a mid-year budget amendment. She was concerned that the cost of the study exceeded the amount of the increases. Although she appreciated the suggestion, she would respectfully oppose the amendment. Councilmember Moore also expressed her appreciation for the amendment. She suggested this as a topic for the Council retreat including a presentation from the administration. She would also oppose the amendment. Councilmember Olson agreed with Council President Dawson’s suggestion, recalling she was in favor of staff’s proposal and the Council discussing it in more detail. She commented on the cost of the study versus the relatively few employees impacted. She wanted to ensure staff was happy with the policy the Council adopted, especially since many non-represented employees’ salaries had been frozen in the past. Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was the process not the substance. He preferred it had been presented to the Council with more information. However, he was of the opinion that many non- represented employees were dissatisfied with their compensation package and it was necessary to hire a consultant to ensure an objective review of the salary policy. He supported the motion. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Council President Dawson’s suggestion, noting even if the study was included in the budget, expenditures of that nature required an approval process and the Council may discover the consultant was unnecessary. However, if the funds were not included in the budget, it was unlikely a consultant would be hired. He supported including the funds in the budget and making a decision with regard to hiring a consultant after the Council had had additional discussion. Councilmember Marin supported the Council reviewing staff’s proposed salary policy. He would support the motion with the proviso that it be scheduled for further Council discussion prior to hiring a consultant. Councilmember Moore asked Mayor Haakenson to comment on the compensation consultant. Mayor Haakenson reiterated as they were directed, staff developed a new compensation policy for non- represented employees which was presented to the Finance Committee and Council and although it was not rejected, it was not implemented. He recalled Council’s direction was to provide cost-of-living increases to non-represented employees and allow those eligible for raises to receive raises in 2007 with the idea of possibly a compensation study in the future. He noted the study would not only be compensation, it would be job descriptions. He was unsure whether the study could be accomplished for $75,000, recalling the study done in 1997 cost $90,000. If the Council wanted to include the study in the budget, he suggested it be included in the 2008 budget to allow a year to discuss it. He offered to have staff make a presentation on the non-represented employee salary policy at the retreat. Packet Page 9 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 7 Council President Dawson commented the proposal was to fund the study from ending cash balance; it could be funded via a mid-year budget adjustment. She noted that would allow the Council further time to consider whether the City could afford the study and the outcome of the legislative session with regard to sales tax sourcing. She noted the study was not essential at this time and if Mayor Haakenson had felt it warranted, he would have included it in his budget. Councilmember Orvis restated his motion to include the study in the 2008 budget and discuss it during 2007. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MARIN, WAMBOLT, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AMEND THE 2007-2008 BUDGET TO INCLUDE $2,000 IN 2007 AND $2,000 IN 2008 FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PLAQUES, TO BE FUNDED FROM ENDING CASH BALANCE. Councilmember Plunkett explained this was a one-time request; once the plaques were installed, the same thing would happen in Edmonds as happened in other communities such as Snohomish, people who want their property recognized would pay for the plaques themselves. The City needed to create the synergy and awareness first. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO INCLUDE $75,000 FROM ENDING CASH BALANCE FOR LIGHTING ON MAIN BETWEEN 5TH AND 6TH TO BE APPROPRAITED OVER 2007 AND 2008. Councilmember Plunkett commented this section of downtown had not received the same attention the rest of downtown had and was well deserving of additional investment. There are art galleries and restaurants opening in this area and the lighting would make it a brighter, safer place for citizens, visitors and merchants. Councilmember Moore expressed her support for the amendment, pointing out the importance of supporting retailers. It is appropriate to install the lighting at the same time the street trees are replaced. Council President Dawson agreed, commenting if the lighting would be installed eventually, it was appropriate to do it at the same time as the street tree replacement due to cost savings. She viewed it as an investment in the City’s infrastructure. She was hesitant to fund the lighting from ending cash balance and suggested staff provide further information on alternate funding sources before the project was undertaken. Mayor Haakenson advised staff’s recommendation was to fund the lighting from Fund 112 and 125, Councilmember Plunkett’s amendment was to fund it from ending cash balance. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO ADD $1,000 IN 2007 AND 2008 FOR A TOTAL OF $2,000 FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES COALITION. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3613 - RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNEM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2007, ADOPTING A BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR 2007-2008 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Packet Page 10 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 8 II. 2007 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained Council President Dawson requested staff provide three property tax scenarios; #3 was included in the budget. He explained #3 contained a 2.64% regular property tax levy which includes a 1.64% recapture of banked capacity and a 1% regular property tax increase. He noted it also included a 1% increase in the EMS levy. He explained this would generate additional revenue of slightly over $200,000 to the General Fund, a minor increase per household. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE VERSION #3, ORDINANCE NO. 3614. Councilmember Wambolt commented developing the budget was a long process that began in the summer. He served on the budget review committee with Council President Dawson who began meeting in September to hear presentations from department heads as well as ask questions of staff. Since that time he had exchanged numerous emails with Mr. Clements and his staff who had done an excellent job educating him. Mayor Haakenson also removed over $1 million from department wish lists also known as decision packages, essentially reducing the decision packages by half. He was disappointed he had been unable to do due diligence on EMS expenses, noting this was one of the City’s biggest cost centers – $5 million in expenses. He was hopeful a better review could be conducted early in 2007 when discussing the proposed increase in the EMS levy, tentatively scheduled for a vote in May 2007. He clarified he was not saying EMS expenses were too high, simply that he did not know. He pointed out the average property in Edmonds in 2006 appreciated 22% in value. Property owners would see an increase in their property taxes due to the school district voter approved bonds. He planned to support the proposed ordinance which included the 1.64% banked capacity and 1% property tax increase, noting inflation was much higher than 2.64%. Council President Dawson advised she would not support version #3. She had voted against accessing banked capacity last year, noting although it was small amount, $138,000, it was a matter of principle. Since the passage of I-747 which limited cities to a 1% per year property tax increase, she felt it important to stay within those guidelines. If the Council was able to add $150,000 in budget amendments funded from ending cash balance, the Council should be able to live without the additional $138,000 as well. She preferred version #2. Councilmember Marin explained he participated on the budget review committee for three years in the past including listening to directors make presentations regarding decision packages. He noted the decision packages were not self-serving but legitimate additions to address the City’s needs; unfortunately many of the decision packages could not be funded. He expressed his appreciation to staff for presenting only legitimate decision packages and their ability to live on a smaller budget. Councilmember Plunkett recalled he made a promise to voters in 1997 that he would not vote for a property tax increase above the rate of inflation. As version #3 was below the rate of inflation, he would support the motion. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT RECONFIGURING THE PLAN DESIGNATIONS OF PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 76TH AVENUE WEST BETWEEN 242ND AND 244TH STREET SW. APPLICANT: TONY SHAPIRO / FILE NO. CDC-05-96. Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised, Ron Knowles, represented by Tony Shapiro, made application to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on 76th between 242nd and 244th. There were two hearings at the Planning Board and the Board encouraged the applicant to talk with the neighbors. A number of neighborhood meetings were held in an effort to reach a consensus about how this area would be identified on the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent change in the zoning. Packet Page 11 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Bullock displayed a map of the existing Comprehensive Plan, explaining the properties that front on 205th/244th are identified on the Comprehensive Plan as Highway 99 Corridor and the properties down the hill that front on 76th and have access on 76th are designated Neighborhood Commercial. When the Comprehensive Plan was approved along zone district lines, the boundary between Highway 99 Corridor and Neighborhood Commercial bisected the two southern properties. This split designation creates problems as the zoning designations have different bulk regulations, uses, heights and setbacks. At the final neighborhood meeting, the applicant and neighbors reached a consensus and made a presentation to the Planning Board to include the entire property that fronts on 76th in the Highway 99 Corridor designation and the entire property to the west as Neighborhood Commercial. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposal. He explained the proposal would not change the zoning although that would be a future proposal to ensure the zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Haakenson asked staff to respond to a letter provided by Pastor Cox from Seattle Baptist Church. Mr. Bullock relayed his understanding of Pastor Cox’s letter was that he agreed with his entire parcel being identified as Neighborhood Commercial; the majority of his property is currently zoned Neighborhood Business. Tony Shapiro, AD Shapiro Architects, explained his client, Ron Knowles, made application late last year for a change to the Comprehensive Plan on his property, the southeast corner of the block, to make it one designation. When they presented a proposal to the Planning Board in June, the Board felt the entire block should be addressed in light of the work being done with regard to Five Corners and Firdale Village and the NB zone designation. They subsequently met with neighbors twice to ask what they would like to see developed on the property. His office was also retained by the property at the northeast corner of the block at the intersection of 242nd and 76th, Planting Design. Planting Design plans to rebuild their facility to a mixed use. They currently operate a nursery and landscape design business out of a former gas station. Although Planting Design has rehabilitated the property and the neighbors are satisfied with the status of the property, Mr. Knowles’ property has been vacant for a number of years due to the difficulty finding a short term tenant, rehabilitating the building, and obsolete use due to the mini-mart at the corner of 76th and 244th. Mr. Shapiro explained the neighbors were concerned with the eastern portion of the block, fronting on 76th, becoming entirely Neighborhood Business. The proposal in mid-summer was to designate the eastern portion of the block which was more conducive to mixed use type redevelopment. In a meeting with the neighbors and staff this fall, the neighbors were concerned with that configuration. Although Planting Design would ultimately like to build out their site and perhaps in the future will propose a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation on their corner, they agreed with the proposal to change the designation on only the southeast corner. The Planning Board accepted this compromise reluctantly; a number of Boardmembers were concerned about the continuation of the Highway 99 designation northbound on 76th. He acknowledged although it was unusual to extend that designation to this property, considering the topography on the site and the slope that continues onto Mr. Knowles’ property, it was felt to be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Shapiro explained the proposed change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use was encouraged in the BN zone, zoning that may ultimately be proposed for the site which would comply with the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The proposal was also consistent with the existing and proposed land uses. This is a transition zone as 76th is a fairly busy street and a small mixed use building would provide transition. The property immediately to the south, also owned by Mr. Knowles, is essentially mixed use with storage on the ground floor and residential above. A number of neighbors have expressed satisfaction with the manner in which that property was developed. The character of the Packet Page 12 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 10 area is evolving and the NB zone is outdated and needs to updated, yet still work with the residential properties to the north and west. The proposed change is more economically viable than the current commercial use. The proposed change would provide benefit to the public health, safety and welfare by providing more housing units on the site as well as opportunity for a small service-type business. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Shapiro advised they held two neighborhood meetings, one in July and a second in August. During the first meeting they discussed goals of the project and green characteristics they hoped to incorporate into the buildings. He noted they discussed more building specific issues at that meeting as they had originally proposed both a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation as well as a rezone. It was agreed at the September Planning Board meeting to separate the change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning with the intent of presenting the rezone in the future. He explained the mixed use would be conducive to the neighborhood as the mixed use would include approximately 75% residential and would not differ much from the single family nature of existing properties. Traffic was the primary concern; concern was also expressed with church traffic on Sundays and meeting days, additional traffic generated by the commercial component and the loss of parking that Mr. Knowles allows the church to utilize on his property. After two meetings with the neighbors, they were not forcefully opposed to the proposal; at the September Planning Board meeting they were overwhelmingly opposed to changing the destination on both parcels. At a subsequent Planning Board meeting in October, they changed their proposal. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Scott McPherson, Edmonds, commented regretfully Highway 99 Corridor was the only designation for the property that satisfied the neighborhood, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Knowles. He wished there was another designation for the property. His only concern was what type of businesses might be located on the property but the most important issue was limiting the building height to 25 + 5 feet. The neighbors were concerned with the amount of traffic on 76th Avenue particularly during rush hour. Although 76th was busy, it was not equivalent to the traffic volumes on 205th. He relayed the neighbors’ interest in limiting residential development to the top two stories on the site. He advised the proposal was more or less acceptable to him as a neighbor, provided development was consistent with the neighborhood. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson asked what building height would be allowed if the property were rezoned under the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Bullock answered the property was currently zoned BC on the southern half and BN on the northern half. Changing the designation on the entire property to Highway 99 Corridor would allow the entire property to be zoned BC. The maximum height for the BC zone was 25 feet with an additional 5 feet for an approved modulated design. He advised the ability to achieve the additional 5 feet was under moratorium. Council President Dawson observed the height limit would be what the Council voted on next week. Mr. Bullock explained the Council would be voting on BD zoning for downtown; however, there were still some scattered BC zoning throughout the City where the existing BC zoning would continue until the Council chose to change it. Council President Dawson asked what the height limit on existing BC property would be when the moratorium was lifted. City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to research and provide a response next week. Councilmember Orvis commented Highway 99 Corridor was generally CG or CG2 plus transitional zoning. Mr. Bullock advised the Comprehensive Plan provides a list of appropriate zones including BC. This area would be appropriate for that zoning as it was a transition from the higher intensity uses. Councilmember Orvis observed if the applicant were to propose a rezone to CG2, they would be subject to the rezone criteria. Mr. Bullock agreed. Packet Page 13 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON MISCELLANEOUS MINOR TEXT UPDATES AND MAP CORRECTIONS TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. CDC-06-4) Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the following minor corrections and updates to the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Minor amendments proposed by Planning Board Vice Chair John Dewhirst via working with the City’s Engineering Department to improve the language in the Walkway Plan. 2. Minor wording changes in the Downtown Plan that needed to be addressed as the Council discussed the downtown BD zones next week. He suggested holding the public hearing on these changes but continuing deliberation until next week. He noted there were a few tweaks to the language suggested by staff to make it consistent with the Planning Board’s recommendation. He suggested when discussing the BD zone changes next week, the Council also keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan language it needed to be consistent with. Also included with the downtown amendments was bringing the downtown Comprehensive Plan map into consistency with the downtown zoning proposal. 3. Minor changes to the land use and zoning compatibility table (page 16) to reflect ongoing neighborhood planning efforts. 4. When the Comprehensive Plan map was updated last year, the lots adjoining Lake Ballinger should have been designated Single Family Resource instead of Urban 1 on the plan map. The existing zoning is consistent with this change. 5. A map correction in the downtown area for lots erroneously labeled as high density multi family when the zoning was RM3, equivalent to medium density multi family. Staff recommends the Council accept public testimony and approve amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 and continue deliberation on 2 until next week. Council President Dawson asked for further information regarding the Single Family Resource designation. Mr. Chave answered it was for larger lots, RS-12 and RS-20, properties associated with critical area and environmentally sensitive areas, the justification for retaining the large lot designation. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained when the old Comprehensive Plan’s color designations were translated into GIS, a couple of locations were transferred as high density that should have been medium density. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented one of the reasons for the policy changes was there were new funds for pedestrian improvements. He was concerned engineering would simply identify projects to keep their office busy. He referred to a proposed change to Policy 1.1 that would require pedestrian facilities on both sides of all streets and highways, questioning whether the City wanted to enforce construction of sidewalks on both sides. He noted there had been an effort via Safe Routes to Schools to install a walkway on one side of the street which provided safety within reasonable financial limits. He was concerned there was no distance requirement with regard to the Safe Route to Schools as compared with the 1200 feet indicated for parks and playgrounds. He suggested retaining “should” rather than “shall” in Policy 1.1. Next he referred to the Policy 1.9 with regard to ADA curb cuts and side ramps, that states “any object located within the sidewalk shall not impede pedestrian safety, circulation, and Packet Page 14 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 12 access,” suggesting this be enforced retroactively to address existing problems. He then referred to Policy 1.11 which stated “pedestrian safety includes physical and psychological safety considerations,” questioning what “psychological safety considerations” referred to. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Moore inquired about psychological safety considerations. City Engineer Dave Gebert answered the language was developed by Planning Board Vice Chair Dewhirst. He speculated it referred to the use of sidewalks for enjoyment, exercise, etc. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on “should” versus “shall,” commenting she was in favor of installing sidewalks whenever possible but not necessarily on both sides of the street. Mr. Gebert answered the Planning Board had a fair amount of discussion on this issue; Vice Chair Dewhirst’s original proposal was much more directive and included several more “shalls.” Staff was concerned that the “shalls” represented unfunded mandates. He explained Policy 1.11 represented a compromise and staff was satisfied with “shall” in the context with the wording “within the limits of available funding and in consideration of other priorities.” Councilmember Moore asked why the distance for Safe Routes to Schools was unlimited and only 1200 feet to a park or playground. Mr. Gebert was uncertain why Vice Chair Dewhirst did not include a distance. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding items within the sidewalk that currently impeded pedestrian safety. Mr. Gebert answered there were specific ADA requirements such as sidewalk widths. When a mailbox is located in the sidewalk, ADA standards require the sidewalk be widened behind the mailbox. There are places in the City where sidewalks constructed in the past that contained utility poles, trees, etc. that did not comply with ADA requirements. Staff is in the process of developing an implementation plan for ADA ramps and will be addressing those issues as funds permit; the City did not have the resources to correct everything in the City. Councilmember Moore asked how the remainder of the paragraph in Policy 1.1 would be revised if “shall” were changed to “should.” Mr. Gebert answered it could stay the same. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised for all new construction, the language in Policy 1.9 was consistent with the City’s obligation under federal law. This would be addressed further when amendments to the City’s sign code were discussed with regard to sandwich board signs downtown. With regard to changing “shall” to “should,” he reminded that any exercise of staff discretion needed to have standards. Mr. Chave commented a better word for Vice Chair Dewhirst’s proposed “psychological safety considerations” may be “perceived,” envisioning he was referring to situations such as a walkway along a high volume street where it may be perceived as safer if there were plantings between the walkway and the driving lane. He noted this did not necessarily increase the physical safety but may increase the perceived safety. Councilmember Moore commented “perceived” was also quite vague. Council President Dawson referred to language in Policy 1.1, “classified as safe walking routes to school,” asking who classified the routes. Mr. Gebert answered schools typically identified their walking routes. Council President Dawson suggested adding language such as safe walking routes as defined by the school. Mr. Gebert agreed, noting when the City submitted a grant application for a walkway related to a school, staff obtained and submitted the school’s identified walking routes. Council President Dawson referred to Policy 1.9 and suggested referencing ADA requirements. Mr. Snyder commented there may also be engineering standards. Mr. Gebert explained there were a number Packet Page 15 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 13 of requirements such as curb height and sidewalk width in the City’s standards that generally exceeded ADA requirements. Mr. Snyder suggested adding “pursuant to law or ordinance” which would cover the City’s and federal standards. Council President Dawson suggested adding wording that this applied only to new construction. Mr. Gebert stated staff intended to identify deficiencies such as ADA curb ramps. The City had an obligation as projects occurred such as street overlays to upgrade ADA ramps within the project limits. Council President Dawson was concerned the policy implied the City would be making corrections that it did not intend to do. Mr. Snyder suggested adding wording “as required by federal law or City ordinance.” Council President Dawson requested staff provide the existing language in Policy 1.11 so that she could compare it to the proposed language. She was concerned “psychological safety considerations” was not clear. Councilmember Moore suggested rewording Policy 1.11 to include examples and further specificity. Mr. Snyder reminded the Comprehensive Plan contained accurate general descriptions; the zoning regulations would contain specifics. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS 3, 4 AND 5. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson advised the Council would discussion amendment 2 next week as part of the downtown zoning. She asked staff to return amendment 1 with appropriate language next week or at the December 5 meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO CONTINUE AMENDMENT 1 TO NEXT WEEK AND AMENDMENT 2 TO WHEN STAFF COULD PROVIDE ALTERNATE LANGUAGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. AFTER TWO TIED VOTES (3-3), THE PLANNING BOARD WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE APPLICATION. (FILE NO. R-06-77) As this was a closed record review, a quasi judicial proceeding, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication they wished to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett disclosed in 2005 the applicant contributed approximately $250 to his reelection campaign. Councilmember Marin disclosed he also received a campaign contribution from the applicant. Council President Dawson disclosed during the break a member of the audience asked her whether audience comments would be allowed and she had a brief conversation with her regarding the procedures but nothing of substance. Councilmember Wambolt disclosed the applicant built his building. Councilmember Orvis disclosed Rob Michel contributed $249 to his campaign. Packet Page 16 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 14 Councilmember Olson disclosed Mr. Michel contributed $249 to her campaign. Mayor Haakenson asked whether each Councilmember who made a disclosure felt they were able to make a fair and impartial decision based on the information they had disclosed. Council President Dawson and Councilmembers Plunkett, Wambolt, Orvis, and Olson responded yes they could. Based on the information that had been disclosed, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any party of record had an objection to any of the Councilmembers’ participation. Mike Prebezac, Edmonds, commented in talking with friends and other developers, Mr. Michel had an exceptional record of getting everything he asked. He was not confident the Councilmembers who received campaign contributions from Mr. Michel could be impartial. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine was codified in State statute. One of the provisions the legislature enacted recognized that if a challenge would destroy a quorum, all the challenged members may remain on the panel. In this instance, disqualifying all the Councilmembers who received a campaign contribution would destroy the quorum; therefore, that provision would be applicable. Toni Prebezac, Edmonds, questioned whether Councilmembers who had received campaign contributions and/or had other relationships with the applicant could make a fair decision because they were human. Although Councilmembers must view the information presented as fact, there was a great deal of emotion on both sides. She found it difficult to believe these Councilmembers could be impartial. Mayor Haakenson explained under Appearance of Fairness Doctrine it was up to the individual Councilmember to decide whether he/she could made a fair and impartial decision. Councilmember Plunkett reiterated State law did not allow five Councilmembers to step down as it would destroy the quorum. Councilmember Moore commented this was why she did not like closed record reviews. The Council was elected by the people, they accepted campaign contributions, made policy decisions and were biased individuals. For the Council to sit as judges was practically impossible as it was a political process. Citizens expect to be able to talk to their Councilmembers; however, in this instance Councilmembers were not the citizens’ representative, they were judges. Councilmembers were even not allowed to drive by the property; they must rely on the information contained in the record. She summarized she did not run for office to be a judge, she ran for office to be a Councilmember. Council President Dawson pointed out under Regulatory Reform the Council was required to hear rezones, therefore, it would continue to be the Council’s role to hear rezones. Councilmember Olson commented a $249 campaign contribution did not carry a great deal of weight. She had not even recalled that Mr. Michel had contributed to her campaign until she researched it. Councilmember Marin assured that as he and his fellow Councilmembers read the information, they disconnected themselves from who the parties were and considered the merits of the proposal and arguments made by both sides. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers were approved to participate. Mr. Snyder explained pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act, cities were limited on development permit applications and certain other types of quasi judicial decisions to two hearings, one open record – in this Packet Page 17 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 15 case before the Planning Board – and the other, a closed record review before the City Council. He advised the Prebezacs that their objections would be noted in the record and satisfied the requirement to make their objection at their earliest opportunity. Because a change to the zoning would be enacted by ordinance, a quorum of the Council was required. Similarly, because it would be enacted by ordinance, Mayor Haakenson could not vote in the event of a tie. He cautioned those presenting argument that they were limited to what was presented to the Planning Board and they could not present new evidence. Mayor Haakenson established a 20 minute time limit for the applicant. Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised the Planning Board reviewed the proposed rezone. He recalled a contract rezone was proposed on this property a couple of years ago was denied. This proposal is by a different applicant. He displayed the Comprehensive Plan map, identifying the property designated in the Comprehensive Plan as multi family medium density. He advised the zoning districts that implement that Comprehensive Plan designation are RM-3 or RM-2.4; the applicant has requested a rezone to RM-2.4. After the Planning Board reviewed the staff report and accepted testimony at the public hearing, a motion was made to deny the rezone; the motion failed 3-3. A subsequent motion to approve the rezone also failed 3-3. The Planning Board forwarded the rezone request to the Council without a recommendation. Mr. Snyder commented this had been the subject of a prior rezone application. The City was obligated to have zoning districts conform to the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council denied the proposed rezone, he suggested the Council consider whether it would be appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan designation or craft a new zoning designation as a disconnect between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning should not be allowed to continue. Applicant Rob Michel asked to save 5 minutes for rebuttal. He displayed an aerial photograph of the area, identifying the subject site as well as surrounding uses including a 12-unit condominium across the street that took access from Paradise Lane and 5th Place South, nine single family homes that access from Paradise Lane, and two houses that access from another street. He recalled a few weeks ago the Council denied a change to the access to SR 104. He noted the majority of traffic from SR 104 turned off before reaching this area. Mr. Michel referred to the six criteria that must be met for a rezone, advising staff found their proposed rezone met all six and recommended approval of the rezone. The Planning Board accepted five of the six and were split 3-3 on one issue. He pointed out the neighbors’ concerns were addressed by other City codes and policies. The City’s Technical Committee had no unresolved issues with regard to the proposed rezone. He displayed the Comprehensive Plan map, identifying the subject property, multi family property to the north, high density multi family further north, and business zoned property along the Westgate Corridor. With regard to the first criteria, Comprehensive Plan, Staff and the Planning Board found their proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained higher land values along SR 104 did not support single family uses. The Comprehensive Plan contains a policy regarding locating multi family near arterials. GMA also recognized the demand for high quality multi family housing. The goals of the Westgate Corridor do not support single family uses along SR 104 and nothing has been built in this location for 40+ years. The urban design issues in the Comprehensive Plan are best addressed in a specific development application. The City Council and Planning Board delegate design review to the experts on the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to discuss compatibility and design issues. In the zoning ordinance, multi family provides a suitable transition from the commercial zone to the single family. Their zoning proposal is consistent with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Their Packet Page 18 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 16 proposal preserves the character and existence of compatible residential uses due to the 60 foot right-of- way that provides an effective buffer between single family uses and the highway. With regard to the second criteria, zoning code, he displayed the current zoning map, identifying high density multi family to the north across the street that continues north on 5th Avenue on both sides of the street, abutting single family homes which is consistent with providing transition. With regard to the third criteria, surrounding area, Mr. Michel displayed the current zoning map, identifying the subject property and business zoned property along SR 104 to Hwy. 99. He identified one area of single family where an addition to the church was being constructed. The only single family zoning remaining on SR 104 was this area that had been changed in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to changes, the fourth criteria, Mr. Michel advised State and County mandated policies require the City to accept its fair share of population growth. Many residential areas have been changed to non-residential uses which reduces future housing unit totals such as two office and medical complexes on 220th & 76th on multi family zoned property which reduced the number of available units by 36. Further the Woodway Elementary School site represented a loss of approximately 30 housing units for a park. Other changes have reduced unit counts in residential zones and many multi family sites have not been developed to the maximum density. Further, the rezone of the downtown area would eliminate up to 40% of the potential residential uses on upper floors. With regard to suitability, the fifth criteria, he explained City planners already determined the suitability of the property by changing the Comprehensive Plan designation as medium density multi family, which was subsequently approved by both the Planning Board and City Council. The property is suitable because the current zoning has not been viable for 20-40 years. The property is suitable for multi family as bedrooms in single family homes are typically located at the rear of the house, placing them within 20 feet of SR 104; multi family structures are constructed with more soundproofing, making this more suitable for multi family development. Multi family development provides more opportunity for shared driveways and fewer access points on Paradise Lane. With regard to value, the sixth criteria, Mr. Michel explained multi family development required a 7-foot sidewalk and would provide an opportunity to connect to the end of the pedestrian pathway at the end of Paradise Lane to connect with 5th Avenue. He noted a 7-foot wide sidewalk would allow two wheelchairs to pass which a 5-foot sidewalk would not. Multi family development also requires installation and ongoing maintenance of landscaping. Mr. Michel recalled the primary concern of the three Planning Board Members and most neighbors was with traffic. However, the traffic experts have indicated the impact would be minimal. A Planning Board Member’s statement that the road does not have sufficient capacity for existing traffic is contradicted by a traffic engineer. The timing argument by the Planning Board is immaterial as there are no concurrency arguments that are appropriate given the small size of this development. The actual number of additional trips between single family and multi family is small; the 20 additional trips will not be a burden on the road as it represents less than 2 trips per hour. The Technical Committee which includes the Fire Department also found no problem with the proposed zoning. With regard to the road width, Mr. Michel displayed the Street Standards contained in the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. He pointed out the table of street standards was for new construction, not for existing roads. He pointed out the maximum pavement width for RM-2.5 was 22- feet if a new road was constructed; nexus and proportionality require they construct one side of the road. He noted the only reference to a minimum for existing road was a statement that all streets and access easements must be paved to a minimum width of 16 feet. Packet Page 19 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 17 Mr. Michel displayed a cross section of the site (reference page 68 of the record), identifying one half of SR 104, the right-of-way on a hillside that would retain mature trees, the site, the existing house approximately 25 feet in height, the 60-foot right-of-way of the Paradise Lane, and the house at 545 Paradise Lane. He pointed out the 60-foot wide buffer, the front setback in the single family zone and the front setback in the multi family zone would create a 100-foot distance between structures, a buffer between SR 104 and the single family development. Single family development did not have any requirements with regard to tree removal; multi family would be required to undergo the ADB review process. Mr. Michel advised development policies would ensure Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies were met and that neighbors had an opportunity for input on the development. Mr. Michel commented on the difference between RM-3 and RM-2.4 zoning, noting the building sites would be the same, however, the smaller RM-2.4 units would be more affordable to a wider range of income and age groups. RM-2.4 would assist the City in meeting its GMA goals. RM-3 would have greater opportunity to create more traffic as the units would be bigger, have more bedrooms thus potentially more drivers. With regard to comments about his serving on the ADB, he advised this was his eighth year on the ADB and his term ended next month. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the record indicated some of the trees on the Paradise Lane side of the site would be retained. Mr. Michel answered since this was not a site-specific proposal, he was not certain. He noted some would be removed as they were located where the sidewalk would be although there would be some room between the back of the sidewalk and the property line. Parties of Record Ed Murphy, Edmonds, commented this area was being misconstrued as multi family when in fact the Spinnaker Apartments, built in the 1970s, was the one multi family use in the Paradise Lane area. Paradise Lane dead-ended at the Spinnaker Apartments and the condominiums were located below and accessed from below. Birch Place was a PRD built in the late 80s/early 90s. There was no continuous multi family zoning and the zoning on the Paradise Lane island was single family. He noted the homes in the area were built in the 40s, 50s and 60s and most had been updated; a couple houses near the bank were being held for redevelopment. He questioned the appropriateness of the rezone, commenting this area should not have been designated multi family in the Comprehensive Plan. The pavement width was only 16-18 feet wide. He referred to the Council’s decision not to change the entrance to Paradise Lane, noting the majority of traffic entering Paradise Lane turned right on 65th Place as a shortcut rather than using SR 104 due to the 25 mph speed limit. He urged Council not to rezone the site multi family, reiterating everything contiguous to the property on Paradise Lane was single family. Councilmember Plunkett referred to his comment that the Comprehensive Plan designation should never have been changed. Mr. Murphy commented no development had occurred in that area because there had not been a single owner for many years. He recalled the Council denied a contract rezone two years ago. Bud Wheat, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to the rezone and high density development. He noted the neighbors who opposed the rezone wanted to retain the family-home environment of the area versus the property owners of the peninsula who want to maximize their profit through high density development. He recalled the City Engineer indicated the rezone would create problems with traffic as Paradise Lane was the main access for the development. He noted Paradise Lane was the only remaining section of the old Edmonds Highway, built in the early 1900s and was 16-feet wide, not wide enough for modern traffic. He cited traffic problems as a result of ferry traffic on SR 104, noting WSDOT classified the intersection as a high accident location. He disputed the finding that the proposed rezone would not Packet Page 20 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 18 create additional traffic, commenting the 12-unit Spinnaker and the elderly care home had increased traffic. He requested the Council deny the rezone application due to the adverse impact it would have on the residential neighborhood. Diane Ellis, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed rezone because it was incompatible with the neighborhood, would have a negative impact on property values and would put an undue burden on City resources. As a real estate associate broker, she valued homes in the Edmonds area which included consideration of not only the style and condition of homes but also location, neighborhood, surrounding homes, compatibility of adjacent land uses, privacy, and traffic noise. Changing Mr. LaFon’s property from 5 single family homes nestled in a residential setting to a 12-unit condominium would have a devastating affect on property values as well as residents’ lifestyles and significantly impact the already burdened single lane access road. It would destroy the integrity of the neighborhood and eliminate privacy by towering above single family residences. She envisioned in order for the developer to maximize views, he would build to the maximum building height and face units toward their homes. She cited several Comprehensive Plan policies regarding preservation of residential privacy and protecting residential areas from incompatible land uses, pointing out if the proposed rezone were approved, their privacy would be considerably jeopardized and their property values destabilized. She noted Paradise Lane would be the main access; however, there were no funds in the budget to widen the road or improve sidewalks beyond their frontage. She objected to Mr. LaFon’s attempts to maximize the value of his property by rezoning it, noting no one benefited from the rezone other than Mr. LaFon and Mr. Michel. On behalf of herself, residents who signed the letter in opposition to the rezone and others who were not permitted to voice their opinion at this level, she urged Council to reject the proposed rezone. Diane Nasa, Edmonds, was opposed to the rezone at 546 Paradise Lane. This was the third time a rezone had been requested for this property in the past 14 years. In 2004 a rezone to multi family was requested via a contract rezone for a specific development. That rezone request was denied due to street width and lack of proof by the applicant that the zone provided transition, a decision that was affirmed in Superior Court. This proposal was not a contract rezone and had less proof of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood than the contract rezone. She noted there were two parcels adjacent to this property that were being held for redevelopment; if the Council allowed one multi family development on Paradise Lane, she envisioned those property owners would want the same zoning. She envisioned what was once a street of single family homes would become a row of single family homes with condominiums across the street towering above them. Paradise Lane is a dead-end street with one way in/out and the intersection off SR 104 had been one of the reasons for denial of the contract rezone. She summarized the rezone would eliminate the ambiance of the neighborhood, increase noise and traffic, create more pollution, eliminate privacy, and decrease property values. She anticipated the trees on the City’s right- of-way would be removed to accommodate the widened street and sidewalk. As the trees on the City’s right-of-way could be removed at any time, they should not be considered as a buffer for the single family neighborhood. She urged Council not to rezone the property, retain the RS-6 zoning and consider changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property due to its unique layout. Michael Pena, Edmonds, commented there was too much traffic on Paradise Lane. He recalled in the lawsuit that resulted from the denial of the contract rezone, the judge ruled the City could not compel a developer to widen the street or improve the infrastructure. He noted improvements to Paradise Lane were not included in any of the City’s capital improvement plans; therefore, it was unlikely to be improved. The limited width of Paradise Lane prevented a vehicle from passing a trash truck and he envisioned a scenario where an ambulance would be unable to pass a fire truck. He urged the Council not to make a bad situation worse, citing the numerous times the stop sign at 6th had been knocked down, tire tracks in the vacant lot behind the bank, and the poorly lit, unsafe intersection that would be compounded by more vehicles. He disagreed with the traffic information Mr. Michel cited that a single family unit would produce twice as much traffic as one multi family unit, commenting 12 units whether single family or multi family produced the same amount of traffic. He cited the potential impact to Paradise Lane as a Packet Page 21 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 19 result of construction traffic. He urged Council to deny the proposed rezone and retain the single family zoning. He planned to participate in changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Toni Silicio Prebezac, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed rezone, recalling a similar application to rezone the property was denied by the Planning Board in July 2004 and the City Council in September 2004. The reasons for denying the rezone still exist. She quoted from the Council’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for denying the rezone including pavement width would not meet minimum levels provided in the Table of Street Standards and the applicant failed to meet his required burden of proof and failed to meet rezone criteria set forth in ECDC 20.40.010(C) and is therefore not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She cited several Comprehensive Plan policies regarding protecting residential areas from incompatible land uses, residential privacy, discouraging traffic not directly accessing residents in a neighborhood, protecting property values, and protecting private property from adverse environmental impacts of development. She urged Council to reject the proposed rezone. Mike Prebezac, Edmonds, voiced his opposition to the proposed rezone, commenting his primary concern was traffic. He displayed a map identifying where Paradise Lane dead-ends at a foot path, explaining there was already a great deal of traffic created by the existing homes and condominiums. He noted there was not a dead-end sign where 6th Place intersected with Paradise Lane, therefore, vehicles frequently used this route anticipating a shortcut only to turn around. He described traffic counters that City staff installed after the Planning Board’s public hearing and Mr. Snyder cautioned that information was not contained in the record. Mr. Prebezac summarized another multi family building would dramatically increase traffic. He questioned the decision to designate this property multi family. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed participation by parties of record. Rebuttal Mr. Michel assured the City’s code contained policies to ensure road widths were adequate and to ensure building design was suitable and compatible with the neighborhood. He noted the neighbors would have ample opportunity to participate in the ADB process and submit their concerns to the City’s building department. He reiterated five City departments agreed with the proposed rezone. A third party, a professional traffic engineer determined there would be little impact on the surrounding roads; a SEPA determination determined there would be little impact; and the City’s codes determined there would be little impact. Testimony from the City Engineer at the Planning Board concurred with these determinations. Conversely there was no expert testimony/evidence from the neighbors to support their claims. Since the denial of the contract rezone two years ago, there had been no attempt by the neighbors, Planning Board or City Council to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for these properties; in fact the Planning Board and City Council had both upheld the Comprehensive Plan designation of multi family for the last two years. Mr. Michel argued there was not a better place for a rezone; two adjacent properties had been rezoned, there was a 12 unit condominium across the street, the property was next to a 4-lane highway, it was not a condominium conversion, there was no new single family development occurring on SR 104, this was a dead-end street, and the property had not been developed as single family for 20 years. In the Planning Board’s verbatim transcript (reference page 87) Mr. Bullock said the biggest concern from the public seemed to be traffic but that was the one thing that the judge when reviewing the appeal of the contract rezone indicated was not appropriate to be addressed via the rezone. Mr. Michel concluded all the experts found their proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it met the six criteria for rezone. Packet Page 22 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 20 Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Michel’s comment that there was no language in the ECDC that required existing streets leading to a proposed development be a stated width. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 18.80.010 which states all streets and access easements must be paved to a minimum width of 16 feet unless otherwise provided…” Mayor Haakenson closed the hearing and remanded to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 546 PARADISE LANE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore commented in making a decision on a quasi judicial matter, the Council could not base their decision on emotion or assumptions but must base it on the law and supporting evidence. Given that, she questioned how the Council could deny the rezone. She explained this was not an application for a project; it was a rezone that met all the criteria and fit the Comprehensive Plan to a T. It was a good transition between single family and the ferry lanes and commercial uses on SR 104. It was not incompatible with the neighborhood; it was still homes and was not as big a complex as the multi family home she lived in at Five Corners. At that location, the neighbors were happy the former older houses were redeveloped into something very attractive. She noted that was emotional, which could not be the basis for the Council’s decision. She referred to words used by neighbors such as towering over, devastating us, destroying our lifestyle, noting those were emotional words and although she sympathized with the neighbors, the Council could make their decision based on emotions. Councilmember Moore stated the multi family unit she lived in at Five Corners had had no visible impact on the traffic and in this proposed rezone, she did not find any support for the neighbors’ claims about traffic or road safety. She noted property values may decrease, but that was an assumption not a fact; property values may also increase as they did in Five Corners because the neighborhood looked better. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting it appeared the Comprehensive Plan correctly designated this area as multi family to provide an appropriate buffer between the high travel corridor and residential uses. Transition was important and as long as it was done correctly and well, it benefited nearby residences. He found it appropriate to have affordable residences constructed in the City, commenting if this property were developed under RS-6, the result would be an expensive estate. Councilmember Orvis spoke against the rezone, commenting he was impressed by the Planning Board’s argument; they were very civil and gave all the issues a clear airing before forwarding it on to the City Council. He referred to comments from Planning Board Members Dewhirst, Young and Cox regarding traffic and infrastructure not suitable for higher density, noting although there would be improvements along the property’s frontage, they would not affect the road in its entirety. He found that zoning the property to a higher density would impact the relationship between the area to be rezoned and the existing land uses, would adversely impact the public safety, health and welfare of the area; and was not economically suitable. He summarized the rezone did not meet criteria C, E and F and he would vote against the motion to rezone the property. Councilmember Wambolt spoke in favor of the motion, concurring with the comments made by Councilmember Marin that the Comprehensive Plan designation was correct. He pointed out when the single family homes were built on Paradise Lane, SR 104 did not exist. The price of land in Edmonds did not make it cost effective to develop that property into single family homes. The location adjacent to high volume traffic was more appropriate for multi family development. Council President Dawson advised she was opposed to the motion. She read from the Council’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the previous rezone which was upheld in court, “The Council Packet Page 23 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 21 concludes that the applicant has failed to meet its required burden of proof and has failed to meet rezone criteria set forth in ECDC 20.40.010(C) and is therefore not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Given differences in elevation displayed by the record, and the potential for development of the property to multi family standards at heights greater than buildings on adjacent neighborhood property, the property would not provide a reasonable transition to the adjacent neighborhood. The contract rezone further does not provide assurances regarding bulk, high quality landscaping or the preservation of trees. Without such assurances in the contract rezone, it fails to preserve consistency with or a reasonable transition to the adjacent residential neighborhood.” If a contract rezone that had additional information with regard to the development was denied in 2004 and that was upheld by a court, then a rezone that had no assurances with regard to tree retention, etc. should be denied as well. Council President Dawson pointed out with regard to the burden of proof, even the Planning Board Members who voted in favor of the rezone were uncertain whether it had met each of the criteria, illustrating the applicant had not meet the burden of proof. For that reason as well, she recommended the rezone be denied. Councilmember Olson spoke in support of the motion, noting houses had not been constructed on the property for 20-40 years; it was like saying someone else should own the property to provide a buffer which was not appropriate. She noted there was no suggestion in the applicant’s presentation that all the trees would be removed. She found the application met all the criteria. With regard to the neighbors’ concern about traffic, the traffic engineer acknowledged there would not be a problem. The traffic engineer is a professional and the Council must base their decision on fact rather than emotion. Councilmember Plunkett explained one of the tests for a rezone was whether there had been a significant change in the character of the immediate area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Although he voted against the prior rezone request, he agreed there had been changes recently. The City was recently informed by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) that Edmonds could be required to accept as many as 49,000 - 96,000 people over the next 30 years. PSRC also informed the City that an additional 1.4 million people would be living on Puget Sound in the next 10 years. City policies were changing as a result of the additional requirements on the City to accept growth. This represented sufficient change and he would support the application for the rezone as well as for the other reasons stated. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, PLUNKETT, MOORE, OLSON AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Norma Bruns, Edmonds, commended the Council on their adoption of the ordinance regarding condominium conversion which would at least raise awareness of what was occurring. She asked whether there was a guarantee that the developer would inform tenants about the law. In her experience people would not be aware unless they were told and she recommended a process for ensuring the developer inform tenants. She was glad to hear during the discussion that the Council would consider the issue again after the Legislature considered it. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the City’s ordinance contained every provision currently permitted. He recalled there was a notice requirement and offered to confirm that. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recalled in her ferry tale she described four problems with Edmonds Crossing and some of the fixes. Tonight she would comment on the cost for the fixes. First, the deep water location, for which there was no fix. The consultant, anticipating technical difficulties/challenges because of the depth, estimated the cost of construction would increase by approximately 20%. By adding the cost of the permanent structure to an old budgeted amount, she determined the cost to Packet Page 24 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 22 construct in deep water to be approximately $7.6 million. A floating breakwater would be required to address exposure, the second problem, which would cost approximately $20.9 million not including markups. The second remedy for exposure during high winds was a third slip with overhead loading. There are no calculations available for the slip, she calculated it at $4.5 million and used the cost for overhead loading in Anacortes of $13.9 million. To address distance, when both a double ended shuttle bus and manned carts were rejected due to high labor costs, a horizontal elevator was proposed at a cost of $19 million. The cost to address landslide hazards via a cut and fill was estimated at $11.4 million. She concluded the total was $77.3 million to make a poor site workable, a cost the voters would be asked to approve. When she spoke and wrote about this next year, she planned to point out that the figures were outdated and few descriptions were available because no report had ever been written on the project. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recalled several months ago, 68 residents in his neighborhood met and voted on what they wanted done in their neighborhood. He expressed concern with the implication that the residents were unable to figure out the survey and may have completed it incorrectly. He pointed out for years the Firdale Village has done nothing for their neighborhood. Now the Albertson’s building was vacant and the strip mall across the street was underutilized. He pointed out there were no trees on those sites and the infrastructure already existed. He urged Council to give their neighborhood the common courtesy of at least considering and costing out their ideas for increasing revenue for the City. He commented although the Council may be aware of what was happening downtown, they may not know what was happening in Perrinville, his neighborhood and other neighborhoods throughout the City. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the 2007 and 2008 budget summaries, commenting the 2007 beginning balance in Fund 125 and 126 was $4,996,514, revenue of $1,517,000 and expenditures of $4,508,000, leaving an ending balance of $2 million. The beginning balance is 2008 in Fund 125 and 126 was $2 million, revenue of $1,488,000 and expenditures of $3,388,000, leaving an ending balance of $106,000. He questioned the $4,508,000 expenditure in 2007 and the $3,388,000 expenditure in 2008. Next Mr. Hertrich recalled when he was on the Council, an issue arose where he had to make a decision regarding a roof structure. Several people he knew personally lived in a condominium on the east side of the street and did not like the roof structure. He made his decision based on the facts and those people were very disappointed in him. In his opinion, it was a privilege for a Councilmember to be a judge, to take the facts and make the right decision. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Finance Committee Councilmember Olson reported Municipal Court Judge Fair outlined State requirements for judicial compensation. Committee members voted to have the full Council consider a $1,913 increase in annual pay in order to receive an additional $11,959 in State funding. Next, staff reviewed the third quarter budget report. The Committee also received a briefing on the third quarter budget amendment. This was referred to Council as a consent item. The Committee was then presented with several recommended changes to the Utility Code. After receiving direction from the Committee, staff will prepare a draft ordinance for full Council discussion. The final item was a review of the revised technology initiative RFI. It was agreed to submit this to the Council as a consent item. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed contracting for the Court Security Officer. After a previous Municipal Court Judge recommended eliminating this position due to budget constraints, security has been provided via security agencies that employ Police Officers. The Committee recommended this practice continue for one year in the hope that consideration would be given during contract negotiations for an Edmonds Police Officer to serve in this capacity. Next the Committee reviewed the City’s existing ordinance and found it may offer options related to barking dogs. The Committee will continue to work on this issue. The Committee then discussed enforcement options Packet Page 25 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 23 related to stray cats. Staff recommended reinstating a provision in the ordinance requiring someone who trapped a cat to turn it over to animal control within 24 hours. The Committee recommended the language be reduced to 12 hours and to add language regarding care of the cat. Next the Committee discussed compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 which requires cities adopt levels of service and specific performance standards. The Compliance Plan will be scheduled on the November 28 agenda. Community/Development Services Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee inquired regarding the Planning Board and ADB’s interest in recording and broadcasting their meetings; they were not enthusiastic about that opportunity and no further action was taken. The Committee also discussed temporary signs as a result of a recent 9th District Circuit Court decision that complicated the regulation of signs. City Attorney Zach Lell will review the issue further and return to the Committee for further discussion. The final item the Committee considered was a new site for a public service banner at 212th & 72nd. Staff was directed to pursue the necessary code amendment. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson provided Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto’s report that Edmonds-Woodway High School’s football team was two wins away from the State championship. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Dawson clarified with regard to court security, although Judge Fair presented it to the Public Safety Committee for their input, the decision about who provided court security was the Municipal Court Judge’s responsibility. The Public Safety Committee had gotten involved as the prior Judge did not take an active role in court security. Council President Dawson reported the extended agenda indicated there would be Council deliberation on the downtown zones on December 5. She confirmed with staff that item would be delayed due to the closed record review on Old Mill Town. She suggested the Council’s deliberation occur on either December 12 following Committee meetings or on December 19 as she would be out of town on business on December 5 and it would be best for the full Council to be present for the discussion. Council President Dawson reported the Sno-Isle Library District invited the City to participate on a Capital Facilities Planning Advisory Board. As neither Mayor Haakenson nor she were able to participate, she invited a Councilmember to participate. The first meeting is scheduled for November 29 and a second meeting the week of January 8. Council President Dawson congratulated the Edmonds Woodway High School football team and wished them luck. She was hopeful Edmonds Woodway and Gonzaga Prep would participate in the State championship. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Moore reported on a play she attended at Edmonds Center for the Arts presented by Edmonds Community College, finding it a great, well done play and a stunning facility. There was obviously a pent-up demand for the facility; it was busy all the time as she saw from her home across the street. She complimented PFD members for their effort to develop the facility and staff for their assistance. Councilmember Moore announced Edmonds Community College had two new members of the Board of Trustees, former State Senator Jeannette Wood and Premera Blue Cross Vice President Quentin Powers. Packet Page 26 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 24 Councilmember Moore referred to the Green Seattle and Green Tacoma programs aimed at preserving canopies by removing the undergrowth that prevented the growth of young trees. The Cascade Land Conservancy is seeking another city to participate in that effort. She suggested the Council discuss whether Edmonds wished to participate, and noted it would require a great deal of community effort to remove the undergrowth. Councilmember Moore thanked Roger Hertrich, Don Kreiman and Norma Bruns for speaking tonight. She thanked Mr. Kreiman for addressing the need to increase the City’s revenue, acknowledging the City often focused on cutting costs. She anticipated the focus would continue to be on how to cut costs until the Council and administration began to consider how to generate more income. The forecasts to 2010 showed a decline; residents would see serious service cuts in the future if the City’s income did not increase. She referred to a chart she requested Mr. Clements develop that illustrated sales tax collections from 1999 – 2006 increased approximately $4 - $5 million. She noted the increase in sales tax collection meant the City could hold the line on property taxes or other increases. She urged Council to focus on increasing revenue. She noted the photographs Mr. Kreiman displayed illustrated ways of developing mixed use so that there would be more affordable housing and more retail sales tax. Councilmember Olson agreed the Edmonds Center for the Arts was wonderful, reminding that they were still raising money. She urged the community to continue raising funds for this facility, advising there were many opportunities from purchasing a seat nameplate to naming a room or the facility. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Marin reported he would be speaking before the Regional Transportation Commission in Everett at 5:30 p.m. next week and may be late to the Council meeting. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. Packet Page 27 of 369 AM-739 2.C. Approval of 11/28/06 Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 28, 2006. Previous Council Action Narrative Please refer to the attached draft minutes. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 11-28-06 Draft Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/05/2006 09:58 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/05/2006 10:10 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/05/2006 10:48 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/05/2006 09:56 AM Final Approval Date: 12/05/2006 Packet Page 28 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 28, 2006 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 Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Thomas Tomberg, Fire Chief Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief David Gebert, City Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Inspector Douglas Fair, Municipal Court Judge Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Sr. Exec. Council Assistant 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Haakenson advised Item 3 would be postponed as Executive Director Joseph McIalwain was not able to attend due to the weather. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #92355 THROUGH #92490 FOR NOVEMBER 22, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,118,264.86. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44165 THROUGH #44209 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $839,562.44. C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KIMBERLY CHARBONNEAU (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). D. 2007-2008 FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN. E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR SR. EX. COUNCIL ASSISTANT JANA SPELLMAN. F. AUTHORIZATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1134 TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION FOR 2007 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CDBG CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENTS. Packet Page 29 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 2 G. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION FROM CONSULTANT OR CONSULTANT TEAMS TO ASSIST THE CITY IN UPDATING ITS PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. H. APPROVE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR COURT SECURITY FOR 2007. Note: Consent Agenda Item H. was reconsidered later in the meeting; refer to page 5 of the minutes. I. INCREASE JUDICIAL SALARY TO CONTINUE ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE FUNDS. 3. UPDATE - EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS This item was postponed to a future meeting as the presenter was unable to attend due to inclement weather. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, referred to the proposed BN zoning the Council would be considering next month. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council could hear further testimony as the public hearing had been closed. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained in regard to a legislative action, the Council could consider information provided via public comment as well as conversations with the public, etc. Mr. Shapiro continued stating the trends established by zoning criteria would remain with the City for a substantial amount of time as illustrated by the sloped roofs that were the result of zoning that occurred in the 1980s. He provided photographs of buildings in Wheaton, Illinois which had an urban wall – the building edge that created a level of excitement. He expressed concern with the proposed zoning criteria that would step back upper building floors from the street edge that may dilute the energy of the urban wall. He displayed a photograph of a 35-foot mixed use building in Wheaton whose lower level was comprised of commercial and the upper level residential housing with small stairways to the upper units. He commented this building would not be permitted under the criteria being considered, yet the end result of the building met citizens’ objectives. He displayed photographs of Oak Bay in Victoria, BC, pointing out the urban edge created by buildings and the variety of structures. He pointed out the criteria the Council was considering would result in similarities between structures, creating undesirable monotony and eliminate any opportunity for variety. He displayed photographs of Mill Creek Town Center, commenting the building had variety, an urban edge that created energy as well as open areas adjacent to the street edge. Mike Steer, Edmonds Police Officers Association (EPOA), referred to Consent Agenda Item H, Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace for Court Security for 2007, explaining because there were not enough Edmonds officers to handle overtime demands, the Edmonds Police Officers Association (EPOA) agreed to the City contracting with Puget Sound Executive Services (PSES) which utilizes retired officers, reserve officers, etc. This evolved into the City negotiating for police services directly with Mountlake Terrace which the EPOA made it clear they were not in favor of. He emphasized the Edmonds Police Department was a police service agency; if the City wanted to hire police services, it should be done from within the Police Department and not hire police services outside the City. This discussion began approximately a year ago when the EPOA objected to the Edmonds Chief of Police signing a contract for police services with the Mountlake Terrace Chief of Police. Steve Harbinson, President, Edmonds Police Officers Association, explained he had been working with Judge Fair to resolve this matter, reiterating the EPOA would allow PSES, who currently provides ferry security and court security, to continue. He understood PSES was increasing their rates. However, if the City entered into a contract with the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the EPOA wanted a right of first refusal included in the contract that stated every year on December 1 EPOA would decide whether they wanted the work for that year and if they did not, it would go to Mountlake Terrace for the Packet Page 30 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 3 year. He had agreed to waive EPOA providing the service for 2007; however, if the right of first refusal language was not included in the contract, they planned to file an unfair labor practice against the City. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Steer’s comment that the EPOA made it clear they were not in favor of the contract and asked how and when that position was clarified. Mr. Harbinson explained they met with Judge Fair in his chambers and agreed there was a way to reach resolution where the City could contract with Mountlake Terrace as long as the right of first refusal for the Edmonds Police Officers Association was contained in the contract. This issue has been the subject of emails over the past several months as well as conversation with Judge Fair in which he stated the EPOA would not allow another city agency to contract with the City for police services within the City. Judge Fair informed him a week ago he was recommending the contract without that clause and suggested he speak to the Council. He reiterated his request to Judge Fair to include the right of first refusal and guaranteed a waiver for 2007 and advised Judge Fair that if the statement was not included, an unfair labor practice would be filed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if any of this had been communicated to the Council. Mr. Harbinson responded he advised Councilmember Moore of their conditions 3-4 days ago via telephone. He was unaware the contract was on the Public Safety Committee agenda until after the meeting was held. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that the skateboard park was $114,000 over budget. Next, he referenced Mr. Shapiro’s comments about urban walls and suggested the Council eliminate the urban overhang – balconies and living structures that overhang the public right-of-way at no cost to the developer and no benefit to the City. In an effort to accommodate the building designs Mr. Shapiro displayed, Mr. Hertrich suggested eliminating third stories in downtown Edmonds. He explained building heights would be less of an issue if a third story were not allowed and would result in a better 2- story building. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Hertrich if he would support increasing the building height to 35 feet if buildings were limited to two stories. Mr. Hertrich answered he would in certain instances where the building architecturally benefited the City. Councilmember Plunkett asked the impact of delaying approval of the Interlocal Agreement for court security for 30 days. Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair answered he wanted to give PSES 30 days notification. Not approving the Interlocal Agreement would require the City to use PSES for another month. The practical effect of approving the Interlocal Agreement was a one-year term as was discussed at the Public Safety Committee meeting. The financial ramification would be the court would pay $40 per hour for PSES employees for a month versus $33 for Mountlake Terrace officers. He summarized the total financial ramification would be less than $1000. Councilmember Moore asked why the clause regarding first right of refusal was not included in the Interlocal Agreement. Judge Fair answered, first, although he respected the union’s rights, from a management perspective, he should have control over who he contracts with. Second, it would require reassessing court security each year depending on whether EPOA wanted the contract. Third, if EPOA wanted the contract, his budget for court security would double due to the increased hourly rate for EPOA, from $25,000 per year to $50,000. Fourth, although EPOA identifies court security as police services, he questioned whether court security was a police service. In South District Court, it was not a police service, it was a security agency. In Snohomish County security was provided by Marshalls via a hired security agency. Council President Dawson clarified the Marshalls were currently under the control of Corrections and the security conducting screening was a contract agency although that was in the process of being reviewed to possibly form an executive branch office of Court and Campus Security. Councilmember Moore summarized Judge Fair did not feel it was in violation of the EPOA’s contract. Judge Fair recalled in discussions with the City Attorney, once the court began using PSES, a non-EPOA Packet Page 31 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 4 program, that was when EPOA should have asserted their rights under the bargaining agreement which was not done. For Councilmember Moore, Judge Fair explained PSES was a private company that hired off-duty police officers to work ferry detail and various other security. Councilmember Moore asked what PSES had to do with Mountlake Terrace. Judge Fair explained the EPOA requested PSES hire local officers (Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Mill Creek) because they used the same SnoCom radio frequency. For the past year, the court security position has been provided nearly exclusively by Mountlake Terrace officers. Mountlake Terrace contacted him and offered to provide the service for less money directly to the court rather than contracting via PSES. Councilmember Moore asked why EPOA was not invited to the Public Safety Committee meeting. Judge Fair acknowledged that was an oversight. He contacted EPOA last week when preparing his memo for the consent agenda item. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed Judge Fair, Human Resources Manager Debi Humann and he had been discussing this for approximately 18 months. He offered to review the issue of the City’s obligation as well as the Judge’s control of the court with the Council either via memo or in Executive Session. He agreed the City had an obligation to bargain with the union regarding any removal of bargaining unit work if a timely request was made. Council President Dawson relayed her understanding when discussing this with Judge Fair that this was a matter up to the discretion of the judicial branch and not the legislative or executive branch. She was uncertain why the Interlocal Agreement required Council approval as it was not an issue the Council would have the ability to prevent if the Judge wanted to proceed under JR29 as it was a court matter. Mr. Snyder explained JR29 placed a Judge in control of court personnel. He suggested the contract was on the consent agenda as it represented a financial obligation to the City; therefore, City Council approval of the funding was required. However the decision regarding who to use for court security was made by the Judge. Council President Dawson clarified it was not a legislative branch decision with regard to who the court uses for security. Mr. Snyder agreed. Council President Dawson offered to discuss the issue with Mr. Steer and Mr. Harbinson, observing EPOA was not interested in this work this year. If EPOA wanted to provide the service in the future, she assured the Council would be supportive of EPOA and the Judge reaching an amicable solution. She relayed her understanding that Judge Fair was agreeable to negotiating with EPOA if they were interested in providing court security in the future. Judge Fair assured he was not trying to shut the door on EPOA; this was a one year agreement. He clarified he was unable to contract independently; it must be done via an Interlocal Agreement approved by both Councils and signed by the Mayor. Council President Dawson acknowledged this was a stop gap measure and would save the City money during the time EPOA was not interested in providing the service and would be reexamined annually. Mr. Snyder provided another example of the Council approving labor contracts such as with SEIU bargaining unit which included court employees. While the Judge made hiring and firing decisions, the contract was approved by the Council. Councilmember Orvis pointed out the contract includes a 30-day termination clause. Council President Dawson reiterated her offer to meet with Mr. Steer and Mr. Harbinson. Judge Fair advised the discussions have been very amicable but reached a point where the parties needed to agree to disagree and move forward. Councilmember Plunkett commented most of the Council was not aware of what had transpired. He was surprised the EPOA was required to speak to the Council under public comment and disappointed they had not communicated with the Council sooner. Because there were decisions the Council was not aware of, he recommended reconsidering Consent Agenda Item H. Packet Page 32 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 5 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO RECONSDIER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2H (APPROVE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR COURT SECURITY FOR 2007). Councilmember Plunkett suggested the item be scheduled for Council discussion as soon as possible, providing all parties approximately 30 days to communicate their issues to the Council. Councilmember Marin advised he would vote against the motion, recalling the Public Safety Committee discussed and resolved this issue and forwarded a recommendation to approve a one-year contract with Mountlake Terrace. One of the issues he considered as a member of the Committee was the EPOA was not able to guarantee they could provide court security. This was supported by EPOA agreeing they could not provide the service for 2007. Councilmember Moore was disappointed EPOA was not invited to the Public Safety Committee. She agreed with the proposed 30 days delay to facilitate discussions. Council President Dawson expressed her support for the motion, acknowledging Judge Fair’s comment it was an oversight to not invite EPOA to the Public Safety Committee meeting. She supported delaying approval of the contract to ensure everyone was comfortable before moving forward with the contract. Councilmember Orvis advised he would support the motion. As stated at the Public Safety Committee meeting, he supported a one-year contract to allow the EPOA to consider it again next year. He invited the EPOA to explain to the Committee the difference between Judge Fair’s proposal and the EPOA’s proposal. Council President Dawson suggested voting on the motion to reconsider and depending on what occurred during the next week, scheduling it on the Public Safety Committee agenda. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MOORE, OLSON AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. 5. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 14, 2006 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SKATEBOARD PARK AT CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PRECISION EARTHWORKS. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh recalled on July 5, 2006 the Council authorized staff to purchase skateboard park components for $81,000 and on August 22, 2006 the Council authorized staff to call for bids for the second half of the project – a pad, fencing, drainage, etc. On November 14, 2006, the City reviewed two bids for construction of the skateboard park. The bid tabulation summary was attached to the Council packet as Exhibit 1. The low bid, $231,336 including sales tax, was submitted by Precision Earthworks. The second bid was $271,000. The engineer’s estimate at current material and labor rates was $240,000. Total estimated funds required to award the contract to Precision Earthworks was approximately $257,000 which includes a 10% contingency and 1% for the Arts. The total cost of the project, for components and construction, may be $338,916. He advised this project reflected increasing costs for concrete and steel. He provided several examples to illustrate escalation of other recent City capital projects: • Engineer’s estimate in 2004 for the columbarium was $463,000; final costs will be in excess of $800,000 due to increases in concrete and steel • 2006 capital budget for the Meadowdale beach drainage improvement project was $75,000; total estimated funds required are $105,000 • 2004 estimate for Anderson Center seismic upgrade was $1 million; current estimate is $1.5 million Packet Page 33 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 6 He explained the adopted budget for this project for the previous three budget years has been $200,000 and grant funds secured to date total $24,600. The Skate Park Work Group has a pending $20,000 Nike Community Grant; staff recommends appropriation of an additional $114,362 from the Park Improvement Fund 125 ending cash balance to fund this project. He noted the best case scenario if contingency costs were kept to a minimum and the Nike grant was received, the project cost could be reduced by $30,000 - $40,000. Worst case scenario was an appropriation of $114,362 to complete the project. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the cost was 70% over the original estimate. He acknowledged construction material costs had increased but questioned whether the engineer’s estimate for this project and other projects were accurate. The increase in concrete costs would not account for such substantial increases as in the columbarium. In his experience when the cost of a project was twice the engineer’s estimate, it was a “bait and hook” situation. Mr. McIntosh stated the cost increases were due to increases in labor, energy, steel and concrete. He noted the City only received two bids for the skate park project even after extending the deadline, contacting contractors to invite them to submit a bid and conducting two site visits with contractors; contractors were not interested in bidding on this type of project. City Engineer Dave Gebert commented there were other unique features of this project. When a preliminary budget figure is developed such as was done two years ago, not all the design elements are known and it is sometimes a “very stubby crayon estimate.” As the design proceeded, factors arose that had not previously been considered such as when the soils were evaluated it was discovered to be a very wet, boggy site. Therefore in addition to a concrete slab, 750 cubic yards of material was excavated and replaced with porous drain rock as a base for the slab. A storm detention system had to be installed that had not been anticipated in the initial estimate. He summarized the increase was not only due to increases in costs but also issues that arise that were not considered in the preliminary planning/budgeting stage. Councilmember Moore commented anyone who visited the Civic Playfields knew it was a bog and was surprised that aspect of the design was not considered in the preliminary estimates. She asked to see the cost increases associated with steel and concrete for this project, noting the entire Edmonds Center for the Arts was accomplished within budget and there were substantially more elements in that project than in a skate park. Mr. Gebert advised the engineer’s estimate when the project went to bid was $240,000. The estimate when the budget was prepared in prior years was a preliminary planning figure without design. When the design was developed, the engineer’s estimate was $240,000; the low bid was $230,000. Councilmember Moore acknowledged it was difficult to get contractors to bid on projects in the Puget Sound area; some projects were not receiving any bids. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO PERCISION EARTHWORKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $231,336.27, INCLUDING SALES TAX, FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS SKATEBOARD PARK PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $114,362 FROM THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND 125 ENDING CASH BALANCE TO FUND THIS PROJECT. Councilmember Marin commented in his experience with Sound Transit on large projects, estimates were very preliminary until design was at least at 30%. At the time the original estimate was prepared, there had been no design done for the skate park, it was only a concept. At the time of 30% design and current costs, a more accurate cost estimate was developed. He commented on the scarcity of labor in the market and due to the abundant amounts of work available, contractors often did not bid on smaller projects. He was satisfied the project costs were reasonable. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Finance Committee review the project. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Packet Page 34 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Wambolt commented although there likely was nothing staff could do to lower the cost of the project, he preferred the project had been further along in the design so that a more realistic estimate could have been provided earlier in the process. Councilmember Olson pointed out lot of projects were incurring cost increases; the State legislature would be reviewing highway projects approved in 2005 and possibly not completing some projects because of significant cost increases. She supported awarding the contract as she felt the skate park was a worthwhile project. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore asked when the skateboard park would be completed. Mr. McIntosh advised the contract would be awarded tomorrow and the contractor would begin working on the project as soon as possible. He advised the park must be completed before baseball season began at the end of March. Mayor Haakenson referred to a memo from Community Services Director Stephen Clifton regarding rising costs since construction on the Edmonds Center for the Arts began and how the timing of that project avoided rising costs. 6. DISCUSSION ON NUISANCE REGULATIONS Code Enforcement Inspector Mike Thies explained as part of the code update process, staff was working on rewriting the City’s regulations on nuisance regulations to address common enforcement issues and reduce the amount of interpretation. As part of this process, staff was seeking Council direction regarding nuisance regulations. He displayed photographs of overgrown yards that citizens had inquired about, explaining there was currently little that could be done under the current code. Another issue was plastic tent/canopy buildings which if over 120 square feet, required a building permit. However, a building permit could not be obtained due to snow load and wind. The other option was a conditional use permit but was cost prohibitive. Therefore, for canopies over 120 square feet, property owners were required to dismantle them. He displayed the code regulating temporary buildings, ECDC definitions cited during discussions, and adjacent communities’ policies on plastic tents/canopies which range from 80 square feet to 200 square feet. Mukilteo was the only city that addressed the issue directly and did not allow plastic tents/canopies in residential zones. He advised complaints were usually with regard to the aesthetics of the tent/canopy but enforcement was related to the structure itself. He displayed several photographs of tents/canopies and other outside storage. An associated issue was the use of commercial shipping containers on residential lots and at schools for storage or homeland security. Mr. Thies explained another common enforcement issue was vehicles – the number and where they were parked. He displayed the City’s junk vehicle code which was used to address numerous, non-operable vehicles on a property. However, the issue often arises regarding where recreation vehicles were parked. He displayed several photographs of recreational vehicles parked on residential lots. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained traditionally and typically by ordinance and State statute, nuisance addressed public health issues such as rodent harbors on property, etc. He suggested the Council consider a step outside the traditional nuisance laws that was more performance standards than aesthetic standards. He suggested this approach would require a great deal of public input as it would involve staff in neighborhood disputes at a very basic level such as blue tarps, woodpiles next to the property line, an RV in the backyard, etc. The City had the power to regulate those activities if the Council wished, but if the Council chose to regulate it, there would need to be precise definitions of what would be regulated. Packet Page 35 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 8 Councilmember Wambolt inquired about enforcement, commenting much of the existing code was not enforced due to lack of manpower. Mayor Haakenson explained the reason this was presented to the Council was because staff struggled with how much to enforce and what to enforce. Mr. Thies was attempting to illustrate to Council what things citizens complained about the most. Staff was seeking Council direction regarding the level of enforcement and putting more teeth in the ordinance if the Council wished to increase the level of enforcement. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the photograph of the overgrown blackberry bushes, asking whether the existing code prohibited growth into the public right-of-way. Mr. Thies answered yes if vegetation was blocking vision. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out there were numerous sidewalks that were nearly impassible due to shrubbery. Mr. Thies advised if staff received a complaint that the public right- of-way was blocked, the property owner was asked to remove the vegetation. Mr. Snyder commented it often depended on where the vegetation was growing; if it was on the planting strip, it was the responsibility of Public Works and the City removed it. If it was on private property, the property owner was asked to remove it. Councilmember Moore recalled when this subject was presented to the Council committee, she was concerned about the enforcement aspect. She asked how many complaints the City received a year regarding cars. Mr. Thies estimated of the 600 complaints the City received each year, 35% were in regard to vehicles. He noted a property that generated a complaint usually had a multitude of problems. Councilmember Moore inquired about the impact to staff’s workload if the Council wanted to strengthen the regulations. Mr. Thies answered he currently visited many of the sites that generated complaints to determine whether any enforcement action could be taken. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Thies’ professional opinion about regulating the situations he identified. Mayor Haakenson responded Mr. Thies’ job was to enforce the code the Council created. Mr. Thies answered he simply wanted clarity regarding what was regulated. If the regulations were clear, less explanation would be necessary which made his job easier. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the photograph of overgrown yards and asked what issue staff was asking the Council to address. Mr. Thies explained the citizen next door was fixing up his backyard and the blackberries were encroaching on his yard and impacting the enjoyment of his yard. The code currently did not address the issue of overgrown yards and staff was seeking direction from the Council whether that was an issue the Council wanted to regulate and if so, include language in the code rewrite. Councilmember Plunkett observed there was nothing in the code that addressed a yard with a “naturalist environment” and staff was seeking direction from the Council whether that naturalist environment was offensive. Next, Councilmember Plunkett referred to the photographs of the plastic tents/canopies, asking whether the question was whether to allow them or regulate them in some way. Mr. Thies answered yes, explaining complaints were usually in regard to the aesthetics. In the photograph depicting a plastic canopy, Mr. Thies explained it was a violation because it was located in the setback and was over 120 square feet. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether additional regulation with regard to temporary shelters was necessary. Mr. Thies answered the current regulations were adequate to address them. If the Council did not want to regulate the canopies, they would only need to be outside the setback, etc. At Councilmember Plunkett’s request, Mr. Thies identified issues in several photographs such as the storage of several recreational vehicles on a property; a plastic canopy over the 15-foot height limit for accessory structures, located in the setback and over 120 square feet; and a shipping container in the setback. Councilmember Plunkett noted one person’s eyesore was another person’s property rights. Councilmember Orvis asked how other cities regulated overgrowth. Mr. Thies answered it varied, Mountlake Terrace had a hedge regulation similar to Edmonds, Bellevue required screening of RVs, etc. Packet Page 36 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Moore referred to a question posed by staff: As the Council evaluated plastic tents/canopies and containers, also consider the level of use. For example: ¾ If one is acceptable on a lot, are ten OK? Should the quantity be limited? ¾ If a 200 square foot tent is acceptable, is 800 square feet OK? Should the size be limited? ¾ If a use is considered temporary, is that six months or six years? How would a temporary use be monitored? Monitoring a temporary use is a staffing issue. ¾ Should a building that is unable or not required to obtain a building permit or meet bulk standards be allowed to locate where a building requiring a permit is prohibited? Does it advance substantial government interest? ¾ Complaints on tent/canopy buildings are primarily concerned with aesthetics. The canopy/tent buildings and containers should be evaluated on aesthetic grounds. Councilmember Moore commented a level of regulation that was based on aesthetics was dangerous because something that was ugly to one person may not be to another person. Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Moore, pointing out Edmonds was a city, not a gated community with a homeowners association that enforced strict rules with regard to paint color, landscaping, etc. Although it may be nice to have some degree of landscape regulations, she was uncertain how that could be accomplished for landscaping on someone’s property that did not create a health hazard. She found the current requirement in the code that required tent/canopy buildings to obtain a building permit an appropriate way to address that issue. With regard to multiple vehicles, she envisioned if a property owner was prohibited from parking them on their property, they may park them on the street, creating another issue. She suggested the rewrite provide clarity regarding existing requirements and then address any gaps rather than creating a new level of regulation. She was also concerned that regulating landscaping could result in code enforcement action placed on an elderly or disabled person who was unable to maintain their property. She suggested some situations required property owners to be good neighbors and maintain their property and it was not government’s role to become involved. Councilmember Marin commented of the issues raised by staff, the one that may require additional regulation was the shipping containers which were not really temporary. He wanted to ensure they were not located in the setbacks and possibly not allow them in residential neighborhoods. With regard to Himalayan blackberries and English ivy, two of the most invasive, non-native species in Washington, he noted they were difficult to permanently eradicate. He commented another factor was that some residents, such as he, lived on lots that were larger than they wished to have. Once he eradicated the two non-native species, he planned to plant some of his lot with native species because it was too large for him to maintain. He did not support the City dictating how residents maintained their yards or what they could plant in their yards. Councilmember Plunkett commented he generally agreed with Councilmember Marin, but would be willing to consider any specific language staff proposed to address particularly egregious situations. Councilmember Moore agreed with staff developing regulation for shipping containers to include prohibiting them in setbacks, etc. Councilmember Orvis supported enforcement of tent/canopy buildings located in the setback. With regard to vegetation, he preferred to enforce the existing code. Mayor Haakenson referred to the comment in the agenda memo that regulation of recreational vehicles has been an issue particularly as it relates to number, size and parking location. Unless the Council provided direction otherwise, the code would remain the same. Packet Page 37 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 10 7. SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 COMPLIANCE PLAN Fire Chief Tom Tomberg explained this item addressed implementation of Substitute House Bill 1756 as passed by the 2005 Washington Legislature. The Public Safety Committee reviewed the 1756 Plan methodology and the compliance plan at their September and November meetings and forwarded a recommendation for approval of the resolution adopting the compliance plan. Council approval would, 1) bring the City into compliance with SHB 1756, 2) meet Strategic Plan II, Council Public Safety Statement Objective B, adopted by Council in June 2006 to “establish fire levels of service and staffing that provide proactive responses and comply with State statutes,” and 3) meet Strategic Plan II, Council Public Safety Statement Objective C, to ensure “fire levels of service and staffing become part of the Strategic Plan.” He advised the Council adopted Strategic Plan II, Council Public Safety Statement Objective D, the Fire Department work plan, was approved on tonight’s consent agenda. Assistant Fire Chief Mark Correira explained his presentation would include an overview of SHB 1756 Compliance Plan and the requirements associated with the Plan which included standards of response coverage elements, measurable objectives, and Edmonds Fire Department current response data used to develop the objectives and the risk management component. SHB 1756 was authored and designed by the Washington State Council of Firefighters and the Washington State Fire Chiefs in a joint effort and the compliance plan used to implement the resolution was used as a guide. The basis for SHB 1756 was derived from National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 1710 Standards for Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments. Chapter 35.103 RW requires “code” cities with career Fire Departments to evaluate and report annually to the Council and public it’s levels of service (LOS). He advised Edmonds was a code city and substantially a career Fire Department. He explained LOS was based on two elements – preventing brain death (complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity as established by the American Heart Association which takes approximately 4- 6 minutes to occur) at medical incidents and preventing flashover (defined by NFPA as when the heat in a room causes the simultaneous ignition of all combustibles which takes approximately 5-10 minutes to occur) at fire incidents. The Edmonds Fire Department’s mission is to protect life, property and the environment within the community through education, prevention, emergency response to medical, fire and hazardous materials. Assistant Chief Correira displayed a slide illustrating the elements of cardiac arrest response that were directly manageable (Fire Department response system with regard to dispatch, turnout, response to scene and set-up) and the portion that was not manageable including the time related to detection of an event and report of an incident. He noted SHB 1756 did not require the City evaluate the dispatch component but the EFD was working with the dispatch agency to ensure calls were expedited as quickly as possible. He advised the EFD was working on ways to improve turnout time such as the way firefighters were paged, station design, etc. He reviewed a timeline for survival of a cardiac arrest that showed as time elapsed, the likelihood of survival decreased and brain death occurred at 4-6 minutes. He displayed a similar slide for flashover events – time that was directly manageable and time that was indirectly manageable – and a time line that illustrated elapsed time increased the likelihood of a flashover unless there were automatic sprinklers to contain the fire. SHB 1756 had four sections, 1) policy statements, 2) adopted standards, 3) standards of response coverage and 4) miscellaneous items. He advised policy statements included the Fire Department’s existence, services provided by the Fire Department, basic organizational structure, expected number of Packet Page 38 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 11 employees, and the function employees provide. He reviewed measurable objectives and EFD recommended turnout times for each event as determined using 2005 response data: 1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents – 2:45 minutes 90% of the time 2A. First arriving engine at a fire suppression incident – 6:30 minutes 90% of the time 2B. Deployment of full first alarm to a residential fire – 7:45 minutes 90% of the time 2C. Deployment of a full first alarm to a commercial fire – 9:00 minutes 90% of the time 3. First arriving unit with first responder or higher with an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) at an EMS incident – 5:15 minutes 90% of the time 4. Arrival of an ALS unit with two trained paramedics – 6:45 minutes 90% of the time 5A1. Arrival of first arriving unit with a Hazmat Operations trained person – 6:30 minutes 5A2. Arrival of first arriving unit with Hazmat Technician trained person – 12:00 minutes 5B1. Arrival of first arriving unit with a Technical Rescue Operations trained person – 6:30 minutes 5B2. Arrival of first arriving unit with a Technical Rescue Technician trained person – 12:00 minutes 6. First arriving unit at a marine incident – 6:30 minutes With regard to standards of coverage, he explained each jurisdiction, in order to measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operation before critical events of brain death and flashover occur, shall establish response time objectives and compare their actual results on an annual basis against the established objectives. The miscellaneous section requires the Fire Department publish an annual compliance report for the City Council and public beginning in 2007. The annual compliance report must illustrate compliance with policy statements, adopted standards, annual comparison of adopted standards, definition of why the standards were not being met and explain the predictable consequences of any deficiencies that may occur. With regard to risk management, Assistant Chief Correira explained the Public Duty Doctrine shielded cities from negligent claims when levels of service have been established and not met on specific incidents. The City has a duty to respond to the public in general and not to individuals or a particular class of person. He requested the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the performance policy, standards and objectives outlined in SHB 1756 as Edmonds Fire Department Emergency Resource Deployment and Response Time Objectives. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed standards could be met with existing personnel. Assistant Chief Correira answered yes, explaining the 2005 data was used to establish the turnout times. He explained for residential and commercial responses, the City relied not only on its own Fire Department but also Lynnwood and Fire District 1 to augment services and the Edmonds Fire Department also augmented services for events in Lynnwood and Fire District 1. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much better the proposed response time goals were than what was currently achieved. Assistant Chief Correira answered it was close to what was being provided now. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this required four personnel on one apparatus. Assistant Chief Correira answered it did not. Fire Chief Tomberg advised there were currently a minimum of 12 firefighter-EMTs and firefighters-paramedics on duty each day who responded to an average of 13.9 calls per day. He noted the response times reflected the automatic aid agreement with Lynnwood and Fire District 1. However, as call volumes increased, there may be a need for additional personnel. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed turnout times would improve mutual aid. Fire Chief Tomberg answered there were two types of mutual aid; mutual aid whereby fire personnel got into a fix and called another agency for assistance and automatic aid whereby an adjacent agency responded Packet Page 39 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 12 when the jurisdiction’s personnel were unavailable or as alarms increased. He noted the mutual/automatic aid agreement was currently amicably provided at no charge as long as it remained in a rough balance. He recalled the 2005 annual report identified the amount of assistance Edmonds provided to Lynnwood and District 1 and how much assistance they gave Edmonds. It was currently roughly equal. He noted the point may come in the future for example as Lynnwood continued to annex and their call volume increased, when the amount of assistance was out of balance. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the mutual aid the City experienced in the past 5-10 years was the same as was experienced today. Fire Chief Tomberg answered until 2000 it was on a handshake agreement; an Interlocal Agreement was adopted in 2000. For Councilmember Plunkett, Fire Chief Tomberg advised the Fire Department would strive to improve response times. Councilmember Orvis referred to objective 3, recalling prior to SHB 1756, the standard was a 4 minute response 80% of the time for arrival of the first unit and an 8 minute standard for arrival of the ALS unit. Referring to the graph, he observed the 80% standard would be approximately 4 minutes 15 seconds. Also according to the graph, the ALS unit was arriving well ahead of the previous 8 minute standard. Chief Tomberg agreed, recalling the Council adopted the standard Councilmember Orvis was referring to in approximately May 1998 – BLS would arrive on scene within 4 minutes 80% of the time and ALS would arrive on scene within 8 minutes 80% of the time. However, SHB 1756 required a 90% fractal. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1133 ADOPTING THE PERFORMANCE POLICY STANDARDS AND OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 AS EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY RESPONSE DEPLOYMENT AND RESPONSE TIME OBJECTIVES. Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation for the diligence and scrutiny that had gone into this and looked forward to ways to increase response time. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson congratulated City Clerk Sandy Chase on the birth of her first grandchild on Thanksgiving Day and on the engagement of her other son the same weekend. 9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Council President Dawson reviewed the meeting schedule for the remainder of the year, advising there were several items scheduled for December 12 following committee meetings including the public hearing on water rates, Old Mill Town and continued deliberation on the downtown business zone. She advised the continued deliberation needed to be concluded prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update or any action would be delayed another year. As there were currently no items scheduled on the December 5 agenda, she suggested the meeting could be cancelled. She advised there was a housekeeping matter tentatively scheduled for December 19, adoption of ordinances to update the Comprehensive Plan. She requested Councilmembers advise whether they were able to meet on December 19 to adopt the Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Moore advised she would be out of town for ten days beginning December 16. She offered to participate on December 19 via telephone. Councilmember Wambolt suggested scheduling committee meetings on December 5. Council President Dawson agreed that would be appropriate unless there were staff issues associated with items to be presented. Packet Page 40 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 13 Councilmember Wambolt reported on Port Commission meetings held on November 11 and 27. The Commission approved increasing their levy from $300,000 in 2006 to $350,000 in 2007, an amount below what the Port levied in the 1990s. The Commission also approved their 2007 operating budget. He provided an update on the Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee, recalling when the Council created this committee at their February 2006 retreat, the Port had recently completed the acquisition of the Harbor Square properties and it was deemed an appropriate project for economic development. He met with Commissioner Faires to discuss the opportunity and with the endorsement of the City Council and the Port Commission, the committee was formed to include in addition to Commissioner Faires and himself, Development Services Director Duane Bowman, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Port Commissioner Jim Orvis and Port Executive Director Chris Keuss; Mayor Haakenson also participated in some meetings. The committee held seven meetings between May and October. The Council and Port Commission also held two joint meetings during regularly scheduled Council meetings. Al Dykes, the owner of the old Safeway property, participated in a couple of committee meetings as well as attended the two joint meetings in Council Chambers. Mr. Dykes informed the committee he was anxious to redevelop his property and although he was not willing to wait forever, he was willing to give the City and Port a year to develop a plan. At the September 26 committee meeting, a near-term work plan was developed and unanimously concluded that the process involving any redevelopment of Harbor Square and waterfront areas must include considerable participation by the public. Prior to any public hearings, it was agreed there needed to be drawings prepared of building heights along the waterfront which staff indicated would require outside assistance. Staff offered to provide an estimate of the cost by mid-November to allow approval for the cost to be sought from the Council and Port. The drawings could then be prepared and public hearings scheduled for January. On November 2, Commissioner Faires received a call from Mr. Dykes informing him he was no longer willing to give the City and Port one year and planned to convene a meeting with the other waterfront property owners to develop their own plan. Commissioner Faires, unable to reach Councilmember Wambolt, informed Mayor Haakenson of Mr. Dykes’ plan. Mayor Haakenson then sent Councilmember Wambolt an email describing what occurred and stating, “at this point my staff is no longer involved nor is the committee. When Mr. Dykes has something to bring to the committee we will reconvene.” Councilmember Wambolt pointed out because the City Council formed the committee, it was improper for Mayor Haakenson to attempt to deactivate the committee. Although he had the right to withdraw his staff, it should not have been done unilaterally without consulting with the committee. As the public would have a say into redevelopment on the waterfront; it would be preferable to collect the public’s input now and proceed as expeditiously as possible. He was awaiting the Port agreement to proceed with committee meetings in parallel with meetings the Port was holding with property owners. When that agreement was reached, he planned to seek Mayor Haakenson’s approval to use staff again. Councilmember Marin reported he participated on the Health District selection committee that identified and selected the new District’s new Health Officer. He explained a national search was conducted, four candidates were interviewed and the best selected. He advised the Health District’s new Strategic Plan and new Health Officer positioned the Health District to do even more good work in the community. Councilmember Olson reported an update was provided to the SeaShore forum on the three options for the 520 bridge. She advised Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon was on the agenda for the November 30 South Snohomish Cities to discuss RTID. She commended the Chamber of Commerce for the great job they did at the tree lighting ceremony Saturday evening and Chief Stern who was the MC. Councilmember Moore asked Mayor Haakenson to explain why staff was pulled from the Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee. Mayor Haakenson preferred to discuss the matter with Councilmember Packet Page 41 of 369 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 28, 2006 Page 14 Wambolt. Councilmember Moore emphasized the critical need for the City to stay involved in the process including staff. She urged the Council to consider reconvening with the Port as well as gathering public input. Mayor Haakenson advised a column in this week’s Enterprise would address this topic. He explained staff was very frustrated after the joint meeting with the Port as were the Port Commissioners and Mr. Dykes. There was a general concern that the City Council was not interested in discussing economic development and were only interested in height limits. That was why Mr. Dykes removed himself from the process and why Port Commissioners were tiptoeing around Mr. Dykes. He summarized staff had better things to do than attend meetings where height was the issue rather than economic development. He assured City staff would be involved when the time was right and staff had met with Councilmember Wambolt. He agreed the redevelopment of Harbor Square and Mr. Dykes’ property was the most important development that would occur in the City. Councilmember Moore recommended the Council agree to get involved. She disagreed the issue was heights and did not recall that heights were an issue at the joint meeting with the Port. Councilmember Plunkett asked Councilmember Wambolt whether the Port Commissioners left the joint meeting with the feeling the Council was only concerned about heights. He recalled all Councilmembers expressed interest in the possibilities associated with redevelopment of Harbor Square and the predominant discussion was about options, possibilities and moving forward. He pointed out Councilmembers identifying issues did not diminish the Council’s interest in moving forward. If the Port Commission felt the Council did not want to move forward because of issues with height, he requested Councilmember Wambolt convey to the Commission the Council’s strong interest in moving forward. Councilmember Wambolt answered there was one Commissioner who felt the Council’s issue was heights; however, the committee had met since then and developed a short term plan. He advised Mayor Haakenson that staff had not met with him since they were pulled from assisting the committee. Councilmember Moore suggested Councilmember Wambolt meet with Mr. Dykes to convey the Council’s strong desire to move forward. Councilmember Wambolt advised Mr. Dykes was proceeding and had met with the property owners. Mayor Haakenson advised Commissioner Faires informed him the Port was taking matters into their own hands, the committee was not going to meet, that he did not want the city to be involved and that he planned to meet with Mr. Dykes. Mayor Haakenson offered to discuss the matter with Commissioner Faires and Councilmember Wambolt. He assured staff would be involved. Councilmember Wambolt objected to Mayor Haakenson disbanding a committee that was formed by the Council. Council President Dawson observed with regard to the committee, Mayor Haakenson may have misspoken; the committee could continue to meet and if the Port wished, the Council would meet with the Port. Councilmember Wambolt advised the Port would not meet unless City staff was present. Mayor Haakenson suggested Commissioner Faires, Councilmember Wambolt and he meet to discuss this issue. Councilmember Marin reported although it was unfortunate both the Edmonds-Woodway and Gonzaga Prep football teams were not victorious this weekend, he would be rooting for his alma mater this weekend, Oak Harbor High School. 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Packet Page 42 of 369 AM-754 2.D. Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Debbie Karber, Administrative Services Submitted For:Dan Clements Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Approval of claim checks #92491 through #92652 for November 30, 2006, in the amount of $514,720.49, and #92653 through #92830 for December 7, 2006, in the amount of $433,413.74. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #44242 through #44290 for the period of November 16 through November 30, 2006, in the amount of $757,903.85. 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. Recommendation Approval of claim checks, payroll checks and direct deposits. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2006 Revenue: Expenditure: 1,706,038.08 Fiscal Impact: Claims 11/30/06: $514,720.49 Claims 12/07/06: $433,413.74 Payroll 11/16-11/30-06: $757,903.85 Attachments Link: Claim Cks 11-30-06 Link: Claim Cks 12-07-06 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 12/07/2006 12:34 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:27 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:37 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 12/07/2006 11:39 AM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 43 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92491 11/30/2006 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC CR17843 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 478.31 INTERPRETER FEECR18034 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 524.21 Total :1,002.52 92492 11/30/2006 068964 ACTION COMMUNICATIONS INC 611253 VHF RADIO MOTOROLA VHF-4 CHANNEL W/BATTERY, 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 688.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.86 Total :756.86 92493 11/30/2006 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS I000021062 ST DEPT-PED CROSSING BUTTONS ST DEPT-PED CROSSING BUTTONS 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 490.50 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 42.18 Total :532.68 92494 11/30/2006 000565 AIR TEC CO 70172 153150 HEAT PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,847.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 162.54 Total :2,009.54 92495 11/30/2006 070348 AIRPURE 12283631 879400 1Page: Packet Page 44 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92495 11/30/2006 (Continued)070348 AIRPURE FILTERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 194.15 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.09 Total :229.24 92496 11/30/2006 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 5825 ENGRAVED PLATE ENGRAVED PLATE W/ ADHESIVE BACKING - 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 8.00 Freight 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 4.05 Sales Tax 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 1.06 Total :13.11 92497 11/30/2006 071014 ANDERSON, ERIN CPE in Ethics Reimb of Class-CPE in Ethics 11/16/06 Reimb of Class-CPE in Ethics 11/16/06 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 115.00 Total :115.00 92498 11/30/2006 060228 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC Raymond/Notary 07 CARLA RAYMOND NOTARY STAMP PACKAGE CARLA RAYMOND NOTARY STAMP PACKAGE 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 96.78 Total :96.78 92499 11/30/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3762002 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 36.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 3.26 Total :39.92 92500 11/30/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3762004 18386001 2Page: Packet Page 45 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92500 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 89.58 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.97 Total :97.55 92501 11/30/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3746503 STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.62 STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.61 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 1.04 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 1.03 FLEET - UNIFORMS512-3751144 FLEET - UNIFORMS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 3Page: Packet Page 46 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92501 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW - MATS512-3751145 PW - MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW - MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER - UNIFORMS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 4Page: Packet Page 47 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92501 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK STORM/STREET -UNIFORMS512-3751146 STORM/STREET -UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET -UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 FLEET -UNIFORMS512-3755933 FLEET -UNIFORMS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 18.27 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.63 5Page: Packet Page 48 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92501 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW - MATS512-3755934 PW - MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW - MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW - MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORMS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 6Page: Packet Page 49 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92501 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS512-3755935 STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 FAC MAINT- UNIFORMS512-3757562 FAC MAINT- UNIFORMS 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 CREDIT/6 PAIRS OF PANTS512-3757581 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 -6.00 BACK CREDIT ON 6 PAIRS OF PANTS 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 -75.00 FLEET - UNIFORMS512-3760644 FLEET - UNIFORMS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 7Page: Packet Page 50 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92501 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PUBLIC WORKS - MATS512-3760645 PUBLIC WORKS - MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PUBLIC WORKS - MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PUBLIC WORKS - MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PUBLIC WORKS - MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PUBLIC WORKS - MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORMS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 PUBLIC WORKS - MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 8Page: Packet Page 51 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92501 11/30/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS512-3760646 STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET - UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 FAC MAINT -UNIFORMS512-3762003 FAC MAINT -UNIFORMS 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Total :225.21 92502 11/30/2006 068379 ARCHITECREATION INC MSC-06-0720 PLAY STRUCTURE ITEM TAN BELT SEAT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 160.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.04 Total :223.04 92503 11/30/2006 071419 ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO MCKENZIE0929 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR MEADOWDALE 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00 Total :200.00 92504 11/30/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 350571 FLEET DIESEL - 167 GAL 9Page: Packet Page 52 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92504 11/30/2006 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM FLEET DIESEL - 167 GAL 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 362.00 WA STATE SVC FEES 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 60.00 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SPILL 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 59.83 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 5.28 Total :487.11 92505 11/30/2006 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.65 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 10.08 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 10.08 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 10.08 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 10.08 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 10.07 Total :53.04 92506 11/30/2006 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 38252 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 10Page: Packet Page 53 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92506 11/30/2006 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #500 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.57 UB Outsourcing area #500 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.57 UB Outsourcing area #500 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 36.67 UB Outsourcing area #500 POSTAGE 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 102.84 UB Outsourcing area #500 POSTAGE 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 102.84 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.19 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.19 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.28 Total :325.15 92507 11/30/2006 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 66197 BRASS PLATE BRASS PLATE & ENGRAVED LETTERS 117.200.640.575.500.310.00 16.73 Freight 117.200.640.575.500.310.00 2.87 Sales Tax 117.200.640.575.500.310.00 1.75 Total :21.35 92508 11/30/2006 070512 BANNER BANK Retainage 16 E1BA.Marshbank Retaiange 16 E1BA.Marshbank Retaiange 16 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 16,466.40 Total :16,466.40 92509 11/30/2006 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 11/2/06 11/2/06 STATEMENT - FINANCE CHARGES FINANCE CHARGE JULY/AUG/SEPT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.24 11Page: Packet Page 54 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92509 11/30/2006 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC INV#536724 EDMONDS PD - GANNON536724 BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.20 INV#549003 EDMONDS PD - FALK549003 GOLD/BLACK SERVICE BARS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.75 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.86 Total :721.00 92510 11/30/2006 002805 BRANCHEAU, NANCY BRANCHEAU7460 HOLIDAY CLAY HOLIDAY CLAY FOR KIDS #7460 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 289.80 Total :289.80 92511 11/30/2006 067391 BRAT WEAR 307733R 307733R EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE Freight 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 12.50 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 1.10 Total :13.60 92512 11/30/2006 002987 BUILDERS HARDWARE AND SUPPLY S2697969.001 PS - ACCESS DOOR PS - ACCESS DOOR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 100.18 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.82 Total :109.00 92513 11/30/2006 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINE7220 DOG OBEDIENCE DOG OBEDIENCE #7220 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 160.00 Total :160.00 12Page: Packet Page 55 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92514 11/30/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 100276 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES HELIUM FOR BIRTHDAY PARTY BALLOONS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 109.26 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 9.72 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIESRN10061034 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 7.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 0.67 Total :127.15 92515 11/30/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY100568 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 8.93 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 0.79 ALS SUPPLIESLY100569 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.59 ALS SUPPLIESLY100570 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.59 MEDICAL SUPPLIESLY100647 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 25.85 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.30 Total :76.77 92516 11/30/2006 003515 CH2M HILL INC 3576788 005715 13Page: Packet Page 56 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92516 11/30/2006 (Continued)003515 CH2M HILL INC C-263 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 7,076.21 Total :7,076.21 92517 11/30/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460499232 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 17 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 192.94 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 17.17 OPS UNIFORMS460499260 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 118.51 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.54 Total :339.16 92518 11/30/2006 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 9/22/06 INV 9/22/06 EDMONDS PD - ROSSI ROOM ROOM SHARE @ ACADEMY 7/11-8/16 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 567.51 Total :567.51 92519 11/30/2006 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 4965 INV#4965 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B OCTOBER 2006 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 3,610.50 Total :3,610.50 92520 11/30/2006 070376 CLSC-SEATTLE ADMIN 0610166080 Principal Obligation Phone System Bond 14Page: Packet Page 57 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92520 11/30/2006 (Continued)070376 CLSC-SEATTLE ADMIN Principal Obligation Phone System Bond 001.000.390.591.730.790.00 9,769.66 Principal Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.652.582.391.790.00 917.97 Principal Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.654.582.391.790.00 2,254.26 Principal Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.655.582.391.790.00 1,361.66 Principal Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.656.582.391.790.00 1,979.22 Interest Obligation Phone System Bond 001.000.390.592.730.830.00 1,686.38 Interest Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.652.592.391.830.00 158.45 Interest Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.654.592.391.830.00 389.12 Interest Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.655.592.391.830.00 235.04 Interest Obligation Phone System Bond 411.000.656.592.391.830.00 341.64 Total :19,093.40 92521 11/30/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630345742425 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES 15Page: Packet Page 58 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92521 11/30/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATIONS FOR:~ 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 240.00 RICH ROMERO - BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TEST 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 110.00 COPYING, FOLDING, ENVELOPES 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 304.92 ENVELOPES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 9.06 ADHESIVE 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 4.29 REC SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 11.41 ASSORTED PLANTS/ FLOWERS 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 474.95 PLANTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 104.45 WRAPPING PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.08 HEKINAN GIFT 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 74.27 BULBS 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 161.35 ASSORTED PAPER 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 15.01 EASEL PADS, ETC. 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 93.52 HAND VAC 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 17.04 Total :1,627.35 92522 11/30/2006 063619 COMPUSA INC 441596139 INV#441596139 ACCT#000150191 EDMONDS PD BOSE COMPANION 3 SPEAKER SYSTEM 001.000.410.521.400.350.00 203.75 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.350.00 18.13 16Page: Packet Page 59 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :221.889252211/30/2006 063619 063619 COMPUSA INC 92523 11/30/2006 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY1130 PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 122.50 Total :122.50 92524 11/30/2006 069157 COOK, CYNDI COOK7443 ADULT HULA CLASSES HULA #7443 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 280.00 HULA #7432 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00 Total :420.00 92525 11/30/2006 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 274455 E6FB.Catch basins for Citywide Storm/ E6FB.Catch basins for Citywide Storm/ 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 986.56 Sales Tax 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 83.86 Total :1,070.42 92526 11/30/2006 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3186153 E5JA.Invite to Bid 2005 Waterline E5JA.Invite to Bid 2005 Waterline 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 231.00 Total :231.00 92527 11/30/2006 070958 DAVIS INOTEK INSTRUMENTS LLC 23000218-01 CALIBRATION CALIBRATION SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 56.93 Total :56.93 92528 11/30/2006 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 678803 INV#678803 CUST#267 EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE RADAR PL22598 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.46 17Page: Packet Page 60 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92528 11/30/2006 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 INV#678903 CUST#267 EDMONDS PD678903 CALIBRATE RADAR PL22583 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.46 Total :162.92 92529 11/30/2006 061860 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 159639 BOILER, PRESSURE VESSEL SECTION LIC BOILER, PRESSURE VESSEL SECTION LIC 001.000.651.519.920.510.00 93.00 Total :93.00 92530 11/30/2006 064640 DMCMA 0601 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR MONICA MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR MONICA 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 25.00 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR RENEE0602 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR RENEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 25.00 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SHERRIE0603 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SHERRIE 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 25.00 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SONJA0604 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SONJA 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 25.00 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SUSAN0605 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SUSAN 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 25.00 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SHARON0606 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR SHARON 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 25.00 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR JOAN0607 MEMBERSHIP TO DMCMA FOR JOAN 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 100.00 Total :250.00 18Page: Packet Page 61 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92531 11/30/2006 007252 DUNN, DIANNE DUNN7138 OIL PAINTING CLASSES OIL PAINTING #7138 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 390.00 OIL PAINTING #7139 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 429.00 Total :819.00 92532 11/30/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 72849 SUPPLIES FILTERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.06 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.61 SUPPLIES72895 TRANSMISSION FLUID 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.78 SUPPLIES72966 PLIERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.60 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.99 SUPPLIES73080 FITTING 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.65 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.15 SUPPLIES73088 LUBE FILTER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.91 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.59 19Page: Packet Page 62 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92532 11/30/2006 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES73117 SPARK PLUGS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.53 SUPPLIES73154 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.15 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.10 SUPPLIES73164 CONNECTORS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.42 Total :100.03 92533 11/30/2006 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E194843-1 Pre-employment screening Pre-employment screening 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 34.00 Total :34.00 92534 11/30/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 53.04 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 112.94 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 124.07 MINI PARK6-00475 MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 164.58 20Page: Packet Page 63 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92534 11/30/2006 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 96.76 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 297.79 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.14 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.36 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 110.96 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.63 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 68.36 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 137.88 WATER BILLING6-04425 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 128.78 SIERRA PARK6-04450 SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 138.09 BALLINGER PARK6-07775 BALLINGER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.31 21Page: Packet Page 64 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92534 11/30/2006 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 273.10 YOST PARK POOL6-08525 YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.58 Total :2,005.37 92535 11/30/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 19.99 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 197.06 LIFT STATION #123-07525 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 57.82 LIFT STATION #153-07709 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 19.99 LIFT STATION #43-09350 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.40 LIFT STATION #103-09800 LIFT STATION #10 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.41 LIFT STATION #93-29875 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 26.84 Total :399.51 92536 11/30/2006 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 021200 ADMIN MAINT 22Page: Packet Page 65 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92536 11/30/2006 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES Copier maint 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 73.68 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 6.56 Total :80.24 92537 11/30/2006 069586 ESPIRITU, KRISTA ESPIRITU7431 HULA FOR KIDS HULA KIDS #7431 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 470.40 Total :470.40 92538 11/30/2006 068164 EVERETT BRAKE SUPPLY 207225 UNIT 647 - AIR WIPER MOTOR UNIT 647 - AIR WIPER MOTOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 710.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 66.00 Total :816.00 92539 11/30/2006 009327 EVERETT ENGINEERING INC 18263 C-161 MACHINE WORK C-161 MACHINE WORK 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 384.75 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 33.09 Total :417.84 92540 11/30/2006 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 1946 FAC - TROUBLESHOOT GYM AREA FAC - TROUBLESHOOT GYM AREA 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 175.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 15.58 Total :190.58 92541 11/30/2006 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC EE-2459 M597 23Page: Packet Page 66 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92541 11/30/2006 (Continued)067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC C-264 CONDUIT INSTALLTION PROJECT 411.000.656.594.380.650.00 3,277.92 Sales Tax 411.000.656.594.380.650.00 291.74 Total :3,569.66 92542 11/30/2006 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELIX7119 WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 718.90 Total :718.90 92543 11/30/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0763784 17983 PIPING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 442.96 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.15 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 39.98 Total :489.09 92544 11/30/2006 009835 FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTL 9422 LEASE FOR CROWN VIC LEASE FOR 2004 CROWN VIC TRAFFIC CAR 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 711.75 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 65.49 MONTHLY LEASE; 5 CROWN VICS9423 UNIT 235,236,237,238,239 Monthly Lease 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 3,358.33 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 308.96 Total :4,444.53 92545 11/30/2006 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 91481 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Dec 06 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 24Page: Packet Page 67 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :300.009254511/30/2006 070271 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 92546 11/30/2006 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 076356 UNIT495 - TIRES & LABOR UNIT495 - TIRES & LABOR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 695.56 SHOP INVENTORY - TIRES P225/60R16 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,142.88 SHOP INVENTORY - TIRES P235/55R17 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 623.52 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 61.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 157.21 Total :2,681.07 92547 11/30/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9229749305 PUMP PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 431.55 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.98 Total :469.53 92548 11/30/2006 069864 GRAPHIC ENTERPRISES INC AR111346 K&E/8036 CONTRACT CHARGES-BLDG DEPT. K&E/8036 CONTRACT CHARGES-BLDG DEPT. 001.000.620.524.100.480.00 155.87 Sales Tax 001.000.620.524.100.480.00 13.87 Total :169.74 92549 11/30/2006 012355 GRCC ROMERO2007 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY CERTIFICATION WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH RENEWAL 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 42.00 Total :42.00 92550 11/30/2006 070095 HALL, RON 2320 RON HALL TRAVEL/HALL 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 556.24 25Page: Packet Page 68 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :556.249255011/30/2006 070095 070095 HALL, RON 92551 11/30/2006 070550 HART-MYLIE, CAROLYN HART-MYLIE1127 PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 92552 11/30/2006 064721 HATZENBUHLER, HAROLD 331 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 181.00 Total :181.00 92553 11/30/2006 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 4217738 E6FB.DI pipe for citywide storm/ PW E6FB.DI pipe for citywide storm/ PW 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 1,553.58 Sales Tax 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 118.07 E6FB.PVC sewer pipe for citywide storm/4241502 E6FB.PVC sewer pipe for citywide storm/ 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 11,014.50 Sales Tax 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 837.10 Total :13,523.25 92554 11/30/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2109910 6035 3225 0095 9949 PAINT SUPPLIES/LEVEL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 56.76 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.99 6035 3225 0095 994966626 METAL TRAY/ROOF PATCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 31.12 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.74 26Page: Packet Page 69 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92554 11/30/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6035 3225 0095 99499039970 PAINT SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 138.99 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.23 Total :246.83 92555 11/30/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71228325 INV#71228325 467070-COMBINED INV EDMONDS COPIER RENTAL 11/13-12/12/06 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 612.95 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 262.76 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 79.95 Total :955.66 92556 11/30/2006 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 603940 FS 17 - RELAY FS 17 - RELAY 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.92 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.24 Total :15.16 92557 11/30/2006 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2512534 MEADOWDALE INTERNET ACCESS MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 20.71 Total :20.71 92558 11/30/2006 064655 INNOVAC S 13830 WADE JAMES - STORM WATER DRAINAGE WADE JAMES - STORM WATER DRAINAGE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,092.60 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 97.24 Total :1,189.84 92559 11/30/2006 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON1106 BASKETBALL MONITOR 27Page: Packet Page 70 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92559 11/30/2006 (Continued)065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL LEAGUE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 192.50 Total :192.50 92560 11/30/2006 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRATION 120306 REGISTRATION FOR PRESIDING JUDGE'S REGISTRATION FOR PRESIDING JUDGE'S 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 150.00 Total :150.00 92561 11/30/2006 015490 K & K CONCRETE PRODUCTS 0024797 WATER/SEWER - PALLETS AND SUPPLIES WATER/SEWER - PALLETS AND SUPPLIES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 75.00 WATER/SEWER - PALLETS AND SUPPLIES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 75.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.68 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.67 Total :163.35 92562 11/30/2006 064400 KOHO, STEPHEN 1458 STEVE KOHO TRAVEL/KOHO 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 73.16 Total :73.16 92563 11/30/2006 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.19 E2DB.Interurban Trail thru 09/30/06 E2DB.Interurban Trail thru 09/30/06 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,049.72 Total :1,049.72 92564 11/30/2006 016600 KROESENS INC 70737 OPS UNIFORMS shoulder patches 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 290.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 25.52 28Page: Packet Page 71 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92564 11/30/2006 (Continued)016600 KROESENS INC OPS UNIFORMS71330 SA coat, pants, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 535.90 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 47.16 OPS UNIFORMS72249 AY striping, maltese crosses, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 48.70 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 4.29 OPS UNIFORMS72456 Flett alterations 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 70.25 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 6.18 Total :1,028.00 92565 11/30/2006 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 683167 CITY UNITS - CAR WASH FEES CITY UNITS - CAR WASH FEES 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 20.00 Total :20.00 92566 11/30/2006 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1008732675 0005178 SIGN 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 107.40 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.34 Total :116.74 92567 11/30/2006 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 116920 UNIT 485F -ALIGNMENT UNIT 485F -ALIGNMENT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 49.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.45 29Page: Packet Page 72 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92567 11/30/2006 (Continued)067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER UNIT 39 - ALIGNMENT116983 UNIT 39 - ALIGNMENT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 74.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 6.67 UNIT 55 - FLAT REPAIR117039 UNIT 55 - FLAT REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 23.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 2.11 UNIT 37 - ALIGNMENT117269 UNIT 37 - ALIGNMENT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 24.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 2.22 UNIT 29 - TIRES117314 UNIT 29 - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 378.68 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.70 UNIT 63 - TIRE117327 UNIT 63 - TIRE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 238.63 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.24 UNIT 475 - DISMOUNT, MOUNT AND BALANCE117328 UNIT 475 - DISMOUNT, MOUNT AND BALANCE 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 100.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 8.90 Total :975.20 92568 11/30/2006 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 12400 2795 30Page: Packet Page 73 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92568 11/30/2006 (Continued)067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC MAINTENANCE HVAC 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 891.64 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 79.36 Total :971.00 92569 11/30/2006 068620 LONG, JULIE LONG1109 REIMBURSEME;NT REIMBURSEMENT FOR WRITERS CONFERENCE 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 342.15 Total :342.15 92570 11/30/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 091653 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 201.46 SUPPLIES091714 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 14.98 SUPPLIES091839 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 170.97 SUPPLIES092070 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 144.75 SUPPLIES092121 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 213.44 Total :745.60 92571 11/30/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092186 Christmas Cards - Mayor's office Christmas Cards - Mayor's office 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 631.85 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 56.23 Total :688.08 31Page: Packet Page 74 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92572 11/30/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092015 Chairs for Conf Table Chairs for Conf Table 001.000.310.514.100.350.00 1,032.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.100.350.00 91.85 Total :1,123.85 92573 11/30/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092144 INV#092144 EDMONDS PD CASE OF BISTRO HOT/COLD CUPS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 89.99 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.01 Total :98.00 92574 11/30/2006 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 543257 SUPPLIES AIR CLEANER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.65 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.13 Total :13.78 92575 11/30/2006 061900 MARC 0315519-IN 00-0902224 HAND CLEANER 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 116.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 16.35 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 11.77 Total :144.12 92576 11/30/2006 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 2790 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 105.00 INTERPRETER FEE2791 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 135.00 32Page: Packet Page 75 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92576 11/30/2006 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE2792 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 45.00 INTERPRETER FEE2793 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.490.01 45.00 INTERPRETER FEE2794 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.490.01 45.00 Total :375.00 92577 11/30/2006 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1BA.Pmt 16 Thru 10/31 - Street/OVWSD Thru 10/31 - Street/OVWSD 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 300,924.35 Thru 10/31 - Water 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 360.12 Thru 10/31 - Storm 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 11,260.65 Thru 10/31 - Sewer 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 810.05 Total :313,355.17 92578 11/30/2006 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC 508 PARTIAL REFUND OF HYDRANT DEPOSIT PARTIAL REFUND OF HYDRANT DEPOSIT 411.000.000.245.110.000.00 433.22 Total :433.22 92579 11/30/2006 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0066993 RAIN GEAR HOODED JACKET, OVERALLS, BOOTS, INSOLES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 109.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 9.74 Total :119.24 92580 11/30/2006 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 53914498 123106800 33Page: Packet Page 76 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92580 11/30/2006 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 72.72 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.54 Total :78.26 92581 11/30/2006 062926 METAL SHORTS INC 36767 002439 ALUMINUM 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 132.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.91 Total :159.66 92582 11/30/2006 063773 MICROFLEX 00016675 Tax Audit Program Tax Audit Program 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 266.71 Total :266.71 92583 11/30/2006 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 36313 SUPPLIES COUPLERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.60 SUPPLIES36403 OIL CAP FOR CHAIN SAW 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.30 Total :19.90 92584 11/30/2006 071123 MOORS, JAMES 2467 JAMES MOORS TRAVEL/MOORS 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 120.90 Total :120.90 92585 11/30/2006 022009 MOTOROLA INC 76053955 OPS COMMUNICATIONS 34Page: Packet Page 77 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92585 11/30/2006 (Continued)022009 MOTOROLA INC repair 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 326.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 29.01 Total :355.01 92586 11/30/2006 070228 MR&D INC 2006-17 Visa Class M Waters & R Danninger Visa Class M Waters & R Danninger 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 1,799.90 Total :1,799.90 92587 11/30/2006 069874 NATURE WATCH 10455A DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES:~ 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 43.85 Freight 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 9.00 Total :52.85 92588 11/30/2006 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB7149 MINI ME FUN FACTORY MINI ME FUN FACTORY #7149 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 441.00 Total :441.00 92589 11/30/2006 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-025 INV#832127721-025 EDMONDS PD CELL PHONE SERVICE 11/18-12/17/06 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,623.17 Total :1,623.17 92590 11/30/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1101549.001 2091 C-161 PLUG 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 386.43 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 33.23 Total :419.66 92591 11/30/2006 025140 NORTH PARK HEATING INC 17409 FS 16 - CONDENSATE TRAPS 35Page: Packet Page 78 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92591 11/30/2006 (Continued)025140 NORTH PARK HEATING INC FS 16 - CONDENSATE TRAPS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 510.32 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.91 Total :555.23 92592 11/30/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0361211 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 716.33 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0362339 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0362340 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0363760 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 166.81 Total :1,073.86 92593 11/30/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0366485 TRAINING SUPPLIES honey bucket rental 001.000.510.522.400.450.00 140.00 Total :140.00 92594 11/30/2006 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 438 PLANNING B0ARD MINUTES 11/8/06 MEETING. PLANNING B0ARD MINUTES 11/8/06 MEETING. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 255.00 Total :255.00 92595 11/30/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 550786 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 107.12 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 9.43 36Page: Packet Page 79 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :116.559259511/30/2006 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 92596 11/30/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 549523 Card file, pens, letter openers, toner, Card file, pens, letter openers, toner, 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 220.29 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 19.39 Total :239.68 92597 11/30/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 553532 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 39.76 Service Charge 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1.00 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 3.50 Total :44.26 92598 11/30/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 465876 FLEET - PRINTER CARTRIDGES FLEET - PRINTER CARTRIDGES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 99.80 PW - ADMIN SUPPLIES 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 13.79 SEWER - PRINTER CARTRIDGES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 30.61 King County Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.78 King County Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.21 King County Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.70 Total :156.89 92599 11/30/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 529831 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - D.S. DEPT. 37Page: Packet Page 80 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92599 11/30/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - D.S. DEPT. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 140.65 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 12.37 Total :153.02 92600 11/30/2006 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 5146675-00 UNIT 475 - VALVES UNIT 475 - VALVES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 137.26 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.91 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.84 UNIT 474 - FUEL SYSTEM REPAIR6210440-00 UNIT 474 - FUEL SYSTEM REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 458.98 UNIT 474 - VALVES ~6210624-00 UNIT 474 - VALVES ~ 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 113.80 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.02 Total :740.81 92601 11/30/2006 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 40070 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 93.50 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.06 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.15 STORM - DUMP FEES40077 STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 38Page: Packet Page 81 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92601 11/30/2006 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS STORM - DUMP FEES40237 STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 STORM - DUMP FEES40247 STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.30 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.17 STORM -DUMP FEES40261 STORM -DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 88.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1.06 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.07 STORM DUMP FEES40264 STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SRCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.30 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.17 STORM - DUMP FEES40277 STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 55.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.99 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.07 39Page: Packet Page 82 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92601 11/30/2006 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS STORM - DUMP FEES40283 STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.30 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.17 STORM - DUMP FEES40303 STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.30 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.17 Total :1,018.78 92602 11/30/2006 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9307409 ADMIN LEASE Copier lease 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20 Total :149.26 92603 11/30/2006 070148 PARKING ZONE 32954I INV#32945I EDMONDS PD CASE OF YELLOW RAILROAD CHALK 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 30.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 11.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 3.24 Total :44.24 92604 11/30/2006 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 024108 DC LOBBYIST FOR OCTOBER 2006 DC Lobbyist services for October 2006 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00 40Page: Packet Page 83 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :4,000.009260411/30/2006 070931 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 92605 11/30/2006 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7389 STRETCH & SCULPT STRETCH & SCULPT #7389 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 280.00 Total :280.00 92606 11/30/2006 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 26009-00007 E5AB.SR99 Study thru10/29/06 E5AB.SR99 Study thru10/29/06 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 5,392.60 Total :5,392.60 92607 11/30/2006 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 0144152 2196 OVER LOAD 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 67.15 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.98 Total :73.13 92608 11/30/2006 026695 PNBOA 366-2404 BASKETBALL OFFICIATING MEN'S BASKETBALL OFFICIATING 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,087.50 Total :1,087.50 92609 11/30/2006 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20072510 2007 ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE 2007 ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE 511.000.657.548.680.510.00 110.00 Total :110.00 92610 11/30/2006 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 305.47 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 343.99 41Page: Packet Page 84 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92610 11/30/2006 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY LIFT STATION #71916766007 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 53.53 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 636.39 Public Works2776365005 Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 40.94 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 155.59 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 155.59 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 155.59 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 155.59 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 155.58 LIFT STATION #132986629000 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 79.58 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 390.47 FLEET5903085008 Fleet 7110 210th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 429.13 PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008 PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,034.66 ANDERSON CENTER6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,146.65 42Page: Packet Page 85 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92610 11/30/2006 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY LIFT STATION #88851908007 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.64 FIRE STATION #209919661109 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 425.61 Total :8,719.00 92611 11/30/2006 065579 QUIKSIGN 54845 SALMON BAY/CU-06-132 SIGN INSTALLATION. SALMON BAY/CU-06-132 SIGN INSTALLATION. 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 136.40 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 12.00 RITTER/S-06-44 SIGN INSTALLATION.54868 RITTER/S-06-44 SIGN INSTALLATION. 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 156.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 13.73 Total :318.13 92612 11/30/2006 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0611059 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 19,734.67 Total :19,734.67 92613 11/30/2006 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC 10563 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FEES - ~ 810 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FEES - ~ 810 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 342.00 Total :342.00 92614 11/30/2006 037720 SCUCC DUES 2007 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS 43Page: Packet Page 86 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92614 11/30/2006 (Continued)037720 SCUCC MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 19.80 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 19.80 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 20.40 Total :60.00 92615 11/30/2006 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 111364 TRAINING SUPPLIES Bitrex test solution 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 19.77 Freight 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 5.48 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 2.22 OPS SUPPLIES111365 Gated wye handle 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 26.88 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 5.48 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.85 Total :62.68 92616 11/30/2006 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 187460 INV#187460 EDMONDS PD 352JNK TOW SEIZED VEHICLE TO AUCTION 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 155.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 13.79 Total :168.79 92617 11/30/2006 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0053034-IN INV#0053034-IN CUST#4250233 EDMONDS PD 44Page: Packet Page 87 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92617 11/30/2006 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM HIDEAWAY STROBE 001.000.410.521.260.350.00 140.00 COMPACT SPEAKER 001.000.410.521.260.350.00 142.20 BRACKETS 001.000.410.521.260.350.00 36.00 PARK KILL 001.000.410.521.260.350.00 37.50 Total :355.70 92618 11/30/2006 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC 15542 INV#15542 ACCT#276 EDMONDS PD - SUTTON ACADEMY ROOM 11/12-11/16 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 249.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.00 INV#15546 ACCT#276 EDMONDS PD - SUTTON15546 ROOM FOR ACADEMY 11/19-11/21 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 149.97 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.60 Total :449.52 92619 11/30/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2460018753 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.57 PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS3280017173 PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 108.28 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER3430013627 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 420.15 PARK GAZEBO3660016779 PARK GAZEBO 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74 45Page: Packet Page 88 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92619 11/30/2006 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 PLAYFIELD LIGHTS3690017839 PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 465.98 CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED5030011778 CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 74.59 Total :1,147.31 92620 11/30/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2330012283 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.28 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE2440024129 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 143.18 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER2670022181 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,729.11 SIGNAL LIGHT3710011507 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.95 LIFT STATION #123850011440 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 364.18 LIFT STATION #154070022027 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.77 LIFT STATION #114130026596 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.02 SIGNAL LIGHT4210013902 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.25 STREET LIGHT4320012174 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 498.01 46Page: Packet Page 89 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92620 11/30/2006 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LOG CABIN5500019350 LOG CABIN 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 242.02 Total :5,165.77 92621 11/30/2006 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC I111706-2 SEAVIEW AND YOST PARK TELEMETRY SEAVIEW AND YOST PARK TELEMETRY 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 659.58 Total :659.58 92622 11/30/2006 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587 OCT-06 DISPOSAL SERVICES DISPOSAL SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 576.16 Total :576.16 92623 11/30/2006 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 61917 Glasby thru 11/11-Street/OVWSD Glasby thru 11/11-Street/OVWSD 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 1,141.65 Glasby thru 11/11-Water 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 23.70 Glasby thru 11/11-Storm 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 132.41 Glasby thru 11/11-Sewer 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 7.24 Total :1,305.00 92624 11/30/2006 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO December 2006 DECEMBER 2006 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM December 2006 Standard Insurance 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 18,635.74 Total :18,635.74 92625 11/30/2006 040205 STEER, MICHAEL Repl TC#20818 Replacement of TC Ck #020818 S/l Buy Replacement of TC Ck #020818 S/l Buy 001.000.000.111.100.000.00 105.58 Total :105.58 47Page: Packet Page 90 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92626 11/30/2006 065298 STEVENS HEALTHCARE 7350-5351 121 Flu Shots (2006) 121 Flu Shots (2006) 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 2,178.00 Total :2,178.00 92627 11/30/2006 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 803725 LIBRARY - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES LIBRARY - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.26 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.00 Total :12.26 92628 11/30/2006 040480 STUSSER ELECTRIC 2338-449330 44-26789 FISH TAPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 225.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 20.03 Total :245.03 92629 11/30/2006 067835 T-MOBILE 135840772 CELL PHONE USEAGE PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONES 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 85.36 Total :85.36 92630 11/30/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10464064 SUPPLIES METRIC SET SCREW ASSORTMENT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 63.30 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.01 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.99 Total :73.30 92631 11/30/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1455134 E5JA.Invite to Bid 2005 Waterline E5JA.Invite to Bid 2005 Waterline 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 49.68 48Page: Packet Page 91 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :49.689263111/30/2006 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 92632 11/30/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1453025 Hearing Examiner -RFQ Hearing Examiner -RFQ 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 99.36 Total :99.36 92633 11/30/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1455030 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3610 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 22.08 NEWSPAPER AD1455079 Ordinance 3607 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 22.08 NEWSPAPER ADS1455081 Ordinance 3608 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.12 NEWSPAPER AD1455084 Ordinance 3609 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.84 NEWSPAPER ADS1455132 Ordinance 3606 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.84 NEWSPAPER ADS1455153 Michel Rezone Notice 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 48.30 Total :175.26 92634 11/30/2006 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10015985 PW ADMIN - SUBSCRIPTION PW ADMIN - SUBSCRIPTION 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 141.00 Total :141.00 92635 11/30/2006 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 544965 MUSEUM monthly elevator maint-museum~ 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 150.44 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 13.38 49Page: Packet Page 92 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92635 11/30/2006 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR MONITORING-PS544966 monitoring-PS~ 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 33.25 Total :197.07 92636 11/30/2006 071410 TODD DAVIS AND KAZMER/DAVIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HIGHWAY 99 ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 127.200.640.573.200.410.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 92637 11/30/2006 068249 TRAUTMANN MAHER & ASSOCIATES 10/31/06 MEBT services - 10/06 MEBT services - 10/06 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 215.73 Total :215.73 92638 11/30/2006 070864 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP 440008329334 DIRECTORY LISTINGS-DEC 06 Directory Listings 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 106.75 Total :106.75 92639 11/30/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-1124 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-EMAIL CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-EMAIL 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.35 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 50.66 YOST POOL425-775-2645 YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 66.12 Total :168.13 92640 11/30/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 11/16-12/16/06 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 406.61 Total :406.61 50Page: Packet Page 93 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92641 11/30/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.72 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.72 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 10.38 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 51.88 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.54 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 42.54 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 60.17 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.34 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.43 Total :424.72 92642 11/30/2006 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 92643 11/30/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 470091643-00001 425-238-8846 cell phone-Tod Moles 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 30.92 425-238-5456470103273-00001 cell phone-Mike Johnson 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 29.59 51Page: Packet Page 94 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92643 11/30/2006 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 425-231-2668769986915-01 cell phone-water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 97.84 Total :158.35 92644 11/30/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2091031750 LAPTOP AIR TIME - BLD. DEPT. LAPTOP AIR TIME - BLD. DEPT. 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.04 Total :60.04 92645 11/30/2006 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 28541900 1066294 PIPETT/CAP/INSERT/CONTAINER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 160.44 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 14.28 Total :174.72 92646 11/30/2006 047605 WA ST TREASURER NOTARY 2007 NOTARY STATE LICENSE FEE FOR ~ NOTARY STATE LICENSE FEE FOR ~ 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 30.00 Total :30.00 92647 11/30/2006 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 332 Assisted Living Care - J. Martin Assisted Living Care - J. Martin 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,720.00 Total :3,720.00 92648 11/30/2006 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-5276 STREET DEPT - REMOVE FIR TREE AT 18010 STREET DEPT - REMOVE FIR TREE AT 18010 111.000.653.542.710.410.00 280.00 STREET DEPT - REMOVE PINE TREE AT 730006-5277 STREET DEPT - REMOVE PINE TREE AT 7300 111.000.653.542.710.410.00 250.00 Total :530.00 92649 11/30/2006 068203 WJA PLLC 06.05.01 Varela Retaining Wall Review 52Page: Packet Page 95 of 369 11/30/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 9:31:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92649 11/30/2006 (Continued)068203 WJA PLLC Varela Retaining Wall Review 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 345.00 Total :345.00 92650 11/30/2006 068203 WJA PLLC 0 OLD MILLTOWN ADDITION/REMODEL/PLAN CK OLD MILLTOWN ADDITION/REMODEL/PLAN CK 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 2,070.00 HARBOR SQUARE ATHLETIC DOME1 HARBOR SQUARE ATHLETIC DOME 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 345.00 Total :2,415.00 92651 11/30/2006 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION 2007 2007 PESTICIDE LICENSE RENEWALS 2007 RENEWALS FOR:~ 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 150.00 Total :150.00 92652 11/30/2006 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 205 11/06 PROSECUTION ATTNY RETAINER MONTHLY RETAINER 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00 Total :6,000.00 Bank total :514,720.49162 Vouchers for bank code :front 514,720.49Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report162 53Page: Packet Page 96 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92653 12/5/2006 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Nov 2006 NOVEMBER 2006 DRS 11/2006 DRS contributions 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 191,868.30 Total :191,868.30 92654 12/7/2006 069634 ACCURINT - ACCT 1201641 20061130 INV#20061130 - ACCT #1201641 -EDMONDS REPORTS~ 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 64.25 Total :64.25 92655 12/7/2006 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 06-784 JANITORIAL JANITORIAL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 Total :334.00 92656 12/7/2006 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110424031 UNT 1 - BATTERIES UNT 1 - BATTERIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 247.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.06 SHOP INVENTORY - BATTERIES110424054 SHOP INVENTORY - BATTERIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 202.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.99 UNIT 487 - LIGHTS, SUPPLIES798839 UNIT 487 - LIGHTS, SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.69 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.09 UNIT 17 - TREADLOCKER STICK, LAMPS,799511 UNIT 17 - TREADLOCKER STICK, LAMPS, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.27 1Page: Packet Page 97 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92656 12/7/2006 (Continued)014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE UNIT 115- HEADLAMPS800375 UNIT 115- HEADLAMPS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.80 Total :602.15 92657 12/7/2006 001057 ALMY, DON ALMY1211 VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION @ EDMONDS 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 864.00 Total :864.00 92658 12/7/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3766500 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 36.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 3.26 Total :39.92 92659 12/7/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3766502 512-3766502 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 86.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.67 Total :93.89 92660 12/7/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3765195 FLEET - SHOP TOWELS AND UNIFORMS FLEET - SHOP TOWELS AND UNIFORMS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 2Page: Packet Page 98 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92660 12/7/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW - ADMIN MATS512-3765196 PW - ADMIN MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW - ADMIN MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW - ADMIN MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW - ADMIN MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW - ADMIN MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW - ADMIN MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER DEPT -UNIFORMS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 3Page: Packet Page 99 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92660 12/7/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK STORM/STREET UNIFORMS512-3765197 STORM/STREET UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 FAC MAINT - UNFORMS512-3766501 FAC MAINT - UNFORMS 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Total :105.55 92661 12/7/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 351648 DIESEL INVENTORY - 203.4 GAL DIESEL INVENTORY - 203.4 GAL 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 464.05 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 60.00 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SPILL 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 73.05 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 5.28 Total :602.38 92662 12/7/2006 064343 AT&T 425-771-1124 PARKS MAINT. BLDG PARKS MAINT. BLDG 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 25.89 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY425-771-4741 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 39.12 Total :65.01 4Page: Packet Page 100 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92663 12/7/2006 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 25.63 Total :25.63 92664 12/7/2006 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1106 Background Check Background Check 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 25.00 Total :25.00 92665 12/7/2006 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9307413 Canon 5870 Lease - January 2007 Canon 5870 Lease - January 2007 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35 Canon 5870 Lease - January 2007 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32 Canon 5870 Lease - January 2007 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33 5870 Canon copier - 1/07 supply charge 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01 5870 Canon copier - 1/07 supply charge 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00 5870 Canon copier - 1/07 supply charge 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 24.99 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 11.25 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 11.25 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.25 Total :412.75 92666 12/7/2006 002100 BARNARD, EARL 333 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 140.00 Total :140.00 5Page: Packet Page 101 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92667 12/7/2006 066238 BARNETT IMPLEMENT 1188371 SUPPLIES GAUGE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.99 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.24 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.55 Total :19.78 92668 12/7/2006 071422 BECKSON INDUSTRIAL DI 075958 WATER/SEWER - WATER METER PUMP WATER/SEWER - WATER METER PUMP 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 91.40 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.32 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.32 WATER/SEWER - WATER METER PUMP 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 91.40 Total :195.44 92669 12/7/2006 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS 463 E5GA.L/S 2 & L/S 13 Rehab thru 11/17/06 E5GA.L/S 2 & L/S 13 Rehab thru 11/17/06 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 1,389.44 Total :1,389.44 92670 12/7/2006 071421 BIO CLEAN INC 1984 UNIT 239 - DECONTAMINATION OF HAZARDOUS UNIT 239 - DECONTAMINATION OF HAZARDOUS 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 275.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 24.48 Total :299.48 92671 12/7/2006 068032 BLANCH, ANN BLANCH7352 TAI CHI TAI CHI #7352 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 101.25 Total :101.25 6Page: Packet Page 102 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92672 12/7/2006 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 516411 INV#516411 - R.T. SMITH R.T.SMITH/UNIFORM SHIRTS~ 001.000.410.521.310.240.00 226.35 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.310.240.00 19.92 INV#547379 - EDMONDS PD547379 PATCH BADGES~ 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 250.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 22.00 Total :518.27 92673 12/7/2006 071429 BOGAN, JAMES MICHAEL 4-14450 #3-0610-064 UB REFUND UB Refund #3-0610-064 Lee/Bogan 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 38.77 Total :38.77 92674 12/7/2006 070795 BRACK, JUDY BRACK7198 MARIMBA CLASSES MARIMBA JAM #7198 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 189.00 Total :189.00 92675 12/7/2006 071418 BRIGHAM DISTRIBUTING 15586 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES DISCOVERY PROGRAM BOOK 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 10.00 Freight 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 2.95 Total :12.95 92676 12/7/2006 068152 CADDY, OWEN T 12052006 INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY PANELS SECOND PHASE: INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 92677 12/7/2006 071233 CANYON PARK COURIERS 260753 Prof Serv Bldg 10-26 to 11-25-2006 Prof Serv Bldg 10-26 to 11-25-2006 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 26.90 7Page: Packet Page 103 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :26.909267712/7/2006 071233 071233 CANYON PARK COURIERS 92678 12/7/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 100915 SUPPLIES VISORS, BLADES, GAS RODS,E TC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 232.19 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.67 Total :252.86 92679 12/7/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 100831 SHOP SUPPLIES - CENTRASHIELD 8, ARGON, SHOP SUPPLIES - CENTRASHIELD 8, ARGON, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.07 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.82 Total :156.89 92680 12/7/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY100836 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.59 ALS SUPPLIESRN11061024 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 15.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.34 Total :35.79 92681 12/7/2006 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT7230 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #7230 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 130.20 SATURDAY MORNING OUT #7235 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 70.00 Total :200.20 92682 12/7/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 206-369-4557 CELL PHONE FLEET 8Page: Packet Page 104 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92682 12/7/2006 (Continued)064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS cell phone fleet 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 8.54 Total :8.54 92683 12/7/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 047-45424066 Chave Cell October 2006 Chave Cell October 2006 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 16.71 Total :16.71 92684 12/7/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 4X12032006 ALS COMMUNICATIONS IRIS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 47.48 Total :47.48 92685 12/7/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460503440 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98 OPS UNIFORMS460503441 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 93.92 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.35 UNIFORMS460504490 Stn. 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.47 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.59 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.58 Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.47 9Page: Packet Page 105 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92685 12/7/2006 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION OPS UNIFORMS460504512 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 118.51 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.54 Total :490.13 92686 12/7/2006 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL 8421134 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 256.31 Total :256.31 92687 12/7/2006 070231 CNR INC 10450 12/06 MAINTENANCE 12/06 Maintenance 001.000.390.528.800.480.00 736.67 Sales Tax 001.000.390.528.800.480.00 65.56 Total :802.23 92688 12/7/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1720350 FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - BOWL MOP FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - BOWL MOP 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.32 POWDER FEE LATEX GLOVES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 228.00 FLOOR PADS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.00 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.06 Total :309.88 92689 12/7/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1723796 OPS SUPPLIES 10Page: Packet Page 106 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92689 12/7/2006 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 466.92 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 41.31 Total :510.73 92690 12/7/2006 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA1211 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER @ EDMONDS CC 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 42.00 Total :42.00 92691 12/7/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6300 0170 8272 4715 6300 0170 8272 - EDMONDS GREENMUN/LODGING~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 150.64 FEDEX MAILING~ 001.000.410.521.910.490.00 34.56 GREENMUN/LODGING~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 117.46 ACID GAS FILTERS~ 104.000.410.521.210.350.00 260.60 11Page: Packet Page 107 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92691 12/7/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6300 0170 8298 - BARD4715 6300 0170 8298 CRYSTAL/FLIGHT~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 423.60 LAWLESS REGISTRATION~ 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 435.00 BARD/AMTRAK~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 78.00 BARD/DINNER~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 29.38 BARD/INTERNET ACCESS FEE~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.95 CRYSTAL/REGISTRATION~ 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 435.00 BARD/LODGING~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 134.40 BARD/FUEL~ 001.000.410.521.400.320.00 30.12 #4715 6302 2283 3263 - O'BRIEN4715 6302 2283 3263 PURELL HAND SANITIZER~ 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 54.82 15/MICROFIBER LENS~ 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 45.53 BROWN ENVELOPES~ 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 190.54 Total :2,426.60 92692 12/7/2006 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE p075488 FS 20 - STOVE FRONT PANEL AND DOOR FS 20 - STOVE FRONT PANEL AND DOOR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 91.93 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.18 Total :100.11 92693 12/7/2006 062891 COOK PAGING WA 6515331 ACC # 1126518 12Page: Packet Page 108 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92693 12/7/2006 (Continued)062891 COOK PAGING WA pagers-water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 15.80 group pager-water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.00 pagers-sewer 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 3.95 group pagers-sewer 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 1.00 pagers-streets 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 19.75 pagers-storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 23.70 pagers-facilities 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 23.70 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.70 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 0.50 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.00 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.40 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 2.40 Total :97.90 92694 12/7/2006 069157 COOK, CYNDI COOK7444 HULA CLASSES ADULT HULA #7444 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 52.50 ADULT HULA #7445 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00 Total :472.50 92695 12/7/2006 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 2989771 5374044 CUSTOMER#2989771 5374044 - EDMONDS 13Page: Packet Page 109 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92695 12/7/2006 (Continued)066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS BOTTLED WATER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 72.85 Total :72.85 92696 12/7/2006 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3186328 2007 Arch & Eng Consult Roster Ad 2007 Arch & Eng Consult Roster Ad 001.000.620.532.200.440.00 301.00 E5MC.RFQ Old Woodway Elementary Park3186331 E5MC.RFQ Old Woodway Elementary Park 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 133.00 Total :434.00 92697 12/7/2006 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 678803 INV#678803 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATION~ 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.46 INV#678903 - EDMONDS PD678903 CALIBRATION~ 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.46 Total :162.92 92698 12/7/2006 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC 00153539 INV#00153539 - EDMONDS POLICE 2/DIRECTIONAL POLICE RADAR~ 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 2,598.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 231.22 Total :2,829.22 92699 12/7/2006 071427 DEJONG, LISA LUY 5-03525 #06-1694FC UB REFUND UB Refund #06-1694FC Santa Ana/ Dejong 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 39.46 Total :39.46 14Page: Packet Page 110 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92700 12/7/2006 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2006110131 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for November, 2006 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 295.94 Total :295.94 92701 12/7/2006 071431 DIAZ, LEVY & CASSANDRA 5-15550 #7-0611-027 UB REFUND UB Refund #7-0611-027 Knowles/Diaz 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 56.62 Total :56.62 92702 12/7/2006 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 06-2692 MINUTE TAKING 11/14 & 11/21 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 436.80 MINUTE TAKING06-2695 11/28 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 210.00 Total :646.80 92703 12/7/2006 069342 DOSATRON INTERNATIONAL INC 01056370 SUPPLIES SEALS, VALVES 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 446.97 Freight 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 8.28 SUPPLIES01056390 VALVE 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 5.03 Total :460.28 92704 12/7/2006 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL November 06 11/06 Lobbyist General Government & 11/06 Lobbyist General Government & 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 1,870.00 11/06 Lobbyist for Edmonds Crossing 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 630.00 Total :2,500.00 92705 12/7/2006 007253 DUNN LUMBER 09216514 LUMBER 15Page: Packet Page 111 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92705 12/7/2006 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER LUMBER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.32 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.06 Total :86.38 92706 12/7/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 73418 SUPPLIES UV PROTECTORS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.99 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.33 SUPPLIES73518 JACK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 22.99 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.05 SUPPLIES73551 ADAPTORS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.99 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.98 SUPPLIES73669 OIL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.08 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.23 Total :80.64 92707 12/7/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 72677 UNIT 37 - STRUTS, BEARING PLATES UNIT 37 - STRUTS, BEARING PLATES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 250.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.29 16Page: Packet Page 112 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92707 12/7/2006 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS UNIT 125- FLOOR MATS73258 UNIT 125- FLOOR MATS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.83 UNIT 70 - 1 1/4" SHIELDS VERSAFLEX73635 UNIT 70 - 1 1/4" SHIELDS VERSAFLEX 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.64 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.10 Total :333.11 92708 12/7/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 73666 OPS SUPPLIES Stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 16.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 1.46 Total :17.82 92709 12/7/2006 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 8522 UPS/COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL UPS/COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 45.10 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 4.01 Total :49.11 92710 12/7/2006 008350 EDMONDS PARKS & RECREATION PCASH1206 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 17Page: Packet Page 113 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92710 12/7/2006 (Continued)008350 EDMONDS PARKS & RECREATION SISTER CITY - GLOW STICKS FOR HEKINAN 623.200.210.557.210.310.00 40.98 GYMNASTICS CD'S 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 16.32 APPLES & WATER FOR SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.310.00 6.58 SNACKS/DRINKS FOR AUTUMN SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.310.00 19.78 GYMNASTICS PARTY TABLE COVERING 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 21.71 BATTERIES/SUPPLIES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 9.24 PARKING - SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.430.00 4.00 ICE & WATER - SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.310.00 5.61 BEST BOOK SUPPLIES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.17 COLUMBARIUM DEDICATION SUPPLIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 32.87 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL CRAFT SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 10.69 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 5.97 CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.44 Total :214.36 92711 12/7/2006 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 148392 INV#148392 - EDMONDS PD IMPOUND #6690~ 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 54.00 18Page: Packet Page 114 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92711 12/7/2006 (Continued)008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL INV#148393 - EDMONDS PD148393 IMPOUND #6690~ 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 13.87 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1.23 INV#148494 - EDMONDS PD148494 EUTH CAS #6570~ 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 20.80 INV#148652 - EDMONDS PD148652 IMPOUND #6635~ 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 15.60 Total :105.50 92712 12/7/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565 WATER 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.41 Total :23.41 92713 12/7/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 37.63 WWTP WATER6-01130 WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 11.42 WWTP WATER6-01140 WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 408.02 Total :457.07 92714 12/7/2006 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES ENGLAND7325 SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSES 19Page: Packet Page 115 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92714 12/7/2006 (Continued)008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES DANCE #7325 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 216.00 DANCE #7323 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 351.00 DANCE #7322 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 189.00 DANCE #7321 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 135.00 Total :891.00 92715 12/7/2006 071425 ESTATE OF LAINE VAILAS 4-03045 #200610098 UB REFUND UB Refund #200610098 Dixon/ Estate of 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 165.56 Total :165.56 92716 12/7/2006 009880 FEDEX 8-005-28072 TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PACKAGE TO CANADA 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 50.13 Total :50.13 92717 12/7/2006 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 334 LEOFF 1 REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 REIMBURSEMENT 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 306.23 Total :306.23 92718 12/7/2006 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER7350 TAI CHI TAI CHI #7350 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 189.00 TAI CHI #7340 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 378.00 TAI CHI #7346 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 47.25 QIGONG #7361 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 141.75 Total :756.00 20Page: Packet Page 116 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92719 12/7/2006 067476 GROUP FOUR INC 66722 E7JA.2007 Waterline Survey E7JA.2007 Waterline Survey 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 2,400.00 Total :2,400.00 92720 12/7/2006 012560 HACH COMPANY 4940892 112830.-000 LAB SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 188.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 14.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 17.77 Total :219.77 92721 12/7/2006 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 67180 UNIT 133 - BELTS, PULLIES, SUPPLIES UNIT 133 - BELTS, PULLIES, SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 159.14 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.16 Total :173.30 92722 12/7/2006 070550 HART-MYLIE, CAROLYN HART-MYLIE1205 PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 17.50 Total :17.50 92723 12/7/2006 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 4219343 WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCHB-42-010 WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCHB-42-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 283.40 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 21.54 WATER DEPT - LEAK DETECTION AT MAIN ,4328053 WATER DEPT - LEAK DETECTION AT MAIN , 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 300.00 Total :604.94 92724 12/7/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1077239 6035 3225 0267 0205 21Page: Packet Page 117 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92724 12/7/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES TARPS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.94 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.23 60353225026702052114872 PEAT MOSS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.94 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.75 6035 3225 0267 020539760 JB KWIK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.38 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.74 6035 3225 0267 02054076968 TIE DOWNS, WIRE COVERS, DESK LAMPS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 101.92 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.97 6035 3225 0267 02055043120 REDUCER, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.07 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.36 6035 3225 0267 02056043015 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.25 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.25 6035 3225 0267 02058041426 ROLL STAND, RODS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.51 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.51 22Page: Packet Page 118 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92724 12/7/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6035 3225 0267 02058109498 ASSORTED PLANTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 154.86 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.63 6035 3225 0267 02059043738 SAWS, PRUNERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 214.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.89 Total :609.86 92725 12/7/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1077967 6035322501434934 Stns' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 11.95 603532250143493433581 training burn supplies 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 306.21 Total :318.16 92726 12/7/2006 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 015593353 OPS SUPPLIES Stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 441.29 Total :441.29 92727 12/7/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71251230 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE:~ 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 326.70 COPIER LEASE71288543 PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 56.57 Total :383.27 92728 12/7/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71288542 11/22-12/21/06 FINANCE COPIER RENTAL 23Page: Packet Page 119 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92728 12/7/2006 (Continued)070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11/22-12/21/06 Finance Copier Rental 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 10/3-11/03/06 Add'l Meter Charges 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 244.09 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 62.15 Total :760.31 92729 12/7/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71288537 Lease/copies DSD Recep Copier Lease/copies DSD Recep Copier 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 106.03 Lease/copies DSD Lrg copier71288538 Lease/copies DSD Lrg copier 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 1,040.94 Lease/copies Eng Copier 11-22 to71288539 Lease/copies Eng Copier 11-22 to 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 576.11 Total :1,723.08 92730 12/7/2006 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2524223 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 25.00 Total :25.00 92731 12/7/2006 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E6HA.Pmt Final E6HA.Meter A Rehab Final Payment E6HA.Meter A Rehab Final Payment 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 91,432.00 Total :91,432.00 92732 12/7/2006 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE 625031 Econ. Dev. Director, #06-20 Econ. Dev. Director, #06-20 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 122.40 Total :122.40 92733 12/7/2006 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 105723 INV#105723 - EDMONDS PD 24Page: Packet Page 120 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92733 12/7/2006 (Continued)068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC PHQ/NEYMEYER&ZAY 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 24.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.50 Total :25.50 92734 12/7/2006 065056 JOHNSON, TROY TJOHNSON120206 GYM MONITOR ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR~ 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00 Total :36.00 92735 12/7/2006 070255 KAR-GOR INC KI110626 St Dept - Camera Repair Upgrade St Dept - Camera Repair Upgrade 111.000.653.542.640.480.00 500.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.480.00 44.50 Total :544.50 92736 12/7/2006 071430 LASS, MICHAEL & DIANE 2-30980 #3-3394-HBCJ UB REFUND UB Refund #3-3394-HBCJ Beaulieu/Lass 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 114.89 Total :114.89 92737 12/7/2006 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 118416 UNIT 485 - TIRES W/ STUDS UNIT 485 - TIRES W/ STUDS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 551.92 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.12 UNIT 486 - TIRES W/STUDS118436 UNIT 486 - TIRES W/STUDS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 551.92 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.12 Total :1,210.08 92738 12/7/2006 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 507117 UNIT 132 - FUEL FILTER 25Page: Packet Page 121 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92738 12/7/2006 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC UNIT 132 - FUEL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.07 UNIT 474 - TRANS FILTER507400 UNIT 474 - TRANS FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.25 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.27 UNIT 791 - WIPER BLADES507411 UNIT 791 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.52 UNIT 101 - WIPER BLADES507449 UNIT 101 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.14 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.26 UNIT 400 - HAL BULB507625 UNIT 400 - HAL BULB 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.30 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.47 UNIT 400 - HAL BULB507627 UNIT 400 - HAL BULB 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.30 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.47 UNIT 474 - FITTING, SPARK PLUGS507805 UNIT 474 - FITTING, SPARK PLUGS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.31 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.83 26Page: Packet Page 122 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92738 12/7/2006 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC UNIT 474 - FITTINGS507911 UNIT 474 - FITTINGS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.04 UNIT 647 - WIPER BLADES508170 UNIT 647 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 65.12 UNIT 9 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.32 PW GEN #1 - TRANS FILTERS508389 PW GEN #1 - TRANS FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.42 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.19 UNIT 96 - BRK FLUID508555 UNIT 96 - BRK FLUID 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.59 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.48 UNIT 115 - FUEL FILTER508898 UNIT 115 - FUEL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.09 UNIT 476 - FITTING, FLEX TUBING509120 UNIT 476 - FITTING, FLEX TUBING 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 56.74 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.05 Total :404.50 92739 12/7/2006 060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER 16422 INV#16422 - EDMONDS PD 27Page: Packet Page 123 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92739 12/7/2006 (Continued)060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER BONALLO RETIREMENT &~ 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 71.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.40 Total :78.35 92740 12/7/2006 069937 MARINELAB'S 5085 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES:~ 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 43.40 Freight 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 6.95 Total :50.35 92741 12/7/2006 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON7329 BELLY DANCE CLASSES BELLY DANCE #7329 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 372.40 BELLY DANCE #7333 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 98.00 Total :470.40 92742 12/7/2006 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0067068 GEAR JACKET, OVERALLS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 140.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 12.50 Total :153.00 92743 12/7/2006 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 54372027 123106800 CLEANING BRUSH/DRAIN AUGER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 89.65 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 11.78 28Page: Packet Page 124 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92743 12/7/2006 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 123106800054553533 BREATHER VENT FILL CAP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.46 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.50 12310680054555563 FILTERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 48.78 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.82 12310680054665898 PANEL - MOUNT FLOWMETER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 61.45 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.13 12310680054674288 ARBOR & MANDRELS/WHEEL/BLASTING MEDIA 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 52.43 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 24.22 Total :315.22 92744 12/7/2006 069592 METROCALL P0298897K INV#P0298897K - ACCT#298897 - 0/EDMONDS DEPT. PAGERS 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 79.59 Total :79.59 92745 12/7/2006 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 33840 131 SCAFFOLDING RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 918.62 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 60.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 87.10 29Page: Packet Page 125 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,065.729274512/7/2006 020900 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 92746 12/7/2006 023800 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN 3651317Y UNIT 506 - EMERGENCY TESTING UNIT 506 - EMERGENCY TESTING 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 131.40 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.95 Total :139.35 92747 12/7/2006 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0186635-IN WATER/SEWER - COVERALLS WATER/SEWER - COVERALLS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 94.00 WATER/SEWER - COVERALLS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 94.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 5.81 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 5.81 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 8.79 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 8.79 SEWER DEPT - 02 SENSORS0186644-IN SEWER DEPT - 02 SENSORS 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 312.00 H2S SENSOR 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 263.00 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.75 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 51.47 30Page: Packet Page 126 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92747 12/7/2006 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC WATER/SEWER - WATERSHIELD BIB PANTS0186764-IN WATER/SEWER - WATERSHIELD BIB PANTS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 34.80 WATERSHIELD OVERALLS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 77.70 WATERSHIELD BIB PANTS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 34.80 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.89 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 14.01 WATER/SEWER - WATERSHIELD OVERALLS0187357-IN WATER/SEWER - WATERSHIELD OVERALLS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 19.43 WATER/SEWER - WATERSHIELD OVERALLS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 19.42 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 4.90 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 4.89 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 2.15 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 2.14 Total :1,079.55 92748 12/7/2006 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0305428-IN SHOP INVENTORY - FILTERS SHOP INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.000.141.170.000.00 107.58 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.170.000.00 9.25 Total :116.83 92749 12/7/2006 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 419750 UNIT 25 - TOOL BOX, AND MATS 31Page: Packet Page 127 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92749 12/7/2006 (Continued)062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC UNIT 25 - TOOL BOX, AND MATS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 294.64 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.93 Total :320.57 92750 12/7/2006 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB7145 FUN FACTORY CLASSES PAYMENT #2:~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 693.00 PAYMENT 2 OF 2:~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 680.40 Total :1,373.40 92751 12/7/2006 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 323912314-060 IT CELL PHONE SERVICE 10/25-11/24/06 IT Cell Phone Service 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 175.36 Total :175.36 92752 12/7/2006 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 411191318-060 Nextel 10/25 to 11/24/06 Bldg Div Nextel 10/25 to 11/24/06 Bldg Div 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 113.38 Total :113.38 92753 12/7/2006 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 976032312-060 COMMUNICATIONS FC 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 26.47 Operations 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 25.18 Prevention 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 98.55 ALS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 68.43 Total :218.63 92754 12/7/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1144091.001 2091 32Page: Packet Page 128 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92754 12/7/2006 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY WIRE/CABLE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,689.02 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 145.26 2091S1144760.001 C-161 SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 21.36 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1.84 Total :1,857.48 92755 12/7/2006 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0074039 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,012.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 90.11 SODIUM BISULFITE0074305 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,237.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 110.14 Total :2,450.25 92756 12/7/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0371161 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0371162 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0373634 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 89.70 Total :280.42 92757 12/7/2006 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 443 MINUTE TAKING 33Page: Packet Page 129 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92757 12/7/2006 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN 11/30 ADB Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 270.00 Total :270.00 92758 12/7/2006 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 439 HPC minutetaker 11/14/06 HPC minutetaker 11/14/06 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 210.00 Total :210.00 92759 12/7/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 631109 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 32.95 Offices Supplies - HR, MY, CS 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 26.42 Offices Supplies - HR, MY, CS 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 26.41 Offices Supplies - HR, MY, CS 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 26.42 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 5.22 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.32 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.33 Office Supplies - HR688871 Office Supplies - HR 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 51.97 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 4.58 Total :178.62 92760 12/7/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 155007 OFFICE SUPPLIES 34Page: Packet Page 130 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92760 12/7/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC CALCULATOR, 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.64 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.68 OFFICE SUPPLIES165024 CALENDAR 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 15.64 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES165041 PASTEL PAPER, ASST. ENVELOPES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 75.67 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.66 OFFICE SUPPLIES298465 TAPE DISPENSER, INK CARTRIDGES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 50.12 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.41 OFFICE SUPPLIES321438 SORTER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 49.44 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.26 SUPPLIES328219 MASKING TAPE -DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 7.06 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.53 OFFICE SUPPLIES367074 TONER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.08 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.06 35Page: Packet Page 131 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92760 12/7/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES620288 TAPE, PENS, LAMINATING SUPPLIES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 73.07 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES628059 CALENDARS, PLANNERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.47 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.70 Total :450.30 92761 12/7/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 724795 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE DEPT Paper 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 190.20 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 16.73 Total :206.93 92762 12/7/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 601449 520437 MARKERS/PENS/BINDERS/TAPE/INK JET 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 175.60 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 15.45 Total :191.05 92763 12/7/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 627190 INV#627190 - ACCT#520437 - EDMONDS PD 36Page: Packet Page 132 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92763 12/7/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC SCREEN CLEANER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.13 4/POWER DUSTER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 37.16 BOISE PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 298.90 CD SLEEVES 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 21.39 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 30.11 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 1.88 Total :395.57 92764 12/7/2006 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 UTILITY 23700 104TH AVE 2 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 225.29 Total :225.29 92765 12/7/2006 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6211055-00 UNIT 476 - HOSE ASSEMBLY UNIT 476 - HOSE ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.92 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.04 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.12 Total :88.08 92766 12/7/2006 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9307410 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 12.60 Total :157.82 37Page: Packet Page 133 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92767 12/7/2006 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7218 WIGGLES & GIGGLES WIGGLES & GIGGLES #7218 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00 WIGGLES & GIGGLES #7122 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00 Total :840.00 92768 12/7/2006 071426 PEDERSEN, MARK AND BRENDA 5-05225 #7-0610-064 UB REFUND UB Refund #7-0610-064 Devinney-Burns/ 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 190.35 Total :190.35 92769 12/7/2006 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC 41224 SIGNS DOG SIGNS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 98.85 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.93 Total :112.78 92770 12/7/2006 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100-NV06 DM1000 MAILING SYSTEM LEASE DM1000 Mailing System Lease~250-00125 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 792.00 Total :792.00 92771 12/7/2006 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 0224239 2196 CONTACT KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 395.10 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 33.98 Total :429.08 92772 12/7/2006 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 146538 SEWER DEPT - NATIONAL SAFETY POSTAGE SEWER DEPT - NATIONAL SAFETY POSTAGE 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.88 38Page: Packet Page 134 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92772 12/7/2006 (Continued)029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR STREET DEPT- KAR GOR POSTAGE146809 STREET DEPT- KAR GOR POSTAGE 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.33 FLEET - WHELEN POSTAGE147535 FLEET - WHELEN POSTAGE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 12.71 FLEET - SUMNER TRACTOR & SPX SERVICE147643 FLEET - SUMNER TRACTOR & SPX SERVICE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 34.88 WATER/SEWER - DEPT L&I POSTAGE147961 WATER/SEWER - DEPT L&I POSTAGE 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.93 WATER/SEWER - DEPT L&I POSTAGE 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 3.92 PACKAGE BOX 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.43 PACKAGE BOX 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 1.42 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.13 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 0.12 FLEET - WS DARLEY & SPX POSTAGE148056 FLEET - WS DARLEY & SPX POSTAGE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 19.56 39Page: Packet Page 135 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92772 12/7/2006 (Continued)029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE148375 WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.93 WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 3.92 PACKING 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.43 PACKING 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 1.42 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.13 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 0.12 STREET - SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS148528 STREET - SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 9.82 Total :127.08 92773 12/7/2006 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0011888-IN PVC SUIT PVC SUIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 27.96 MIRALAC 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 4.40 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 2.71 Total :35.07 92774 12/7/2006 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 106.10 Total :106.10 92775 12/7/2006 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 245.87 40Page: Packet Page 136 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92775 12/7/2006 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 18.58 Total :264.45 92776 12/7/2006 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 1,646.49 Total :1,646.49 92777 12/7/2006 071428 RH HOOVER HOMES INC 3-00994 #206136067 UB REFUND UB Refund #206136067 Kim/ RH Hoover 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 48.28 Total :48.28 92778 12/7/2006 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9411309680 WATER/SEWER - ASPHALT COLD MIX WATER/SEWER - ASPHALT COLD MIX 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 125.57 WATER/SEWER - ASPHALT COLD MIX 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 125.57 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.80 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.79 STORM - ASPHALT AND CONCRETE DUMP9411488596 STORM - ASPHALT AND CONCRETE DUMP 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 140.90 STREET DEPT - ASPHALT9411499918 STREET DEPT - ASPHALT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 285.39 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 24.15 Total :723.17 92779 12/7/2006 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON120306 GYM MONITOR 41Page: Packet Page 137 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92779 12/7/2006 (Continued)071007 SAWDON, MANDY ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR~ 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 24.00 Total :24.00 92780 12/7/2006 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 755649 REF # 03755649 UNIT 29 - ABSORBERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.20 UNIT 114 - MODULE837746 UNIT 114 - MODULE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 61.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.51 UNIT 96 - CAP, ROTOR, BELT,840018 UNIT 96 - CAP, ROTOR, BELT, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 125.48 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.17 UNIT 119 - SPARK PLUGS, ELEMENT842055 UNIT 119 - SPARK PLUGS, ELEMENT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.76 UNIT 119 - KIT842058 UNIT 119 - KIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.99 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.11 Total :315.14 92781 12/7/2006 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 06-44 UNIT 70 - HYPRO VITON SEAL KIT 42Page: Packet Page 138 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92781 12/7/2006 (Continued)067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO UNIT 70 - HYPRO VITON SEAL KIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.25 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.38 Total :54.13 92782 12/7/2006 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 228122 UNIT 29 - FILTER KIT, FUEL FILTER UNIT 29 - FILTER KIT, FUEL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.96 UNIT 30 - FILTER KITS228336 UNIT 30 - FILTER KITS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.37 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.04 UNIT 96 - SEALS, GASKETS, SENSOR228364 UNIT 96 - SEALS, GASKETS, SENSOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 146.68 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.05 UNIT 96 - CONNECTOR228399 UNIT 96 - CONNECTOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.82 UNIT 96 - SHAFT ASSEMBLY228460 UNIT 96 - SHAFT ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 141.41 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.59 43Page: Packet Page 139 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92782 12/7/2006 (Continued)061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET UNIT 75 - HANDLES228662 UNIT 75 - HANDLES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.19 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.11 UNIT 6 - HANDLES228700 UNIT 6 - HANDLES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.85 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.77 UNIT 96 - MANIFOLD GASKET77626 UNIT 96 - MANIFOLD GASKET 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.64 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.15 Total :593.40 92783 12/7/2006 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 75190 SR CENTER - Geo-Tech/Engineering Study SR CENTER - Geo-Tech/Engineering Study 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 5,260.08 Total :5,260.08 92784 12/7/2006 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1062122 2006 Tax forms 2006 Tax forms 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 263.98 Freight 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 17.41 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 24.76 Total :306.15 92785 12/7/2006 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 238632422 SPORTS CAMP SKYHAWKS FLAG FOOTBALL #6694 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 676.00 44Page: Packet Page 140 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :676.009278512/7/2006 065803 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 92786 12/7/2006 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC 15564 INV#15564 - SUTTON/EDMONDS PD SUTTON/LODGING~ 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 280.95 Total :280.95 92787 12/7/2006 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 2006 Debt Service 2006 Principal Pmt for Fire Station #20 2006 Principal Pmt for Fire Station #20 001.000.390.591.780.750.00 59,705.81 2006 Interest Pmt for Fire Station #20 001.000.390.592.770.830.00 6,246.65 Total :65,952.46 92788 12/7/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3850013073 IRRIGATION CONTROL IRRIGATION CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.79 UTILITY BILLING3890014081 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 359.72 UTILITY BILLING4120024156 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.17 SPRINKLER SYSTEM4160017333 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 77.24 UTILITY BILLING5040011628 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 105.42 Total :586.34 92789 12/7/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2260043795 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.46 SIGNAL LIGHT3800017489 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 83.51 45Page: Packet Page 141 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :135.979278912/7/2006 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 92790 12/7/2006 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC Dec-06 12/06 Recreation Service Contract Fee 12/06 Recreation Service Contract Fee 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 4,583.33 Total :4,583.33 92791 12/7/2006 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS~ garbage & recycle for PS~ 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 542.17 garbage & recycle for FAC~03585 garbage & recycle for FAC~ 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 556.90 garbage & recycle for Library~03586 garbage & recycle for Library~ 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 559.53 garbage & recycle-City Hall~03588 garbage & recycle-City Hall~ 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 379.46 Total :2,038.06 92792 12/7/2006 070677 SPRINT Eng.Nov 2006 Engnrng Nextel thru 11/24/06 Engnrng Nextel thru 11/24/06 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 540.88 Total :540.88 92793 12/7/2006 064137 SQUIRE, LARRY SQUIRE7247 GUITAR CLASSES GUITAR #7247 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 162.00 Total :162.00 92794 12/7/2006 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 62069 Glasby thru 11/18-Street/OVWSD 46Page: Packet Page 142 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92794 12/7/2006 (Continued)069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC Glasby thru 11/18-Street/OVWSD 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 1,633.75 Glasby thru 11/18-Water 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 33.91 Glasby thru 11/18-Storm 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 189.48 Glasby thru 11/18-Sewer 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 10.36 Total :1,867.50 92795 12/7/2006 031060 STEARNS FINANCIAL SERVICES 7019059-IN RADIX MONTHLY MAINT JAN 07 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT JAN 07 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 155.40 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 13.83 Total :169.23 92796 12/7/2006 040300 STEVENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 6300 ALS SUPPLIES Crichoilthyroidotomy set 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1,045.39 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 93.03 Total :1,138.42 92797 12/7/2006 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1146 JANUARY-APRIL CRAZE JANUARY - APRIL 2007 CRAZE~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,167.00 Total :1,167.00 92798 12/7/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10458085 SUPPLIES 47Page: Packet Page 143 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92798 12/7/2006 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC STAINLESS WIRE ROPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 882.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.13 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 83.23 Total :1,018.36 92799 12/7/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18783953 STEEL WEDGE ANCHORS STEEL WEDGE ANCHORS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 77.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.90 Total :84.40 92800 12/7/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10464065 STREET DEPT - FLAT WASHERS STREET DEPT - FLAT WASHERS 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 8.60 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.77 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - WASHERS, DRILL10467106 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - WASHERS, DRILL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 255.56 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.74 UNIT 477 - SOCKET SCREWS, WASHERS,18782436 UNIT 477 - SOCKET SCREWS, WASHERS, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.81 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.50 UNIT 24 - STD ABRASIVES18782440 UNIT 24 - STD ABRASIVES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.37 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.61 48Page: Packet Page 144 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92800 12/7/2006 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC WATER DEPT - HEX NUTS AND SCREWS18783916 WATER DEPT - HEX NUTS AND SCREWS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 32.65 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.91 Total :373.52 92801 12/7/2006 070578 TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS 738392 C/A 20044 PR1-1 City Phone Service 11/21-12/21/06 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 835.82 Total :835.82 92802 12/7/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1457233 2007 Arch & Eng Consult Ad 2007 Arch & Eng Consult Ad 001.000.620.532.200.440.00 126.96 Total :126.96 92803 12/7/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY C/A 148134 Preschool Asst., #06-30 Preschool Asst., #06-30 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 41.00 Preschool Director, #06-29 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 41.72 Meter Reader, #06-28 411.000.654.534.800.440.00 63.12 Economic Dev. Director, #06-20 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 37.96 Total :183.80 92804 12/7/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1452632 NEWSPAPER AD Council & Planning Bd. Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,352.59 NEWSPAPER AD1458888 Ordinance 3614 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.12 49Page: Packet Page 145 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92804 12/7/2006 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY NEWSPAPER AD1458913 Water Rates Hearing 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.50 NEWSPAPER ADS1459436 Ordinance 3611 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 82.80 NEWSPAPER AD1459691 Ordinance 3612 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 140.76 NEWSPAPER AD1459694 Ordinance 3613 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 245.64 Total :1,889.41 92805 12/7/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1451968 Legal Notice Edm Prof CU-06-132 Legal Notice Edm Prof CU-06-132 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 20.70 Legal Notice Ritter S-2006-441455526 Legal Notice Ritter S-2006-44 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 24.84 Legal Notice Gregory/Butterfield ADB 061457463 Legal Notice Gregory/Butterfield ADB 06 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 33.00 Legal Notice Sundquist APL 06-41457477 Legal Notice Sundquist APL 06-4 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 29.70 Total :108.24 92806 12/7/2006 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10016485 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 5 DAY NEWSPAPER DELIVERY 001.000.640.574.100.490.00 135.00 Total :135.00 92807 12/7/2006 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10925948 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 50Page: Packet Page 146 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92807 12/7/2006 (Continued)065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 141.00 Total :141.00 92808 12/7/2006 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 194594 10328 VALUE REPAIR KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 106.92 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.41 Total :116.33 92809 12/7/2006 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES C/A 042483000 Education - Preschool Director,#06-29 Education - Preschool Director,#06-29 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 193.60 Econ. Dev. Director, #06-20 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 241.04 RFQ - Hearing Examiner 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 241.04 Total :675.68 92810 12/7/2006 064963 TOP FOODS 382074 OPS SUPPLIES cleaning supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 46.29 Total :46.29 92811 12/7/2006 068249 TRAUTMANN MAHER & ASSOCIATES 11/30/06 MEBT services through November 2006 MEBT services through November 2006 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 133.73 Total :133.73 92812 12/7/2006 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC INV0100380 Provide SQL view for Class Interface 51Page: Packet Page 147 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92812 12/7/2006 (Continued)063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC Provide SQL view for Class Interface 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 187.50 Provide SQL view for Class Interface 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 105.00 Provide SQL view for Class Interface 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 292.50 Provide SQL view for Class Interface 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 165.00 Total :750.00 92813 12/7/2006 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0156132-WA FLEET - DOT/COC/DOT FLEET - DOT/COC/DOT 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 58.00 Total :58.00 92814 12/7/2006 070864 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP S/P2645481 SUPERPAGES.COM 11/06 Superpages.com 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 69.90 Total :69.90 92815 12/7/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.69 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY425-771-4741 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 47.90 CREDIT FOR DEDICATED LINE425-776-6663 CREDIT FOR COMPUTER/DEDICATED LINE 001.000.640.574.100.420.00 -23.11 Total :67.48 92816 12/7/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-DHO-0667 DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOCOM Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 350.09 Total :350.09 52Page: Packet Page 148 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92817 12/7/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.03 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 269.35 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.43 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.22 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.17 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.32 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.89 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 17.73 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 32.93 Total :721.57 92818 12/7/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07 AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 53.70 Total :53.70 92819 12/7/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-FAX LINE FS #16-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 50.42 53Page: Packet Page 149 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 54 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92819 12/7/2006 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST FS #20 PHONE SERVICE425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 46.98 FS #16 FRAME RELAY425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 343.73 Total :441.13 92820 12/7/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2093520182 CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 3.00 Total :3.00 92821 12/7/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 364280677-00001 360-929-3167 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 1.53 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 1.52 425-327-5379670091643-00001 cell phone-unit #77 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 38.15 425-238-8252770096328-00001 cell phone-Dave Sittauer 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 2.30 Total :43.50 92822 12/7/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2089912908 206-959-3117 PRETREATMENT CELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 36.22 Total :36.22 92823 12/7/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2092902250 INV#2092902250 - ACCT#470497482-00001 CELL PHONES 11/24-12/23/06 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 120.56 Total :120.56 54Page: Packet Page 150 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 55 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92824 12/7/2006 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 28573546 1066294 PIPETTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 285.10 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.30 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 26.30 106629428573549 KIM WIPES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 36.84 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 25.33 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 5.54 106629428591257 PIPET/PETRI DISH/FILTER/TUBES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 371.44 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 2.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 33.23 Total :796.14 92825 12/7/2006 006284 W S DARLEY AND CO AP634989 UNIT 475- AIR CYLINDER REAR PVT MNT UNIT 475- AIR CYLINDER REAR PVT MNT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 154.43 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.46 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75 Total :179.64 92826 12/7/2006 045912 WASPC INV018164 INV#INV018164 - DAVID STERN/EDMONDS STERN/FALL CONFERENCE~ 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 250.00 55Page: Packet Page 151 of 369 12/07/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 56 11:33:08AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :250.009282612/7/2006 045912 045912 WASPC 92827 12/7/2006 061168 WESTFALL, JOHN 6/19/06 Tuition Reimbursement 6/22 -7/13/06 Tuition Reimbursement 6/22 -7/13/06 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 62.50 Total :62.50 92828 12/7/2006 068203 WJA PLLC PC 06-1140 Prof Serv Bld Plan Check 06-1140 Stern Prof Serv Bld Plan Check 06-1140 Stern 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 742.64 Total :742.64 92829 12/7/2006 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION NOE8216 CLASS 2007 PESTICIDE RENEWAL APPLICATION:~ 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 25.00 Total :25.00 92830 12/7/2006 071420 WSU EXTENSION, SNOHOMISH COUNTYROCKNE112906 CLASS BUG BASICS 104~ 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 35.00 Total :35.00 Bank total :433,413.74178 Vouchers for bank code :front 433,413.74Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report178 56Page: Packet Page 152 of 369 AM-752 2.E. 2005 Waterline Replacement Program Award Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For:Dave Gebert Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Report on bids opened November 30, 2006 for the 2005 Waterline Replacement Program and award of contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. ($1,380,020.98) Previous Council Action On May 2, 2006, Council authorized staff to call for bids for the 2005 Waterline Replacement Program. Narrative On November 30, 2006, the City received nine bids for the 2005 Waterline Replacement Program. The bids ranged from a low of $1,380,020.98 to a high of $2,250,245.55, including sales tax. (The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1.) Interwest Construction, Inc. submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $1,380,020.98, including sales tax. The engineer's estimate was $1,400,198.16. Interwest Construction's references were favorable. The adopted 2007 capital budget includes $2,455,000 for construction of the City's Waterline Replacement Program. The total budget required to fund the 2005 Waterline Replacement Program contact is approximately $1,524,000 as follows: Contract Award $1,380,021 Advertising $ 300 Material Testing $ 5,000 Contingency (10%) $ 138,000 1% for Public Art $ 700 TOTAL $1,524,021 Sufficient funds are available in the adopted 2007 capital budget to award the contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. Recommendation Council award a contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,380,020.98 for the 2005 Waterline Replacement Program. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Waterline Bid Tab Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 12/07/2006 02:18 PM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 12/07/2006 02:48 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:28 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:37 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 12/07/2006 09:17 AM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 153 of 369 Packet Page 154 of 369 Bi d T a b u l a t i o n SC H E D U L E S E n g i n e e r ' s E s t i m a t e I N T E R W E S T C O N S T E A R T H W O R K E N T E R P R I S E S B U N O D & G B A C K H O E A 9 1 3 , 8 1 8 . 5 6 $ 8 8 0 , 5 5 8 . 8 1 $ 9 3 2 , 2 5 5 . 3 3 $ 9 7 0 , 6 8 3 . 5 3 $ 1 , 0 6 9 , 1 7 9 . 8 1 $ B 2 0 , 4 2 9 . 6 4 $ 4 4 , 2 5 6 . 9 6 $ 2 5 , 9 9 4 . 4 3 $ 2 7 , 8 1 3 . 0 6 $ 1 7 , 7 3 9 . 1 8 $ C 1 4 8 , 3 4 1 . 4 0 $ 1 5 6 , 1 8 9 . 0 6 $ 1 5 3 , 3 9 0 . 5 5 $ 1 6 3 , 4 6 9 . 7 9 $ 1 8 2 , 4 1 0 . 9 3 $ D 2 7 9 , 1 4 0 . 1 8 $ 2 4 5 , 6 8 7 . 8 2 $ 2 5 0 , 0 8 7 . 9 8 $ 2 7 0 , 4 7 4 . 3 9 $ 2 7 6 , 3 1 9 . 0 3 $ E 3 8 , 4 6 8 . 3 8 $ 5 3 , 3 2 8 . 3 3 $ 3 5 , 5 5 8 . 0 3 $ 4 4 , 6 6 5 . 3 4 $ 4 8 , 3 2 8 . 7 5 $ TO T A L S 1 , 4 0 0 , 1 9 8 . 1 6 $ 1 , 3 8 0 , 0 2 0 . 9 8 $ 1 , 3 9 7 , 2 8 6 . 3 2 $ 1 , 4 7 7 , 1 0 6 . 1 1 $ 1 , 5 9 3 , 9 7 7 . 7 0 $ SC H E D U L E S M A R S H B A N K T H O M C O K A R V E L N O R T H C O N A G C O N S T R U C T C O A 1 , 1 0 8 , 4 9 5 . 2 8 $ 1 , 0 9 0 , 0 4 2 . 1 5 $ 1 , 1 1 9 , 5 0 0 . 3 7 $ 1 , 1 7 2 , 9 3 2 . 6 1 $ 1 , 5 0 4 , 5 9 9 . 8 6 $ B 2 0 , 7 6 7 . 2 3 $ 2 3 , 3 1 0 . 7 0 $ 2 3 , 2 8 4 . 1 3 $ 2 0 , 3 4 2 . 5 2 $ 3 2 , 7 1 7 . 3 6 $ C 2 0 6 , 0 9 6 . 9 5 $ 1 8 6 , 8 4 8 . 0 1 $ 1 9 8 , 4 0 3 . 3 6 $ 2 0 6 , 3 0 0 . 8 1 $ 2 7 3 , 1 6 7 . 8 1 $ D 2 5 5 , 8 0 2 . 6 2 $ 2 8 9 , 6 4 1 . 1 2 $ 2 9 2 , 8 5 6 . 9 2 $ 3 0 5 , 1 9 9 . 7 1 $ 3 6 4 , 7 2 2 . 7 9 $ E 5 9 , 8 4 8 . 7 2 $ 6 1 , 1 7 0 . 2 4 $ 5 8 , 0 7 7 . 8 3 $ 5 9 , 1 9 4 . 2 3 $ 7 5 , 0 3 7 . 7 3 $ TO T A L S 1 , 6 5 1 , 0 1 0 . 8 0 $ 1 , 6 5 1 , 0 1 2 . 2 2 $ 1 , 6 9 2 , 1 2 2 . 6 1 $ 1 , 7 6 3 , 9 6 9 . 8 8 $ 2 , 2 5 0 , 2 4 5 . 5 5 $ 20 0 5 W A T E R L I N E R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , W a s h i n g t o n 9 8 0 2 0 E5 J A Pa c k e t P a g e 1 5 5 o f 3 6 9 Pa c k e t P a g e 1 5 6 o f 3 6 9 AM-743 2.F. Mike Doubleday Intergovernmental Services Contract Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee:Finance Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Mike Doubleday Intergovernmental Services Contract. Previous Council Action The contract was approved by the Finance Committee on December 5. Additionally, Mr Doubleday has been retained by the City for the past three years. Narrative Mike Doubleday provides intergovernmental services for the City with Washington State legislation. Primary areas of focus include Edmonds Crossing funding, sales tax sourcing legislation, and transportation funding. The 2007 contract calls for a 3.3% increase in costs. This is the first increase in two years. The monthly retainer during the session increases from $4,000 to $4,135, and from $2,500 to $2,585 when the legislature is not in session. Recommendation Approve Mike Doubleday's 2007 contract. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Doubleday_Contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/06/2006 01:40 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/06/2006 01:41 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/06/2006 01:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 12/06/2006 01:27 PM Final Approval Date: 12/06/2006 Packet Page 157 of 369 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Gary Haakenson Mayor Dan Clements Director C:\07 LEGISLATION\MIKE DOUBLEDAY 2007 CONTRACT.DOC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT MIKE DOUBLEDAY GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS January 1, 2007 – Dec 31, 2007 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Mike Doubleday, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consultant to provide advocacy for local transportation funding, Edmonds Crossing, implementation of the Washington State Department of Revenue’s Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), and other legislation than may impact the City of Edmonds. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above-mentioned objectives in accordance with the specifics noted below. A. General Description. Provide advocacy for local transportation funding, Edmonds Crossing, implementation of the Washington State Department of Revenue’s Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), and other legislation than may impact the City of Edmonds. B. Term. This contract shall cover intergovernmental services provided from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. C. Deliverables. Work with the Snohomish County Council, local State legislative delegations, appropriate State departments, legislative leadership, the Governor, and other intergovernmental representatives to: 1.) Assist with the passage of legislation favorable to the City of Edmonds; and 2.) Assist with the defeat or veto of legislation that either fiscally harms the City, or imposes unfunded program mandates. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Amount. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be $2,585 per month when the legislature is not in session, and $4,135 per Packet Page 158 of 369 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 2 month while the legislature is in session. All expenses are included in the fee: no expenses shall be reimbursed without prior written approval by the City. Should the legislature meet for part of a month, payment will be prorated based upon the percentage of days convened during the month. B. Process. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City on or before the fifth of each month for services performed during the previous month. Billings shall show the amount of time spent working each major issue so the City will be advised of the intergovernmental costs of supporting each issue. C. Record Retention. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of Consultant and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. Final Document. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall be come the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. Copies. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. Default. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all injury or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of negligent work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Packet Page 159 of 369 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 3 Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Consultant may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant further agrees to fully indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City. 5. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to his contract a policy of business general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and shall name the City as a named insured, and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. 6. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 7. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 8. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant’s status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasi-judicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. 9. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 10. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the payments discussed in Packet Page 160 of 369 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 4 Section 2.A, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 11. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 15. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances. Including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. A. B&O Taxes. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. B. Public Disclosure Commission. The Consultant shall be responsible to register with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and provide notice to the City regarding any obligation on his part to report his services to any State or Federal agency. Additionally, Contractor and the City shall sign and Contractor shall forward to the Public Disclosure Commission a registration of lobbyist form (if necessary) before doing any lobbying or within 30 days after being employed as a lobbyist, whichever occurs first (RCW 42.17.150). Contractor shall be otherwise responsible for compliance with all requirements of chapter 42.17 RCW (lobbying disclosure). Packet Page 161 of 369 Intergovernmental Contract, Page 5 C. Potential Conflicts. The contractor shall not advocate or promote any legislative objectives on behalf of existing or potential clients that are determined by the City to be in conflict with City of Edmonds’ legislative objectives. The City acknowledges that contractor currently represents the Cities of Bellevue and Burien before the state legislature, and is a member of a consulting team providing staff services to the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID). 16. Notices. Notices shall be sent to the following address, with receipt of any notice being deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice. City of Edmonds Contractor Dan Clements Mike Doubleday City of Edmonds Doubleday Government Relations 121 Fifth Avenue North 1561 NW 190th Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Shoreline, WA 98177 425-771-0239 425-533-6305 clements@ci.edmonds.wa.us mikedoubleday@earthlink.net DATED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 2007. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder CONSULTANT By: Its: Packet Page 162 of 369 AM-749 2.G. Police Towing Contracts First Amendment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Al Compaan, Police Department Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Police Towing Contracts First Amendment. Previous Council Action Existing contracts with the four vendors approved by city council on January 3, 2006. Contracts contain perpetual renewal provision. Amendment reviewed by Public Safety Committee on December 5, 2006 and approved for consent agenda with a do pass recommendation. Narrative The city of Edmonds maintains contracts with four towing companies to provide towing services for the Police Department. Current vendors are Shannon Towing, Paulson's Towing, R & R Star Towing, and Wally's Towing. Terms of the contracts are established under an interlocal purchasing agreement with the city of Lynnwood, although Edmonds maintains individual contracts with each of the four vendors. Specific performance, rate, and liability/property damage insurance requirements are all part of the contracts. Within the past 60 days, Lynnwood agreed with a request from the four vendors to reduce the umbrella liability coverage requirement from $2,000,000.00 to $1,000,000.00. Lynnwood also made a housekeeping change to language within the automobile insurance section of the contracts to better clarify insurance requirements.. These changes have been discussed with the Edmonds City Attorney who agreed that the changes were appropriate, still providing an adequate level of insurance coverage at $2,000,000.00 per occurrence and $3,000,000.00 aggregate, and should be specified in an amendment to the current towing contract with each of the vendors. Recommendation The Police Department recommends that City Council approve the towing contract amendment with each of the four vendors, authorizing the Mayor to sign. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Changes to towing contract are expected to have no material fiscal impact. Attachments Link: Paulson's Towing Contract Amendment Link: R & R Towing Contract Amendment Link: Shannon Towing Contract Amendment Link: Wally's Towing Contract Amendment Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:28 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 12/06/2006 05:28 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 163 of 369 Packet Page 164 of 369 Packet Page 165 of 369 Packet Page 166 of 369 Packet Page 167 of 369 Packet Page 168 of 369 Packet Page 169 of 369 Packet Page 170 of 369 Packet Page 171 of 369 Packet Page 172 of 369 Packet Page 173 of 369 Packet Page 174 of 369 Packet Page 175 of 369 Packet Page 176 of 369 Packet Page 177 of 369 Packet Page 178 of 369 Packet Page 179 of 369 Packet Page 180 of 369 Packet Page 181 of 369 Packet Page 182 of 369 Packet Page 183 of 369 AM-750 2.H. Contract for Deceased Animal Disposal Services Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Al Compaan, Police Department Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Contract for Deceased Animal Disposal Services with The S. Morris Company. Previous Council Action Reviewed by Public Safety Committee on December 5, 2006 and approved for consent agenda with a do pass recommendation. Narrative As part of the city's animal control services, the city has periodic need to dispose of animals that are found deceased, or animals that are euthanized due to disease, injury or are otherwise unadoptable. The vendor has agreed to enter into a contractual agreement with the city to provide these services. Heretofore, this same vendor has provided these same services as part of the Adix's Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats kenneling contract, and Adix has paid the vendor directly . It has been mutually agreed between Adix and the city that the city will contract directly with S. Morris Company for animal disposal. The city will assume responsibility for payment to S. Morris Company at a rate of $9.75 per disposed animal. This is the same rate currently paid by Adix. The city estimates total contractual cost with S. Morris Company in 2007 at $2,220.00. Of this amount, the city will be able to recover $799.00 per year from the city of Mountlake Terrace under the animal control services agreement with that city. Recommendation The Police Department recommends approval of this contract by City Council, authorizing the mayor to sign. The city attorney has approved the contract as to form. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with this contract are built into the 2007-2008 Police Services general fund budget. Attachments Link: S Morris Co contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:28 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:37 PM APRV Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 12/06/2006 05:43 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 184 of 369 CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES THIS CONTRACT is made between the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereafter referred to as “City”, and The S. Morris Company, hereafter referred to as “Morris”. WHEREAS, the City has determined by ordinances to regulate animals within the city limits, and WHEREAS, the City periodically comes into possession of deceased, diseased, injured or otherwise unadoptable animals that must be euthanized as part of its animal control operations, and WHEREAS, the City has no dead animal disposal services of its own, and WHEREAS, Morris is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and WHEREAS, the City and Morris desire to enter into a contract defining the rights and responsibilities of Morris and the City with respect to dead animal disposal, NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, Morris and the City have mutually agreed and do hereby agree as follows: 1. Undertakings of Morris. 1.1 Morris will furnish dead animal disposal services to the City. This includes cremation of animals at the facility operated by Morris and legal disposal of any crematory remains. 1.2 Morris shall make a minimum of one scheduled pick-up per week of dead animals from the City’s designated location. 1.3 Upon request by the City, Morris will furnish a chest freezer for storage of dead animals. 2. Undertakings of the City. In consideration of the services performed, the City shall pay to Morris the sum of $9.75 per animal for disposal services, increased in 2008 and 2009 by an amount equivalent to the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton June CPI-U for the preceding year, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the renewal of the Agreement is subject to an appropriation by the Edmonds City Council for future annual terms. If the City Council fails to appropriate funds for animal disposal services, this Agreement shall expire at the end of the last term for which an appropriation has been made. {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 Packet Page 185 of 369 3. Indemnity. Morris agrees to indemnify, reimburse, save and hold harmless the City for any claim, loss damage, expense or liability to the City which the City may incur by reason of any act of Morris in performing this contract. Morris further agrees to procure and maintain an insurance policy or policies protecting Morris and their officers and employees against any loss, liability or expense whatsoever from personal injury, death, property damage or otherwise arising or occurring in connection with the performance of this contract. Said policy or policies shall be written by a responsible insurance company or companies satisfactory to the City and shall include general liability for personal injury and/or property damage in an amount not less than $500,000 for each person or occurrence. The insurance policy or policies shall further provide that the same shall not be reduced or cancelled without at least twenty days prior notice to the City, shall name the City as additionally insured and shall be primary to any other such insurance maintained by the City. A copy of all such insurance policies shall be submitted to the city within five days of the execution of this Agreement, and current proof of insurance shall be submitted to the City as the policy periodically renews. To the extent necessary to enforce this indemnification agreement, Morris waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington. 4. Independent Contractor. Morris is and shall be considered an independent contractor. All persons performing services under this agreement shall be employees of Morris and are not employees of the City. Morris agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents, and employees from any cost, claim, or liability arising out of the employment of individuals by Morris. Morris shall have entire control and direction of its business operations and kenneling services, subject only to the conditions and obligations established by this agreement. The indemnities provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this agreement shall survive its termination. 5. Expiration, Notice. In the event that the period covered by this contract shall expire without the benefit of a new agreement, the rate scheduled then in effect as of the date of contract expiry shall continue until such time as Morris and the City agree to an amended rate schedule, provided that either party may, upon one hundred eighty days advance written notice, issue notice of termination, which shall not require cause, and after expiry of notice, the contract shall be of no further force or effect. Either party may terminate this agreement immediately for cause upon the deposit of written notification in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the regular mailing address of each party. The regular mailing address of the Parties shall be: City of Edmonds c/o Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 425.775.2525 The S. Morris Company c/o Steve Morris P.O. Box 99768 {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Packet Page 186 of 369 Seattle, WA 98139 206.784.4055 6. Entire Agreement; Amendment; Attorneys’ Fees. This Agreement contains all the understandings between the Parties and is intended to operate as such and may only be modified in writing signed by both Parties hereto. In the event of a dispute over any part or portion of this agreement, the party prevailing upon its claim or claims shall also be awarded reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. 7. Term. This Agreement shall have a three year term commencing on January 1, 2007. EXECUTED this ______ day of _________________, 20 ____. CITY OF EDMONDS THE S. MORRIS COMPANY By: __________________________ By: _________________________ Mayor Gary Haakenson The S. Morris Company ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED By: ___________________________ Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM By: ___________________________ W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 Packet Page 187 of 369 AM-748 2.I. Professional Services Contract with Jeannie Dines Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Al Compaan, Police Department Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Professional Services Contract with Jeannie Dines. Previous Council Action Public Safety Committee reviewed on December 5, 2006 and approved for consent agenda, recommending do pass. Narrative Edmonds Police Department desires to continue its contract with Jeannie Dines for confidential transcription services, providing transcription of investigative interviews. Ms. Dines presently contracts with the Police Department to provide this service, and has done so since earlier this year. The Police Department does not have sufficient internal staff to do this work. Ms. Dines has agreed to continue to provide this service for calendar year 2007 under the same terms of the present agreement that expires December 31, 2006. Cost of services will be paid out of the 2007 Police Department budget. Recommendation The Police Department requests that City Council approve this item for Consent Agenda, authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract. The City Attorney has approved the contract as to content and form. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with this contract will be paid from 2007-2008 Police Services general fund budget. Attachments Link: Dines Contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 12/06/2006 05:23 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 188 of 369 Packet Page 189 of 369 Packet Page 190 of 369 AM-751 2.J. Contract for Animal Kenneling Services Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Al Compaan, Police Department Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Contract for Animal Kenneling Services with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats. Previous Council Action Reviewed by Public Safety Committee on December 5, 2006 and approved for consent agenda without recommendation. Narrative The current three year contract with the city’s vendor of animal kenneling services, Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, expires December 31, 2006. The Police Department feels it is in the best interest of city operations to continue a contractual relationship with Adix’s. The annual fee for animal kenneling services for 2007 will be $21,475.96. This compares to an annual amount in 2006 of $22,740.84. The reason for the decrease in the contracted amount with Adix's is due to the fact responsibility for animal disposal costs that has heretofore been part of the annual fee paid by the city to Adix's will now be covered under a separate contract between the city and the animal disposal vendor. This was done at the mutual agreement between Adix's and the city. The city anticipates animal disposal costs with the third party vendor for 2007 will be approximately $2,220.00. The animal disposal contract will be presented as a separate agenda item. The majority of animals disposed of are already deceased wild animals picked up by Animal Control, as well as a few diseased or otherwise unadoptable animals, i.e. feral cats. Recommendation The Police Department recommends City Council approve this item, authorizing the mayor to sign the contract. The City Attorney has approved as to form and content. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with this contract will be paid from 2007-2008 Police Services general fund budget. Attachments Link: Adix Contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:28 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:37 PM APRV Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 12/06/2006 05:51 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 191 of 369 CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES THIS CONTRACT is made between the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereafter referred to as “City”, and Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, Inc., hereafter referred to as “Adix”. WHEREAS, the City has determined by ordinances to regulate animals within the city limits, including the licensing and preventing the running at large of animals and preventing animals from becoming nuisances, and WHEREAS, Adix is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and WHEREAS, the City has no animal kenneling services of its own, and WHEREAS, the City and Adix desire to enter into a contract defining the rights and responsibilities of Adix and the City with respect to animal kenneling, NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, ADIX and the City have mutually agreed and do hereby agree as follows: 1. Undertakings of Adix. 1.1 Adix will furnish animal kenneling services to the City. Animal kenneling services shall include kenneling and holding animals at the facility operated by Adix, releasing animals to owners, cooperating with the temporary transfer of animals to a veterinarian designated by the City for the purpose of spaying or neutering, and disposing of animals in a responsible and lawful manner, including adoption of animals not claimed by owners after the period prescribed by ordinance and this agreement. Adix shall maintain established hours of operation for the general public pursuant to the terms of this contract. Hours are Monday through Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM and Sunday 2 PM to 5 PM, excluding previously designated holidays being observed by Adix. In addition, Adix is closed for lunch between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM Monday through Saturday. 1.2 Adix agrees to accept animals brought to Adix by Lynnwood Animal Control under mutual aid when Edmonds has no Animal Control on duty. Mutual Aid for the purposes of this contract means only those animals that have been picked-up in Edmonds by Lynnwood Animal Control. 1.3 Unclaimed or unadoptable animals will be humanely euthanised and disposed of off-site. To provide proper paper trail, requests by Adix pursuant to this section for euthanasia of Adix animals will be made in writing. The disposal fee is the responsibility of the City.. Disposal within the terms of this contract also includes disposal of dead {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 Packet Page 192 of 369 animals that are picked up by the City as part of its animal control services or animals that die in Adix’s care. 1.4 Adix agrees to abide by and strictly follow any and all procedures of Chapter 5.05 of Edmonds Municipal Code, as now and hereafter amended, regulating animals, particularly as they relate to the length of impoundment before disposing of any animals. Adix and the City agree that Chapter 5.05, as now or hereafter amended, shall be incorporated by reference herein and shall be part of this contract as if set forth in full herein. 1.5 Adix agrees not to release any kenneled animal to any person until Adix is reasonably satisfied that the person has paid all applicable license, kenneling, and other fees to the appropriate agency, including the City. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all reporting, fee collection and any accounting relating to such reporting and collecting. 1.6 Except as provided in paragraph 1.4 above, Adix agrees not to dispose of any animal before seventy-two hours upon receipt of receiving said animal from the City, excluding previously designated holidays being observed by Adix, nor shall Adix release any animal which has not been either spayed or neutered by a veterinarian in accordance with procedures established by the City or has been designated by an agent of the City or such veterinarian as an inappropriate candidate for surgery, as such term is defined in Chapter 5.05. Licensed, tagged, or identifiable animals will be held for ten days by Adix. Animals held under RCW 16.52.085 will be held for fifteen business days. 1.7 If not claimed by an owner during the applicable holding period, an animal shall immediately become the property of Adix. Disposition of the animal is then at Adix’s discretion provided, however, that: 1.7.1 Adix shall not dispose of the animal while any legal proceedings are pending or in contravention of any court order. 1.7.2 Any animal designated as an inappropriate candidate for surgery which is released for adoption shall be released subject to the payment of a $50 deposit. Such deposit shall be remitted to the City and a receipt provided to the adopter, who shall present the receipt to Adix at the date of release of the adopted pet. The purpose of such deposit is to ensure that the animal will be spayed or neutered by a veterinarian in accordance with Chapter 5.05. 1.7.3 Any animal which has been spayed or neutered at the cost of the City shall be subject to payment of a fee of $50 when sold by Adix. Any charge for adoption by Adix shall be in addition to this amount. The purpose of this fee is to partially reimburse the City for the cost of spaying or neutering. The Parties acknowledge that spaying and neutering enhances the value of the animal which has become the property of Adix. Upon payment of the fee to the City, a receipt {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Packet Page 193 of 369 shall be provided to the adopter, who shall present the receipt to Adix at the date of the release of the adopted pet. 1.8 Adequate records of all fees and deposits charged pursuant to paragraphs 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 above shall be kept by the City. All funds shall be remitted by the adopter to the City. 1.9 The Parties have stipulated that the annual fee set forth in paragraph 2 below is intended to provide for ten dog runs, inclusive of both the impounds of the City and of Mountlake Terrace impounds, so long as the City continues to provide animal control services for Mountlake Terrace, and with the understanding that up to two dogs may be kenneled per run at any given time. The City agrees to compensate ADIX for any additional runs utilized to kennel dogs for the City at the rate of $15 per day, such rate to be charged in addition to the annual fee set forth in paragraph 2. 1.10 Adix and the City agree to work collaboratively on promoting adoptions of those animals brought to Adix by the City. Adoptions shall be made in as timely a manner as possible and an animal’s time in shelter shall be kept to a minimum. 2. Undertakings of the City. In consideration of the services performed, the city shall pay to Adix the sum of $1,789.66 per month, increased in 2008 and 2009 by an amount equivalent to the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton June CPI-U for the preceding year, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the renewal of the Agreement is subject to an appropriation by the Edmonds City Council for future annual terms. If the City Council fails to appropriate funds for kenneling services, this Agreement shall expire at the end of the last term for which an appropriation has been made. This charge is based upon certain assumptions regarding the number of dogs and cats to be kenneled and the recovery time necessary following spaying or neutering before an animal may be adopted or otherwise released. 3. Indemnity. Adix agrees to indemnify, reimburse, save and hold harmless the City for any claim, loss damage, expense or liability to the City which the City may incur by reason of any act of Adix in performing this contract. Adix further agrees to procure and maintain an insurance policy or policies protecting Adix and their officers and employees against any loss, liability or expense whatsoever from personal injury, death, property damage or otherwise arising or occurring in connection with the performance of this contract. Said policy or policies shall be written by a responsible insurance company or companies satisfactory to the City and shall include general liability for personal injury and/or property damage in an amount not less than $500,000 for each person or occurrence. The insurance policy or policies shall further provide that the same shall not be reduced or cancelled without at least twenty days prior notice to the City, shall name the City as additionally insured and shall be primary to any other such insurance maintained by the City. A copy of all such insurance policies shall be submitted to the city within five days of the execution of this Agreement, and current proof of insurance shall be submitted to the City as the policy periodically renews. To the extent necessary {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 Packet Page 194 of 369 to enforce this indemnification agreement, Adix waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington. 4. Independent Contractor. Adix is and shall be considered an independent contractor. All persons performing services under this agreement shall be employees of Adix and are not employees of the City. Adix agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents, and employees from any cost, claim, or liability arising out of the employment of individuals by Adix. Adix shall have entire control and direction of its business operations and kenneling services, subject only to the conditions and obligations established by this agreement. The indemnities provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this agreement shall survive its termination. 5. Expiration, Notice. In the event that the period covered by this contract shall expire without the benefit of a new agreement, the rate scheduled then in effect as of the date of contract expiry shall continue until such time as Adix and the City agree to an amended rate schedule, provided that either party may, upon one hundred eighty days advance written notice, issue notice of termination, which shall not require cause, and after expiry of notice, the contract shall be of no further force or effect. Either party may terminate this agreement immediately for cause upon the deposit of written notification in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the regular mailing address of each party. The regular mailing address of the Parties shall be: City of Edmonds c/o Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats c/o Lynn Adix 21100 72 Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 6. Entire Agreement; Amendment; Attorneys’ Fees. This Agreement contains all the understandings between the Parties and is intended to operate as such and may only be modified in writing signed by both Parties hereto. In the event of a dispute over any part or portion of this agreement, the party prevailing upon its claim or claims shall also be awarded reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. 7. Term. This Agreement shall have a three year term commencing on January 1, 2007. EXECUTED this ______ day of _________________, 20 ____. CITY OF EDMONDS ADIX’S BED AND BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS, INC. {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4 Packet Page 195 of 369 By: __________________________ By: _________________________ Mayor Gary Haakenson Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, Inc. ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED By: ___________________________ Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM By: ___________________________ W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 5 Packet Page 196 of 369 AM-746 2.K. Paradise Lane Rezone Ordinance Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Steve Bullock, Planning Submitted For:Steve Bullock Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance - Approval of Findings of Fact for the Closed Record Review held on 11/21/06 on the application by Michel Construction to rezone property from Single Family Residential (RS-6) to Multi Family Residential (RM-2.4). The site is located at 546 Paradise Lane. (File No. R-06-77) Previous Council Action On November 6, 2006, the City Council reviewed the record of a proposed Rezone for a property located at 546 Paradise Lane. The proposed rezone requested that the property be rezoned from RS-6 to RM-2.4. After reviewing the record, the Council approved the rezone. Narrative The City Attorney has prepared a final ordinance to implement the Council's decision on the proposed rezone. It is included as Exhibit 1 of this packet. Recommendation Approve the submitted ordinance. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 11:19 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 11:29 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Bullock Started On: 12/06/2006 04:20 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 197 of 369 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/6/06 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE FROM SINGLE- FAMILY (RS-6) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RM- 2.4), AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, this matter came on for public hearing before the Edmonds City Council on November 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, this matter came to the Council on a deadlock vote from the Planning Board, which provided no specific recommendation regarding the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopts as its findings of fact and conclusions, except as modified herein, the findings set forth in the Planning Division’s advisory report dated September 5, 2006, and incorporated by this referenced from the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the property has been designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for medium density multi-family uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the existing single-family designation has become unsuitable in light of the long standing and ongoing development of properties along the Westgate Corridor and that a substantial change in circumstances over time has occurred; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezone of the property to RM-2.4 is consistent both with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the Westgate Corridor and so that the property may serve as a buffer to adjacent residential family uses; and {WSS647334.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 198 of 369 WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the Planning Division advisory report and believes it to be in the public interest to rezone the subject property as depicted on Exhibit A to multi-family RM-2.4; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Certain real property described in File No. R-2006-77 and addressed as 546 Paradise Lane, Edmonds, Washington, and lying between Paradise Lane and Edmonds Way, is hereby rezoned from single-family (RS-6) to residential multi-family (RM-2.4). Section 2. The Community Services Director or his designee is hereby authorized to amend the City’s zoning map and other documents to reflect this change. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER {WSS647334.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 199 of 369 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS647334.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 200 of 369 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-6) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RM-2.4), AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS647334.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 4 - Packet Page 201 of 369 Exhibit A Vicinity Map: {WSS647334.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 5 - Packet Page 202 of 369 AM-742 2.L. Regional Transportation Package - RTID/Sound Transit Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton, Community Services Time:Consent Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on the Regional Transportation Package being developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District in conjunction with Sound Transit, expressing recommendations from the City of Edmonds for transportation investments in Snohomish County. Previous Council Action Narrative The Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) was created by the Washington State Legislature and charged with developing a transportation package for improving significant highways and bridges in Snohomish, King or Pierce Counties. RTID is coordinating its work with Sound Transit, which will submit companion proposals to be submitted to voters in the fall of 2007. The Executive Boards of RTID and Sound Transit are meeting on a quarterly basis to discuss and review progress towards the integrated roads and transit package for the three-county region. RTID and Sound Transit will soon identify their preferred integrated investment plans and how a roads and transit system will benefit residents and business in the region. Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit information is available via the internet at www.rtid.org and www.soundtransit.org/st2. Attached to the resolution is Exhibit A which identifies comprehensive Snohomish County investment packages of Snohomish County Executive Reardon and Snohomish County Council, both of which include a reference to Edmonds Crossing, and contain other similar transportation projects as part of the regional transportation package. Recommendation Approve Resolution Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit A Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/06/2006 11:51 AM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 203 of 369 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/06/06 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE BEING DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT .DISTRICT IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOUND TRANSIT, EXPRESSING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WHEREAS, state funding for improving and maintaining the Puget Sound region’s transportation infrastructure has not kept pace with growth in the region and the demand placed upon our transportation system, and, WHEREAS, the current congestion levels across King, Pierce and Snohomish counties prevent people and goods from moving efficiently throughout the region and significantly impact the quality of life of Puget Sound residents, and WHEREAS, reducing congestion and increasing mobility in all corridors of regional significance is essential in allowing for a vital economy and sustained economic development, and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), governed by the County Councils of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, continues its work on developing a transportation package for a vote in these three Counties and is working in conjunction with Sound Transit to develop a joint roads and transit package, and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has a vital stake in having a package of investments that address crucial transportation needs of the City and the Puget Sound region, and {WSS647315.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 204 of 369 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds recognizes and acknowledges the efforts of the Snohomish County Executive to develop the RTID package of investments in Snohomish County that provides for corridor improvements, high priority local arterial improvements, and transit supportive investments, and WHEREAS, as the RTID process continues, it is appropriate and timely for the City of Edmonds to state the principles on which a regional package should be based, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Edmonds expresses its support for the efforts of the Snohomish County Executive to develop a comprehensive Snohomish County investment package as part of the regional transportation package, and for the actions of Snohomish County Council in responding to Executive Reardon’s proposal in a timely manner. Section 1.a. The City of Edmonds expresses its support for the transportation packages of the Snohomish County Executive and Snohomish County Council Adopted Option #1, which contain similar transportation projects, and are attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. We support the efforts of the RTID Planning Committee and Sound Transit Board in coordinating the integrated roads and transit transportation package. Section 3. We support the investment in congestion relief on highways of statewide significance and interconnecting regional highways and arterial corridors. We support investment in transit to increase people carrying capacity on the highway system and to expand service potential to currently underserved areas of Snohomish County. Our transportation {WSS647315.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 205 of 369 system is interconnected, and projects such as these are important to making the system function most effectively. Section 4. We support the activities of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Infrastructure Coordinating Committee to identify and develop the specific projects that make up the Snohomish County RTID integrated roads and transit investment package. Section 5. We support setting the RTID boundary greater than the existing Sound Transit boundary in recognition that the regional transportation needs of Snohomish County extends to the north and east. Section 6. We support the use of sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax as revenue for the RTID investment package. The package should place minimal reliance on the use of sales tax revenue and maximum reliance on vehicle fees and gas taxes. Section 7. We support legislative amendments to allow the RTID to develop cost effective projects by ensuring that RTID bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the State (thereby saving taxpayers many millions of dollars in interest costs), and by supporting the RTID in exploring the use of tolling individual projects and/or the regional freeway system. RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. {WSS647315.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 206 of 369 EXHIBIT A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT SNOHOMISH COUNTY EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION OCTOBER 2006 Corridor Project Name US 2 Corridor US 2 Trestle: I-5 to SR-204 Monroe Bypass I-5 Corridor I-5 & 128th St SW (SR-96) Interchange Improvements I-5 & 116th St NE Interchange Improvements Everett Arterial Access Improvements at I-5 & US 2 I-5 & 88th St NE Interchange Improvements I-5 South Everett I/C Improvements @ Everett Mall Way SR 9 Corridor SR 9: 176th St SE to SR-96 (Phase 1) SR 9: 56th St SE to S Lake Stevens Rd (Phase 2) SR 9: 20th St SE to Market Place Vicinity (Phase 3) SR 9: 2nd St I/C to 56th St SE (Phase 4) SR 99 Corridor SR 99: 244th St SW to SR 104 Interchange (Br 99/600) SR 104 Corridor Edmonds (SR 104) Multimodal Terminal SR 522 Corridor SR 522: Paradise Lake Rd to Snohomish River SR 524 Corridor SR 524: 24th Ave W to SR 527 SR 531 Corridor SR 531: 43rd Ave NE to 67th Ave NE Additional Investments Local Transit Investments City and County High Priority Arterial Improvements Project List Estimated Total = $1.72 billion Assumes estimated revenues totaling $1.38 billion plus $340 million in bonds {WSS647315.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - Packet Page 207 of 369 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL ADOPTED Option #1 October 27, 2006 SR 524: 24th Ave W to SR 527 SR 9: 176th St SE to SR-92, Widen to Five Lanes, moving south to north Everett Arterial Access Improvements at I-5/US 2 Interchange I-5: 128th St SW (SR-96) Interchange Modifications - Phase 1 SR 522: Paradise Lake Road to Snohomish River, Add'l Lanes & New I/Cs US 2 Trestle: I-5 to SR-204 SR 531: 43rd Ave NE to Hwy 9 Widening (any additional covered by local city dollars) 116 St NE: I-5 to State St 196 St SW (SR524), 48 Ave W to 37 Ave W SR 99: 244th St SW to SR 104 Interchange (Br 99/600) I-5 South Everett Interchange Improvements (Everett Mall Way) Hwy 2 safety projects or Monroe Bypass, Phase 1 I-5/116th St NE Interchange I-5/88th St NE Interchange 39 Ave SE: 228 St SE to 240 St SE 39/35 Ave SE, 228 St SE to Seattle Hill Road State Ave: 136 St NE to 152 St NE Edmonds (SR 104) Multimodal Terminal Reserve to be applied to projects below as available I-5 interchange improvements (100th) Park and Rides--North County South Broadway/SB I-5 on ramp bridge 88th Corridor improvements Project List Estimated Total = $1.7532 billion {WSS647315.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 - Packet Page 208 of 369 AM-737 3. Water Rate Increase Ordinance Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee:Finance Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Agenda Memo Subject Water Rate Increase Public Hearing and Ordinance. Previous Council Action Finance Committee 11/2/2006. Full Council 11/21/2006. Narrative Last summer the City entered into a contract with FCS Group of Redmond, Washington, for the annual update of the combined utility rate study. A 3% water rate increase was recommended for both 2007 and 2008 in order to accommodate major capital improvement projects. At the November 21, 2006 council meeting this ordinance was pulled from the consent agenda in order provide the public an opportunity to comment. Recommendation Receive public input and approve 2007 water rate ordinance. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Water Rate Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 12/05/2006 03:07 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/05/2006 03:42 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/05/2006 04:07 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/06/2006 01:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 12/05/2006 09:47 AM Final Approval Date: 12/06/2006 Packet Page 209 of 369 C:\Documents and Settings\chase\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\Water Rate Ord.DOC ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.30.030 WATER RATES - METER INSTALLATION CHARGES TO INCREASE THE WATER RATE BY THREE PERCENT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City operates a combined utility which incorporates water, sewer and storm water management functions, and WHEREAS, the City commissioned a study of its rates by an outside professional consultant, and WHEREAS, the recommendations of the consultant indicated that for fiscal year 2007 and 2008 no increase in rates was required except for a three percent increase in water rates for each of these years, and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its finance committee that such increase be levied on the water rates, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Subsection 7.30.030(A) Water rates - Meter installation charges. is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.30.030 Water rates – Meter installation charges. A. The bimonthly rates of water supplied through meters shall be fixed at the following levels: Packet Page 210 of 369 Page 2 Effective Dates Existing 1/1/07 1/1/08 1. Single-family residence (per unit) $15.63 $16.10 $16.58 2. Duplex, apartment houses, condominiums and other multi-unit residences (per unit) $13.76 $14.17 $14.60 3. All other customers: Existing 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 3/4” $18.90 $19.47 $20.05 1" $38.48 $39.63 $40.82 1.5" $71.16 $73.29 $75.49 2" $108.48 $111.73 $115.09 3" $234.02 $241.04 $248.27 4" $331.49 $341.43 $351.68 6" $657.13 $676.84 $697.15 Section 2. The Edmonds City Code, Subsection 7.30.030(B) Water rates - Meter installation charges. is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.30.030 Water rates – Meter installation charges. B. Variable Rate. In addition to the base rate set forth above, the customer shall be charged the following rate per 100 cubic feet of water consumed: Existing 1/1/07 1/1/08 $1.62 $1.67 $1.72 Section 3. All water rate charges on water utility bills mailed between 01/01/2007 and 12/31/2007 shall be based on rates as reflected in the above sections corresponding with said time period. Thereafter, all water rate charges on water utility bills mailed on or after 01/01/2008 shall be based on rates as reflected in the above sections corresponding with said time period until a new ordinance is adopted amending the same. Packet Page 211 of 369 Page 3 Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should 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 5. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 212 of 369 Page 4 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.30.030 WATER RATES - METER INSTALLATION CHARGES TO INCREASE THE WATER RATE BY THREE PERCENT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 213 of 369 AM-745 4. ADB Findings on Old Milltown Remand Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Steve Bullock, Planning Submitted For:Steve Bullock Time:45 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Discussion and action on the Architectural Design Board's findings concerning the proposed refurbishment of Old Milltown, located at 201 5th Avenue South. Previous Council Action The Council reviewed an appeal of an ADB decision related to the refurbishment of Old Milltown on October 17, 2006. The result of that review was a remand of the ADB's decision back to the board to adopt specific findings for how the project complies or doesn't comply with the required criteria of the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Narrative On November 30, 2006, the ADB held a special meeting in response to the Council's remand of the Old Milltown decision. At that meeting, after much deliberation and discussion between the board members on all the criteria of approval, the project was approved with minor changes to the original conditions of approval (see Exhibit 1). These are: That the parapet of the northeast portion of the building be elevated proportional to the grade difference at the northeast corner of the building and that reveal patterns be provided similar in scale to the concrete framing on the existing northwest side commonly referred to as the Yost Building. 1. That the proposed awnings on the building extend a minimum of six feet from the face of the building. 2. Recommendation Uphold the Findings of the ADB approving ADB-2006-94 with the proposed conditions. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - ADB Findings Link: Exhibit 2 - ADB special meeting minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/06/2006 04:26 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 11:29 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Bullock Started On: 12/06/2006 03:30 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 214 of 369 Packet Page 215 of 369 Packet Page 216 of 369 Packet Page 217 of 369 Packet Page 218 of 369 Packet Page 219 of 369 Packet Page 220 of 369 Packet Page 221 of 369 Packet Page 222 of 369 Packet Page 223 of 369 Packet Page 224 of 369 Packet Page 225 of 369 Packet Page 226 of 369 Packet Page 227 of 369 Packet Page 228 of 369 Packet Page 229 of 369 Packet Page 230 of 369 Packet Page 231 of 369 Packet Page 232 of 369 Packet Page 233 of 369 Packet Page 234 of 369 Packet Page 235 of 369 Packet Page 236 of 369 Packet Page 237 of 369 Packet Page 238 of 369 Packet Page 239 of 369 Packet Page 240 of 369 Packet Page 241 of 369 Packet Page 242 of 369 Packet Page 243 of 369 Packet Page 244 of 369 Packet Page 245 of 369 Packet Page 246 of 369 Packet Page 247 of 369 Packet Page 248 of 369 Packet Page 249 of 369 5 th av e n u e Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 0 o f 3 6 9 Fr o m a b o v e Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 1 o f 3 6 9 Da y t o n Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 2 o f 3 6 9 5 th & D a y t o n Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 3 o f 3 6 9 Pe d e s t r i a n s c a l e Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 4 o f 3 6 9 A s e n s e o f h i s t o r y Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 5 o f 3 6 9 Pa c k e t P a g e 2 5 6 o f 3 6 9 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 Pro Tem Chairman Utt called the September 6, 2006 meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. 1. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers Present Staff Rick Utt Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Valerie Kendall (arrived 7:05 p.m.) Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Richard Schaefer Gina Coccia, Planner Rob Michel Linda Hynd, Recorder Betti Jo Smith Michael Lowell and Jason Anderson were excused absences. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 2, 2006 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING MINUTES: Boardmember Schaefer recommended changing the text on page two of the August 2, 2006 Architectural Design Board minutes in the first full paragraph, third sentence, to read, “He described several areas where trees had been destroyed.” On page two, the next to the last line should read, “The applicant meets all of the requirements for the RM-2-4 zone…” BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER MICHEL, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 2, 2006 MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Pro Tem Chairman Utt requested reversing the order of Items A and B under Consolidated Permit Applications so that Boardmember Michel may be recused during the hearing of Item A. The board concurred. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, asked the board to give attention in considering the Milltown application as to what they would like to see the city to look like. Mr. Bullock pointed out to Mr. Hertrich that the item is on the agenda and will have a separate public hearing. Mr. Hertrich explained that he is making a reference to it because part of it carries over to other subjects and has to do with guidelines for the downtown area. He wanted the board to bear that in mind as they discuss the downtown area. Mr. Bullock inquired if Mr. Hertrich was referring to the Bank of Washington project. Mr. Hertrich acknowledged that he could refer to that. Mr. Bullock noted that he had included the same set of design guidelines in the packet for the Bank of Washington. 5. CONSENT AGENDA: None. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 1 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 257 of 369 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MINOR PROJECTS: a. FILE NO. ADB-06-88: Application to construct four town home units in two buildings at 7508 210th Street SW, in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone. Jordan Kostelyk, 15314 28th Drive SE, Mill Creek, WA, was present. Senior Planner Meg Gruwell presented the application for ADB-06-88, noting the location at 7508 210th Street SW. The applicant proposes to put four units on the site, with two units in two buildings facing each other across a common driveway. Staff recommends in the front adding a gable element to make it a stronger entry statement for the two units that are closest to the street. She felt the rear elevation was plain with a solid wall and no modulation and suggested adding some gable elements over the sliding glass door or doing something to break up the rear elevation. She noted that there is a lot of detailing, although a lot of it is called out for as being optional, but a lot of it is on the portions that face each other, without much being carried around to the sides. She recommended that stone detailing be carried around to provide extra interest on the sides visible to the street for the sides that face 210th Street. Ms. Gruwell explained that the applicant has proposed to put patios in the rear yard but the city does not allow patios to go all the way into the setback and the applicant needs to maintain a six and two-thirds foot setback to the rear property line. She understood the applicants plan to have a turn-around south of where the driveways are located so that people coming out of the garages from the furthest-most southern units will have a place to turn around before heading out to 210th. After talking with Engineering, she recommended that the applicant limit the length of that to 20 feet and then the distance between the two decks, but the rest of the area could be landscaped. She had a question regarding whether the landscaping in the area in the south was going to be hydroseeded or covered with the ground cover winter creeper. The area between the property line and the sidewalk will need to be landscaped, she pointed out, which should be designated on the final landscape plan. She preferred something low-growing so that people’s vision is not obscured. She noted that there is such a narrow area available for the driveway that there is not enough room to put in a separate sidewalk. In other applications, staff has recommended calling out for a different kind of material to try and provide delineation for pedestrians as a set aside area. The Engineering division has stated that if it is called a walkway, it has to be deducted from the driveway width and will require extra width, which is not available. She explained that there can be decorative paving and it may provide something for drivers to watch out for with respect to pedestrians. She explained that it is the design guidelines that recommend providing for pedestrian walkways, and it could be paved in a different pattern or material. She thought it appeared as though the applicant has met the code requirements and the design guidelines. Boardmember Michel pointed out that the ADB has approved many projects with different materials to demark walkways but have not called it a walkway. Ms. Gruwell noted that in other applications the driveway might be asphalt but the walkway could be concrete or it could be a fancier stamped or colored concrete. Boardmember Schaefer inquired under staff recommendation number three, if adding gable details would be a projection into the setback and whether that would be allowed. Ms. Gruwell responded that the city allows up to 30 inches of eaves to go into the setback which could be done as a projecting eave. Jordan Kostelyk introduced himself. Pro Tem Chairman Utt asked if there would be vertical trim on the corners that are not shown on the elevation. Mr. Kostelyk stated that it could be added if it was requested. Hearing no comments from the public, Pro Tem Chairman Utt moved into board deliberations. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 258 of 369 Pro Tem Chairman Utt was bothered by the elevation on the front of the unit where there was a continuous kind of band above the garage and thought it would be nice to add trim or something vertical to break that up and define one unit as separate from the other unit. Excluding that, he thought staff recommendations were fine. Boardmember Michel was concerned about the elevation facing the street and about the elevation on the side that faces another project similar to this one. He preferred to see any gable action being on the street side and was not interested in seeing the stone continued around, unless the designer incorporated it into part of the design and not just added it on. He assumed the left elevation was the street elevation. BOARDMEMBER MICHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, TO APPROVE ADB-2006-88, MINOR PROJECT, WITH THE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. NOTE THAT WITH THIS REVIEW, STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY ASCERTAIN THE BUILDINGS’ HEIGHT OR LOT COVERAGE. WITH A BUILDING PERMIT, THESE WILL NEED TO BE SPECIFIED TO THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 2. PLEASE REVISE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS FOLLOWS: • SHOW LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK. THIS LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE GROUND COVER OR LOW SHRUBS, IF APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION. • SHOW THE TURN-AROUND SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT LIMIT IT TO 20 FEET IN LENGTH AND THE 12-FOOT WIDTH BETWEEN THE TWO DECKS. SHOW HOW THE REST OF THE AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS WILL BE LANDSCAPED WITH SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER OR LAWN. • CLARIFY WHETHER THE AREA IN THE REAR SETBACK WILL BE HYDROSEEDED OR PLANTED WITH WINTERCREEPER GROUND COVER. 3. ADD GABLE DETAILS OVER THE WINDOWS ON THE STREET SIDE ONLY, NOT ON THE REAR. 4. ANY STONE DETAIL WILL BE LEFT UP TO THE APPLICANT AND IF THE STAFF DOES NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT COMES UP WITH, THEN IT WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR REVIEW. 5. PROVIDE A GABLE OVER THE FRONT DOORS CLOSEST TO 210TH STREET SW INSTEAD OF THE SHED ROOF. 6. DELINEATE A WALKING AREA ON THE ROADWAY TO THE BUILDING, OTHER THAN PAINT. Pro Tem Chairman Utt proposed an amendment to the motion to use concrete or decorative pavers to create a pedestrian edge in the area, and the applicant will provide some kind of vertical trim to delineate the separation between the units on the front elevation only. Boardmember Kendall accepted Pro Tem Chairman Utt’s proposal as a friendly amendment to the motion. THE BOARD FINDS THAT WITH THESE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC CHAPTER 20.10 – ADB CRITERIA AND ECDC CHAPTER 20.12 – LANDSCAPING, AND STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. FILE NO. ADB-06-75: Continuance on the application by the Edmonds School District for the Edmonds Elementary Playground and Field Project located at 1215 Olympic Avenue in the Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 259 of 369 Diana White, 831 North Stream Lane; Brian Harding, Edmonds School District, 20420 68th Avenue West, Lynnwood; and Dave McGlantry, Edmonds Elementary School, were present. Staff Planner Gina Coccia presented the continuation of the application by Edmonds School District for the Edmonds Elementary playground and field project, located at 1215 Olympic Avenue in the Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone. The applicant has provided a revised site plan per the board’s request and added dimensions and a legend. The walking path has been omitted and the outdoor student seating area, which was labeled as an amphitheater, is not part of the current project proposal. Staff mailed a courtesy notice to applicants within 300 feet, letting them know about the meeting, and gave them a brief description of the project. She noted that the applicant wishes to make a presentation tonight and answer any questions. Staff recommends approval of ADB-2006-75. Boardmember Schaefer asked if there had been a resolution to the stream setback question. Mr. Bullock explained that it is not an issue because the applicant has withdrawn the portion of the project that deals with the path and the path was the only part of the project that came close to the stream buffer. Diana White thanked the supporters for coming. She introduced Mr. McGlantry and Mr. Harding from the school district. Ms. White reported that the playground equipment is in and is a big hit. She explained that because of the size of the project it was decided after the last meeting to break it up into more manageable pieces and they will not discuss the walking path and the amphitheater this evening but will deal with those at a later time. She noted that the pressing items for them include the playground and expanding the basketball court. She explained that when room was made for the new playground, there were two playgrounds that were combined together and they consequently lost their basketball court. The hope is to get the basketball hoops back and they would like to extend the paving out. The area is 18 by 57, which is an extension to provide enough room for the basketball court. The sidewalk is another issue that they feel is necessary for safety improvements and to make the school a better place. The baseball field improvement proposed in phase one is at the main baseball diamond, and there are existing benches that they would like to remove and replace with low rise, three-tiered bleachers. There are eight park benches, some with backs and some without backs that are two-sided and wide enough for viewing on both sides. There are two benches with backs and many of them without backs that will be located in a popular student pick-up and drop-off area. Little cut- outs or niches have been created for picnic tables. The picnic tables are ADA-accessible, octagon-shaped, and have four posts instead of a single post so that kids will not be able to tip them over easily. A couple of tetherball poles need to be relocated. A new triple hoop shoot was purchased with the playground equipment. The asphalt for the new basketball court is 11 by 57 and will allow for installation of the far end basketball hoops. It will be smaller than an average court but should be enough for a game of elementary hoop. The asphalt is for the sidewalk safety improvements. She pointed out that when the middle section was torn out, the maintenance people also tore out the asphalt on the upper section, too, ending up removing about 6,000 square feet of asphalt. The area that they would like to pave is 1,200 feet. Their products have been ordered and are sitting in a warehouse awaiting approval. She hoped that the board would approve and agree with these items and help to complete phase one of the project. Ms. White spoke about the previous location of the amphitheater site and how she had met with Mr. Hertrich and he explained his concerns and had pointed out another location to her that she looked at and liked and decided to go with the new spot. It is in a great area, is quieter, and is more of a natural amphitheater setting. The trees to the northeast will help to provide shade. She thought the amphitheater was great in being an outdoor classroom and learning center and there will be enough room for two classrooms to sit. She reported that Edmonds in Bloom has provided a grant for one thousand dollars and has stipulated that it be used in honor of one of their teachers who had passed away, Mr. Hamilton, and it will be a great way to commemorate his career at Edmonds. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 260 of 369 Ms. White pointed out that they have met many times with both district personnel and city personnel and felt that the people who were all doing the work were on the same page. She noted that last weekend flyers had been distributed to discuss the new playground and some of the things planned for in the next couple of months, with numbers listed on it to call and e-mail. She had received an e-mail response stating how supportive the School District had been in informing the neighbors of everything that was going on. She said that there are still details on the walking path to be determined before anything definitive can be brought to the ADB, but she hoped that the board would agree to approve the items that can be done to complete phase one. Pro Tem Chairman Utt asked if the proposed walkway would be asphalt paved. Ms. White replied that the proposed walkway would be asphalt paving and it will be separated from the parking. Boardmember Schaefer referred to the removal of about 6,000 square feet of pavement and the addition of a little less than 1,200 square feet for the basketball court and some pavement for the expanded walkway. He wanted to know what the net difference was in terms of paving on the site and all of its phases. Ms. White thought that the walking path was calculated at about 7,000 square feet, but they are considering using pervious concrete. Boardmember Schaefer stated he supported using pervious pavement, particularly for a walking surface. Boardmember Michel thanked the applicant for bringing revised details to the board and felt the project looked great. Pro Tem Chairman Utt discussed the feeling on the board’s part before that they were turning down a project that was hurting the kids in the community and he explained that he thought the main reason the project was not approved and carried over to this meeting was because of conflicting information that the board had been receiving. He thought that the applicant had done an excellent job and complimented all of the individual supporters who were present. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, commented that the school ground improvements has been an excellent effort by the parents and the project has become a success and is the kind of thing that everyone would love to see at their schools. He appreciated the board recognizing the setback situation with this facility and believed that the Edmonds code should reflect something with greater setbacks for major facilities where there is a lot of activity. Even though it may not be a real setback, he felt it was a good setback for buffering private property. He thanked Brian Harding for correcting the checklist that said there was no stream on the property, and pointed out that the city had finally found the stream. Pro Tem Chairman Utt inquired if salmon have found the stream. Mr. Hertrich acknowledged that there are no salmon in the upper reaches and there are a couple of pipes that go downstream. He realized that the condition of the stream was worse than what he had thought it was where it runs from 9th Avenue down through people's yards. Mr. Hertrich commented that the location of the amphitheater has been a natural bowl for a long time and teachers take their kids outside and the kids play out there in the wintertime and slide down. It will be a little bumpy if something is put in for seating but he thought it buffered the surrounding residential properties well. He did not think there were enough benches and equipment being put in. He thought that if the parents wanted to add more benches in between the playground and the soccer field it would benefit a lot of people. Pro Tem Chairman Utt closed public comments to move into board deliberation. In response to Mr. Utt’s regarding the salmon, Boardmember Schaefer stated that there are a number of fish blockages between the property and down to Shell Creek, with significant grade changes that have been there for a long time. BOARDMEMBER MICHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, TO APPROVE MINOR PROJECT ADB-06-75 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 5 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 261 of 369 1. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES, SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACKS OF THE BASEBALL BACKSTOP AND BLEACHERS; 2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS; THE BOARD FINDS THAT WITH THESE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC CHAPTER 20.10 – ADB CRITERIA AND ECDC CHAPTER 20.12 – LANDSCAPING, AND STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c. FILE NO. ADB-06-94: An application to refurbish Old Milltown. The site is located at 201 5th Avenue South and is zoned Community Business (BC). Ralph Allen, architect, 7310 15th Avenue Northwest, Seattle, and Bob Gregg, developer in Edmonds, were present. Senior Planner Steve Bullock presented the application about refurbishing of Old Milltown. He explained that from Dayton to Maple there is a portion of the building that fronts right on to the courtyard area, with parking above it, and that no portion of the application is dealing with that southern portion of the building that has the pizza shop, the barber shop, Quizno’s, and a couple of other businesses fronting directly on to the courtyard, as well as the parking above. The project deals entirely with the building that is north of that section. Steve Bullock described the building as kind of a maze inside and recalled that it used to be a car dealership, a bus station and was constructed using concrete post and beam. The proposal is to gut the building entirely and refurbish it, playing on its original architectural style and history. A portion of the building on 5th Avenue South steps back on the second floor and the second floor is not built right out to the street front in the middle of the building. The application proposes to fill up that hole on the second story. A good portion of the project will be to remove a chunk of the roof that is presently over the building. Most of the roof is configured with a 4/12 pitch hip roof around the majority of the building and that will be taken off and a new flat roof will be put on in behind the cornice line, so the building will be shorter than it is now. Part of the building which might be called kind of characteristic of the existing building is at the intersection at Dayton and 5th Avenue, where there are bay window projections on the second floor, one facing Dayton and one facing 5th, and both of those are proposed to be removed with the project. A lot of the folksy art that is painted around the perimeter of the building that is part of the Old Milltown original theme or style will also be replaced and the building is going to be more detailed with traditional architectural elements, more in keeping with the original style of the building. In reviewing the guidelines for the project, Mr. Bullock explained that because the applicant is not adding anything to the footprint, but is refurbishing the existing building and not doing much to the site, landscaping is not a strongly required element. The proposal includes window planter boxes along 5th and on Dayton some, but there are presently no details as to what those will be. He felt that if the board has any concerns they could direct the applicant to work with staff or bring a final plan back to the board for review. Mr. Bullock reported that the city’s urban design guidelines considers this part of the city downtown to be a pedestrian- oriented commercial area, which encourages details and features to be used to enhance the pedestrian experience. The proposal has awnings that go along the length of the building as it fronts on 5th Avenue South and around the corner starting to go up Dayton Street, but those awnings appear to be an architectural detail and do not project out very far over the sidewalk. In looking at the elevations, he thought it seemed like the awnings barely got past the flower boxes. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 6 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 262 of 369 He wanted to see the design board and the applicant talk more about that and see if there was an opportunity to extend those awnings and provide more of a pedestrian amenity by creating and incorporating more weather protection. Ralph Allen, architect, discussed that the character of the building is such that there are existing two-story elements that are framing the building both at the corner of 5th and Dayton and at the beginning of the courtyard. Stretching between them is a saddle where the second floor is held back. The proposal is to bring the second floor out to not quite the street face. They propose to hold it back and use a different fenestration pattern, doing a 5/3 pattern to make it feel subordinate and held in, so that the original massing of the building is maintained and strengthened. Running between those primary components are the stretch of planters and awnings that are lighter in scale and have been kept back. He stated that they could look at expanding those to provide coverage from the weather. He wanted to keep them balanced with the major awnings for a feel of the space along 5th and to highlight the recognition of entry for the retail tenants. Mr. Allen next presented views of the building with the two major awning entries, one at the corner of 5th and Dayton and the other one framing the development that they have put together, which provides a visual break and relief from the building so that it is not filling in at a flush plane. He thought that helped maintain the balance of the primary corner massing. At Dayton at 5th, they are redefining the entrance, which is an entry into the garage for the additional parking required for the area being added, one storefront entry, and a Dayton level street lobby entrance that goes up to the commercial space on the second floor. Currently the concrete ramp that runs up to the second floor is proposed to be removed and a service area provided that will support the retail areas and the whole complex and will be a good delivery and material-handling spot for the property. At 5th and Dayton, there are bay windows and the kind of popped up edifice that is proposed to be traded for a much broader treatment of the building. A cornice cap detail has been developed with some ornamental straps that tie the building back and recalls the industrial nature of the building but will be a classy redressing of the building that is respectful to its historic roots, and will stretch across the entire building as opposed to emphasizing one corner. He thought it was an overall gain to the building. Mr. Allen explained that the planters are proposed to be worked in on the pedestrian street side and they would be happy to work with staff on that. They are opening up in between at the concrete columns and show a pre-cast plenth or base. Orchestrated into that will be a cast bronze plaque with a series of historical comments on it. The idea is to bring a human scale treatment along 5th between the major entries to the new commercial space that will have something to look at from a historical standpoint and bring the historical character of the building to the pedestrian view and keep that piece alive for people. He looked forward to writing the text and doing sketches for the bronze plaque. Bob Gregg pointed out that going down Main Street and looking at most of the older buildings there is not only the main glass but there are transom windows that are above that, and most of the rest of the buildings in town that are of that same era have been painted over or boxed over. They would like to open these up and concentrate on adding the transom windows back in to what the building was like in the early 1900’s. In response to Mr. Bullock’s comment about making the awnings bigger, they are not opposed to that. He referred the board to a particular sentence in the city’s guidelines that says the city should create incentives for the addition of awnings over public sidewalks. He was not sure how far the Architectural Design Board’s authority went, but suggested as a recommendation that he would be happy to make the awnings bigger. If the city wants to get awnings that are six feet out, he would be “incentivised” to do that if the city would drop its parking disruption fee or reduce it or mitigate it. Steve Bullock stated that he would work on that. Pro Tem Chairman Utt complimented the applicant on the efforts that they had achieved and thought it would be an enhancement to the downtown area. He noticed some of the awnings that are being talked about extending out are using a cowl wall. He wondered what material would be used with the larger awnings marking the entrances. Mr. Allen explained that those would be opaque and they are looking at a metal roof, possibly a flat lock sink panel, which will be an a-frame shape and have some kind of a soffit material underneath. The cowl wall panels are translucent, which will allow light in for plant growth and also help the storefront and the sidewalk. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 7 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 263 of 369 Pro Tem Chairman Utt inquired whether the applicant perceived any problem with keeping the plants alive with a cowl wall and whether they would be irrigated. Mr. Allen stated that they intend to irrigate and drain the planters. He did not think that light was a major issue. As they get out further, they would want to look at their light transmittance specs and there is a range within the cowl wall product to let more or less light through. In answer to Mr. Utt’s question, Mr. Allen stated that the awnings presently extend out to about 40 inches. Pro Tem Chairman Utt suggested adding another two feet, totaling close to six feet. Mr. Allen stated that if they could have a little latitude to work that so that they can get the cover for inclement weather and scale it appropriately for the sidewalk and the experience and the supports that are being structured he thought they could reach an amicable resolution and make sure there is enough light coming in to keep the plants growing. Pro Tem Chairman Utt commented that the materials delineate where the main entrances are well, and the cowl wall along the edge reminisces the old historical clear-story storefronts of that period. Elisabeth Larman, 801 Walnut Street, Edmonds, asked to read her statement and comments regarding the application to refurbish old Milltown. “I love Edmonds and I am very interested in this building because it reflects a part of the history of the town. I have sat through the years on many historical commission boards and served as president of the Historical District Preservation Society in Columbus, Georgia. I am also an interior designer, refurbished and remodeled many homes in the past, and one commercial building. I also concur with the mayor as he stated in the last issue of the Enterprise that more retail business is vital to downtown. The building that is proposed to replace Old Milltown is a sure way to lose more retail business.” “I have looked over the plans and first I am astounded that this should be considered a minor project. I think that any project that affects directly the look of our downtown is far from minor. Apparently, the rule is that if the addition made to a building is less than 4,000 square feet, it is considered a minor project. Actually, in this case, it is the remodeling of approximately 15,600 square feet and it seems to me that it should be handled appropriately in front of the whole city and the city council.” One thing I do not understand as well on the staff report is that the issues that the guidelines is the subject property falls under the direction of the Downtown Activity Center, Multi-Family Residential, so maybe someone can explain that to me later. Ms. Larman continued, “I am in total agreement that this and many of the buildings downtown are in need of refurbishing and need to be made attractive so to encourage retail. But in this case, the proposed building will have the opposite effect. Many reasons why. It does not follow in any way the city’s own guideline for the downtown activity center. I have described on page 23 in items one and two, the proposed building as shown in the computer rendering and blueprint is not in any way sensitive to the presence of historic buildings or landmarks, and is not in any compatible with its surroundings. It will have the opposite effect and actually visually shrink the down retail core by eliminating all the architectural details of this building, by altering the irregular footprint by giving it a stucco boxy look, this building will look not totally out of place with its surrounding neighbors towards the fountain, but will instead tie in with the two other stucco boxes to the right of it going towards Walnut Street, which are not occupied by businesses and not retail stores.” “On page 25 of the guidelines it stipulates in item C that buildings should avoid long, unbroken roofs and wall lines, that the corners should be accented. The proposed design goes exactly against this guideline. It obliterates all the details which make the facade on Dayton really charming and also eliminates the corner to the right of the building on 5th Avenue. Instead of enhancing the social side of this last area and taking advantage of the landscape outdoor draw, the developer shuts it off to the public, as he also shuts off access to the restrooms located in this area. That is not the way to Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 8 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 264 of 369 attract people and it is not conducive to attracting shoppers. I also would question that the only restaurant facilities for four people in this entire building seems to me woefully inadequate.” “On page 25, item D is not respected by the developer either. By eliminating the details on the façade of the building, the developer fails to show the character and flavor of the existing building. He eliminates the base at the corner of Dayton and 5th. He eliminates the central door on to 5th Avenue. He eliminates many windows, almost all openings on the south side, and the new purpose windows do not have any respect actually for the old terrace-story style that is in its place. Another way he destroys the character and history of the building is by adding an addition that will fill in the space above the Yost sign on 5th Avenue. The addition does not respect the style of the building, its so arched up windows versus rectangular ones everywhere else, it will stick out like a sore thumb and look added and out of place. It certainly would have been more respectful of the building to set it back and I would also argue that the space being left open would have actually capitalized on being an attraction for a savvy restaurant, for example, an outdoor terrace. In restaurants it is very popular and would have added an attraction for the area.” “I will totally agree with the city staff who found that the awnings on the buildings are senseless as they would not provide any shelter for the pedestrians during inclement weather. Furthermore, style-wise, they are very unattractive and out of place in Edmonds.” “In closing, I would like to propose that the city has a unique opportunity to combine its history, which is fast disappearing with modernizing of buildings and attracting more people to shop, in doing this, the developer needs to show respect for the character and flavor of downtown. Edmonds is a mill town which has come a long way and we should all be proud of its heritage. Instead of hiding it by changing old buildings with non-descript, pseudo-modern and irrelevant architecture, it would be much more profitable to capitalize on its charm, its quirkiness and its beauty. I have a few ideas I would like to propose. Keep the outside of the building as it is. Reinforce its slope by adding architectural details, such as a cornice along the roof line and more details on the windows. Keep the broken lines of the facade on Dayton but use imagination. There are lots that you can think about. Maybe take out the ramp and glass this whole area and make it a conservatory, flower shop, restaurant, art gallery. There are so many things you could do. Keep the brick and concrete facades look and certainly and absolutely keep the Yost brick side on the facade of 5th Avenue. It is part of Edmonds’ patrimony. Do not use stucco so it does not tie in with the boxes to the right, the buildings going towards Walnut. Do not use tiles, which would be totally out of place with the styles in Edmonds. Do not fill in the area above the Yost sign with an unsightly addition which does not tie in with the building; instead, use the space as a terrace for people to enjoy the outdoors, which is what the Northwest is all about. It certainly would be novel in the town and would attract people. Tie in with the neighboring buildings around the fountain and become part of the heart of downtown by adding the same kind of awnings that are existing there. Continue the look of the block of Starbucks, Rapid Fill, and Acadia. You will also find the same type of awnings across the street with the Wilcox and Arista buildings, and all around the fountain. All of these ideas will, when implemented, will give the downtown an additional beautiful building, true to its history, and more cohesive and respectful of Edmonds’ style and character. At the same time, it will enhance the quaintness of Edmonds, which is a major drawing factor to our city by the surrounding populace. There are architects in this country who specialize and are very sensitive to redesigning and refurbishing historic and old buildings. This proposal, I can see clearly, was not done by one of them. All of the ideas that I have proposed would not be a significant cost to the developer and would be so much better for our town. Thank you for your attention and your consideration.” Pro Tem Chairman Utt inquired about the time limit for public comments on specific projects. Mr. Bullock stated that it is up to the board. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, asked the board to turn to page A11 in their packet, the pictures of Old Milltown, and compare those to the next page of the new design. He wondered how the board felt when they looked at the photographs on the first page. Because Milltown is part of the city’s character, he thought the emphasis at this point in time is that the city wants to look at what it wants its center of town to look like and he felt that they wanted it to look a Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 9 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 265 of 369 bit like it already is. He pointed out that there are a lot of different styles in Edmonds and a lot of different buildings that were built at different times, and there is no consistent character of building. At the same time, each one represents an era when it was built. He felt that if the whole Milltown building is torn down and a new building is built, they will get a Bob Gregg remodel, and there is no touch with the past. He thought that the new design would be boring. The plaque he heard mentioned is their tie with history. The building will not provide gathering places any more. He thought what made the pedestrian-orientated town work is for people to be able to hang around and talk or be protected from the rain as they walk by the building. Mr. Hertrich pointed out the difference shown between the old building with the gaps shown in between and the next page not showing those gaps and there being a flat wall. He recalled the speaker before him saying something about setting back enough of the building in the area to leave the impression that there is still a gap and make it an area for outdoor seating and for some other facility upstairs, which would be an amenity to the building. He suggested that this building did not follow the code when it talks about relating to the historic nature of this city. He suggested that the board has an important duty in what it does tonight and has a chance to maintain and protect Edmonds. Chairman Utt acknowledged Mr.Gregg’s request for right of rebuttal. Steve Bullock explained that the applicant always bears the burden of proof to show their compliance with the criteria in the guidelines and has the final opportunity to address anything that came up. Bob Gregg realized it is difficult for citizens to get a packet like this and go through it and fully understand it. He thought there was a misunderstanding in that it is not the whole block between Dayton and Maple. It is the north half of the block, and the courtyard is not being eliminated. He agreed with some of the comments. He did not personally like stucco. He knew it could be used nicely, but he did not use it himself, and there is no stucco on the building. With regard to its historical cues, he explained that when they first interviewed Mr. Allen for the project, their comments to him were to look not at the remodel that was done in 1978, but to look at the building as it was in the early 1900’s and rather than covering up the rough, old, formed concrete walls where the rough-sawn wood imprints in the concrete are still visible and the bulging of the forms and the concrete is uneven, rather than covering that all up or grinding it down and sack it all over and make it smooth, his first comment was that they were going to expose all of that. He mentioned that it gets to a point where there is enough ugliness and eccentricity to a building that it becomes beautiful. This building was built as a concrete, poured-in-place, blockhouse, one-story, and some decades later another concrete block house was built halfway down the block, and some decades later a second story was added in, all in the free-form poured concrete style. In defense of Ralph’s team, he thought they had worked very hard to preserve the historical elements of the building and it was a situation where as the remodel becomes more familiar and it starts to come to fruition, you begin to appreciate the major effort to save a building that in almost any other circumstance would have been bulldozed. He remarked that this building is an old girl with a lot of charm that needs remodeling every hundred years or so and it will benefit from being brought up to code and HVAC and plumbing. The fire marshal recently thanked him for reviewing the plans for the sprinkler system that will be added. It meets all of the current and proposed codes in terms of having all of its storefronts on the exterior access. In terms of attracting retail, he was not sure what the misunderstanding was but he did not think that they could have taken any more directly from the cues that Mark Hinshaw made in his presentation in terms of transom windows and the street scape and the continuous shopping experience. They are still uncertain as to what is going to go on the ground floor of the building, but it is being tuned and fine-tuned to attract retail. He thought the issue was to focus on the architectural detail rather than the politics of the whole situation, and complimented the bridge architecture that was done under Ralph Allen’s direction. Pro Tem Chairman Utt inquired about the seismic condition of the building. Mr. Gregg responded that at last count they were talking about 15,000 pounds of I-beams. Mr. Gregg explained that the first thing they did when they started their due diligence was to talk with the structural engineers, and the building is so far out of seismic compliance that it will not stand much longer: It does not meet health safety codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, or fire code. The whole back wall is bulged and leaning. The east wall is leaning. All of that is being rebuttressed. He pointed out that Mr. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 10 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 266 of 369 Allen is adamant that they can save the building and make it work. When they are done, the concrete walls will be attached to a steel I-beam frame inside holding up the 30-year old walls. Boardmember Michel inquired about obtaining the change to the code on one or two of the applicant’s other projects to have living space project into the city right-of-way. He wondered if the applicant would use the bay windows from Old Milltown as an argument to get that approved by City Council. Mr. Gregg responded that he did not doubt that he did, and then he had heard Darryl Marmion stand up and tell them how horrible bay windows are. He noted that the bay windows were not part of the project in the 1900’s, they were added later, and they are absolutely San Francisco-style bay windows and are totally inconsistent with the style and are not historical. Pro Tem Chairman Utt closed public comments to move into board deliberations. Boardmember Schaefer noted that the guidelines talk about downtown commercial developments being pedestrian- oriented and the city shall encourage the placement of awnings over public right-of-way where possible and appropriate. He thought it was certainly possible and appropriate. The purpose of the awnings is to provide a shelter for pedestrians, he noted, and he fully supported an extension of the awnings to something more functional for pedestrian protection. As far as light for plantings, presently there are solid fabric awnings that extend out a ways and shade the planters that are there and they bloom fine now. He was not concerned about light for the plants necessarily. Pro Tem Chairman Utt wondered if they would like wiggle room as far as the extension or to negotiate with the city and come up with something or let the applicant decide what that is. Boardmember Schaefer thought that the function would be to cover the planters, the pedestrian width. Boardmember Smith inquired about width of an awning. Pro Tem Chairman Utt was not aware of a requirement that says how many people can be underneath an awning but thought that it would be good to provide one person shelter. Pro Tem Chairman Utt was concerned that although a cowl wall is a lighter material, there will still need to be some steel or aluminum frame to support it, and the more the awnings project out, it is starting to create structural issues for support on the building. Assuming that the building concrete is pretty sturdy, it probably is not a significant increase, but if it was going to a heavy gauge c-channel with a metal deck or something in it, they would probably have to come back in and restructure the building to support its awnings. He thought they had to bear in mind that awnings may often times look fairly wide, but they still have to be held up. He thought using the cowl wall system, if they could keep a pristine frame to it, extending a minimum of 18 inches to a maximum of 24 inches may be sufficient to get enough coverage to meet the city’s requirements and still keep the plants happy and not get too far out, and allow the city and the architect to work on it to see how it goes. Mr. Utt clarified that in addition to what they are now, if they are 40 inches, if they go another 24 inches they are getting close to six feet. He would not go over six feet for an awning. Somewhere between five and six feet would probably be sufficient. BOARDMEMBER KENDALL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SMITH, TO APPROVE MINOR PROJECT ADB-2006-94, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THOSE CODES AND APPROVALS (I.E. PARKING AND ADB APPROVAL); • THE APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE A FINAL PLANTING PLAN WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT WHICH WILL BE APPROVED BY STAFF; • THE AWNINGS ALONG FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS AND EXTEND FIVE TO SIX FEET OVER THE SIDEWALK AT THE ARCHITECT’S DISCRETION; Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 11 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 267 of 369 BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.10, ADB CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED (4-1; BOARDMEMBER MICHEL OPPOSED). d. FILE NO. ADB-06-97: An application to modify the design of building 10 of the Point Edwards project. Instead of a building that has a stepped roof design for the upper two floors it would have an upper floor that covers the entire building. The site is located at 50 Pine Street and is zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use Ross Woods, 85 Pine Street, Edmonds, was present Senior Planner Steve Bullock presented the Point Edwards project, explaining that it had received its initial approval from the board a few years ago and the project has moved along and different phases of it have been completed. This is a proposed change for Building 10, which is the southern-most building located inside the loop of Pine Street. It is one of the larger buildings and is located on a portion of the site that is sloped fairly well. When the City Council approved the code language for the zone district that ultimately was applied to this property, language was created to address that there were going to be larger buildings located on the site that had some fairly significant slopes to them and recognized that when there is a large building on a slope that is fairly steep, it becomes very difficult to do one height calculation box on the building. What was allowed in the original drafting of the Master Plan Hillside Residential zone was for an applicant to put together a proposal for a building that would be one building, meaning it had one big parking garage and even a couple of floors that were all the same, but then might have different elements projecting out from that point and there was a portion of the building that was distinct from another portion of the building and the height calculations could be done for that portion of the building separate from the other portion of the building. At the conceptual design for Building 10, when it came through for conditional approval, it was planned for the building to take use of that provision in the code. The western portion of the building, which faces almost due north, was going to have one height calculation done for it and the portion of the building that faces off to the northeast would have a separate height calculation done for it, and it was anticipated that the portion of the building to the west would be a story higher than the portion to the east. As the applicant is putting together their proposal now for their construction plans, they are nailing down their grades and the heights of their buildings and have found that the height calculation can be done for the entire building as one height calculation, and it works okay for them, and it results in a building that is the same height all the way across. They could still do that and it would allow the western portion to project probably even higher than what their proposal is at this time. It would be proposed as all one building with one height calculation and the upper floor would be one floor with some step to it, as opposed to a whole floor step to it. It will maintain the exact same site plan approval that the board has approved in the past and will maintain the exact same character, colors and materials that have already been approved and used on the remainder of the site. Ross Woods described that the building is at the top of the hill on Pine Street, abuts Woodway, and primarily faces Pine Street to the north. Since the sun is coming from the south side, the shadow would be on Pine Street rather than back on any of the neighboring properties. He brought up that view blockage has already been set by this building’s original design and prior approval. Woodway is a residential area and there is one home directly behind the building that is a two-story home. Building 10 would block that view but the additional height on the eastern portion of the building does not block it any further. Boardmember Michel inquired which page shows the elevations of the new structure as it will be built. Mr. Bullock commented that he has only seen a couple of massing studies that show it as blocks and there are photographs of other similar elevations. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 12 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 268 of 369 Boardmember Michel noted that it does not show how many stories or floor levels there are. Mr. Woods explained that the eastern side of the building is four residential levels, with the lower level portion being a parking garage. Boardmember Michel asked about the height from the finished grade on the north side to the peak. Mr. Woods did not know. He stated that it is below the 35-foot height limit of the historical grade that they were provided parameters on for the height on the property. Boardmember Michel thought it was difficult to approve the project with no elevations, other than a block drawing. Pro Tem Utt was concerned that the project did not give a lot of information about what the project would look like elevation-wise and it would be helpful to have a section through the site showing the proposed height. He would be interested to see what the additional height would do when looking from south to north. He had some concern because at the time they had the public hearing and talked about height and what people were going to see, and he knew that the mayor of Woodway came to that meeting and participated in the public comment and the concern was the impact that this would have on adjacent properties at Woodway. He felt that the folks from Woodway, when this was approved, left somewhat content and he would feel more comfortable approving a project if it addressed that issue from the Woodway side more than just the view from the Edmonds side. Steve Bullock called the board’s attention to the site plan with the footprint of the building and discussed the various roof levels. Boardmember Michel’s concern was that this was the tallest building and it is going to be on the top of the hill and to make it even taller seemed to be against what the board was thinking at the beginning and it looks massive. Mr. Woods expressed that he would be happy to get that information and bring it back to the board. He clarified that the board wanted to see elevations impacting from the north and the south side and sections. Pro Tem Chairman Utt commented that, granted the parameters, the applicant is allowed a greater height but it seemed to him that the initial approval was based on an understanding that the board was going to approve this because it is what they were shown and it concerned him now that it could go up higher. He thought that if he could see more visuals it would be helpful and he would be interested in seeing what the view is from the north. Boardmember Schaefer was concerned about the view from the south looking north. Mr. Woods clarified that the east end of the building is all residential, with no parking. BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SMITH, TO CONTINUE FILE NUMBER ADB-06-97 PROJECT TO ANOTHER MEETING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROJECT AND TO CONSIDER IT FURTHER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: None. 8. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): b. FILE NO. ADB-06-99: An application by the Bank of Washington to build a new bank building, including drive through. The site is located at 202 5th Avenue South and is zoned Community Business (BC). Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 13 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 269 of 369 Mike Perry, Dimensions Incorporated, Architect, 3006 Northup Way, Suite 302, Bellevue, WA; and Larry Hauck, 4138 327th Circle Northwest, Carnation, WA, were present. Senior Planner Steve Bullock pointed out that both items on the consolidated projects portion of the agenda are projects that will have a public hearing, although, tonight is not the hearing for either of these projects. He explained that the Bank of Washington has applied for an architectural design review of their project, as well as a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to have a drive-through. The public hearing for that will be held in front of the hearing examiner and the hearing examiner will make a decision on both the Conditional Use Permit and the Architectural Design Board review of the project. The review by the Architectural Design Board is related only to the design review portion of the project and the board will send a recommendation on to the hearing examiner regarding the design of the project. Once the hearing examiner holds the public hearing on the item, the public can bring up issues related to the Conditional Use Permit and related to the design review of the project and the hearing examiner will consider all of that, including the recommendation from the Architectural Design Board, in making an ultimate decision. Steve Bullock described the application for the Bank of Washington to build a new bank building located at the west side of 5th Avenue South and south of Dayton Street. The area is zoned Community Business. It will be a 2,800 square foot building in the northeast corner of the site, fronting directly on 5th Avenue South and also on Dayton Street. The drive-through will be along the west side of the building. A parking lot is on the south portion of the site with a proposed curb cut access on 5th Avenue and going through to the alley to the west. Because the site is tight in regards to the dimensional requirements for drive aisles and parking stall spaces, the applicant has asked for a reduction in some of the landscaped areas. For example, typically it is required to have at least a 5-foot planting bed around the perimeter of the parking area as it abuts the adjacent property owners, and 10 feet when abutting the public right-of-way. In the site plan, the applicant proposes to have their drive aisle and their parking butt right up to the parking line to the north and the south because of the fact that it is an L-shaped property. The project complies with the City’s code limitations for the BC zone. The building is not close to the height limit and the applicant is allowed to build lot line to lot line, which they are not doing. This size of a building is required to have six parking stalls and their plan proposes eleven. Pertaining to a section of the code, in collaboration with the Engineering department, in the downtown area, ECDC Chapter 18.80, entitled streets and driveways, has a direction to the city and also to the applicant that the city does not want to have curb cuts along the pedestrian-oriented areas of the downtown. Alley access must be used ,if available, and only under certain conditions will a curb cut be approved. In this case, the applicant is proposing a curb cut on Dayton Street, a curb cut on 5th Avenue South, and also access to the alley to the west. The Engineering and Planning departments feel that will not be supported by code and will be denied. Staff anticipates going through the conditional use permit process for the drive-through, and authorization to have one curb cut to make the drive-through a workable solution. He did not think that the drive-through would be a legitimate potential use if the only access both entering and exiting was off of the alley. He thought it was likely a curb cut on Dayton would be supported and also exiting to the alley and closing down the curb cut on 5th, which would provide the opportunity to address other deficiencies in the proposal related to providing landscaping, perimeter landscaping as it abuts the public right-of-way, and reducing the readily visible asphalt surface. Steve Bullock reported that staff has no problem with the site criteria and design criteria, other than the curb cut along 5th Avenue. The applicant’s proposal is for more parking than is required and there may be an opportunity to convert one of those stalls into a planting island to reduce the size and apparent coverage of the asphalt, by maybe putting in a shade tree to provide more shade and cover. Staff concurs with the basic landscaping schedule and palette of plants. He noted that street trees are going to need tree grates and the City’s street tree plan is going to call for very specific street trees on Dayton and 5th. Building staff feels like it complies with the urban design guidelines, with a similar comment to what was made on the previous Old Milltown project, because this is in the pedestrian-oriented portion of the downtown, awnings are encouraged, but nothing is proposed at this time. He thought the design of the building would lend itself to the incorporation of something like awnings fairly easily. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 14 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 270 of 369 Boardmember Michel noted that it appears like the building will cover a quarter of the building site. He thought that would allow for more light and air that may not happen with another kind of building on the site. He thought it did not look like it would be bigger than the original service station. Mike Perry thought it was ironic that the tower format of Old Milltown was something that he used as a take-off for the design of the towers on this building and now it looked like it was going to be eliminated, but that is where their design came from because they wanted a strong corner presence for this small of a building to attract pedestrians, as well as a locator for cars driving by to find the bank. He pointed out that the most prominent recommendation made by staff is the closing of access on to 5th, which is something the bank does not want to see. He explained that they have eliminated 54 percent of the lineal width curb cuts that were going to the Arco site. The one off Dayton was diminished in width because it’s a one-way access point so that traffic can bypass and get to the drive-through window. A curb cut was eliminated off of 5th and reduced the width of the remaining southern curb cut down to 24 feet to access that parking lot. In reviewing the web site for the City of Edmonds, he noted that Ordinance No. 3302, which is the ordinance that was passed and put into the public works requirement for reducing or eliminating curb cuts, talks about providing access from the existing or relocated driveway or curb cut in a manner which preserves or enhances street parking. He thought they had done both of those things. On 5th Avenue, presently, there is no parking in front of the site because Community Transit has painted out the curb for their bus stop, but the northern-most curb cut that they are eliminating could possibly allow Community Transit to back up the bus stop and allow an additional parking spot further to the south. On Dayton they are removing the existing curb cut and shifting it further to the west, which would allow for any loss of parking to be made up. For access through the alley, he understood the city’s intent and, having walked the site, he counted approximately 160 stalls or parking areas that access off of that single alley. In talking to adjacent owners, he reported that at times it is a problem when utility vehicles, garbage trucks or whatever vehicles are traveling down that alley for someone to be able to go in the direction they want to go without having to pull off to the side or on to private property or back out of the alley. It is a concern for the bank not to have full access to the site because it is a customer–based service and they need to be able to enter on to the site unencumbered. Mr. Perry felt that alleys are secondary access, which is the definition in the code for Edmonds. Mr. Perry pointed out they have exceeded the landscaping requirement in the landscape areas that have been provided and have no problem increasing the caliper of the street trees and putting in street grates for whatever the city standard is. He guessed the bank might have an issue with awnings on the current site with lighting fixtures that go over the sidewalk, and may be hesitant to provide any structure over the sidewalk at this location. He did not see that as an issue and thought they could be easily incorporated into the design. He offered to take another look at the landscaping for screening, but the issue came down to their access and making the bank a viable project. He had noticed in the Edmonds urban design study that it talked about efficient, effective circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians is critical to a successful downtown. He felt that the City acknowledges that both pedestrians and vehicles are part of the environment in the downtown area and one that the applicant hopes to try to promote with their access to the site. Mr. Hauck stated that the bank was founded in Edmonds and they thought about the space and people walking around it and getting through it and their intent is to make it something that everyone can be proud of. Boardmember Michel commented that the Architectural Design Board does not make decisions about access. Boardmember Schaefer questioned the asphalt strip noted as existing, but he did not see it proposed to be replaced with anything more pedestrian-attractive on the walkway. He noted a long straight wall that was somewhat featureless and referred to the use of the awnings. He suggested using street furniture and doing something with the full width area to break things up visually along that wall and provide a space for pedestrians. Pro Tem Chairman Utt commented that the City is not requesting or expecting that if awnings were added it would be a continuous awning, because he thought that would be a problem. He felt that the natural rhythm of the building lends itself to awnings being placed over the windows in between the piers and at the piers where the light fixture is bringing Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 15 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 271 of 369 the light down. He recommended adding three awnings between those piers at the standard of between five to six feet of coverage over the sidewalk. Boardmember Schaefer confirmed for Mr. Bullock that the asphalt strip he is referring to is located on 5th Avenue. Boardmember Michel assumed that a whole new sidewalk would be required, with street trees. Mr. Bullock concurred. Pro Tem Chairman Utt liked the corner tower at the entrance on Dayton and 5th Avenue and the fact that there is an alcove off of the sidewalk where a bike rack and a bench have been included. He noted a little bench tucked over in the landscape area next to the handicap stall. He agreed with adding a couple of tables and some umbrellas. Boardmember Schaefer referred to the staff recommendation on page four and noted that if curb cuts are not being addressed by the board, perhaps staff recommendation number two should be modified or eliminated. Boardmember Michel suggested that if the curb cut is eliminated, it should be replaced with adding another bench. BOARDMEMBER MICHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ADB-06-99 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THOSE CODES AND APPROVALS (I.E. ADB APPROVAL); 2. IF THE CURB CUT IS CLOSED, IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH PLANTINGS; 3. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL INDICATE STREET TREES TO BE INSTALLED AT 3 INCH CALIPER WITH FOUR-FOOT BY FOUR-FOOT ADA ACCESSIBLE TREE GRATES; 4. THE APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE A FINAL PLANTING PLAN WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WILL BE APPROVED BY STAFF; 5. AN AWNING SHALL BE ADDED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, ALONG 5TH AVENUE SOUTH, TO PROVIDE WEATHER PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS, EXTENDING A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET OVER THE SIDEWALK; BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.10, ADB CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Boardmember Michel recused himself from hearing PRD-05-137 because he had had contract on the property as a purchaser and as a close friend of the applicant, along with the applicant’s brother. He noted he would be absent from the October ADB meeting. Pro Tem Chairman Utt called for a five-minute recess. a. FILE NO. PRD-05-137: An application for a 27-lot Planned Residential Development, more commonly referred to as Anglers Crossing. The property is located at 183xx Olympic View Drive and is zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8). Craig Kruger, McNaughton Group, 144 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds; and Susan Jensen, 144 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA, were present. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 16 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 272 of 369 Steve Bullock reiterated his earlier statement that this is a consolidated type of permit where the design board reviews a proposed Planned Residential Development (PRD), sends the recommendations about the design of the PRD on to the hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner will review the proposed application for compliance with all of the PRD criteria and take into account those criteria and the recommendations of the ADB on the criteria related to the design aspects of the project. He noted section 20.35.060 in the PRD chapter talks about single-family design criteria that the board will use to review the home designs. The staff packet provides elevation views of what the homes might look like and contains staff’s review of the single-family design criteria. He stated the house designs appear to meet the criteria called for in 20.35.060, although, some things will need to be checked as individual homes are built on the lot; for example, using consistent shapes, forms and materials around the entire building. Mr. Bullock explained that one element related to the contract rezone that applies to the design of the PRD is that there is a condition of the contract rezone that requires an entry landscape treatment to be done at both the east and west ends of the road that will go between Olympic View Drive and 80th Avenue West. At this point, he stated, the landscape plan shows some kind of treatment at the east entry and he thought they had something more to show regarding the west entrance, but even if they do not, he thought staff could deal with that through a condition, if needed. He noted that the staff report addresses the design aspects of the project that the board has the responsibility to give recommendations to the hearing examiner on, and any other elements of the PRD chapter and criteria are up to the hearing examiner to deal with at a later public hearing. Boardmember Schaefer observed that because the conditions in the PRD deal with critical areas, he did not see any drawings delineating the boundaries of critical areas existing on the site and it was hard to make a determination as to what open space are being provided outside of the critical areas. Mr. Bullock explained that it is criteria of the PRD that will be decided by the hearing examiner. He explained that for the critical areas located on the site, there are a number of steep slope areas and there is one small 800 square foot wetland. The things that qualify as steep slope hazard areas by the critical areas ordinance are the slope that runs along the north portion of the property and there is a ridge and a bank that is running along the east boundary of Olympic View. The applicant is not allowed to use a critical area for their usable open space requirement. Usable open space has to be usable and if there is a 40 percent slope, that is not going to be very usable. He allowed that if they created a trail through it, they could count the area of their trail towards their usable open space requirement, but the final calculation of the usable open space is something that will need to be demonstrated prior to going to the hearing examiner. Mr. Bullock confirmed for Board member Schaefer that trails are still counted if they transect the critical area. Boardmember Schaefer inquired about the effect to the critical area that is displaced by a trail and accounting for the area lost with the wetland. Mr. Bullock explained that the wetland is a Class 4 wetland, which is the lowest class of wetlands and is something that the code provides for to allow the applicant to request filling it, and some criteria has to be met to ultimately have the hearing examiner approve that filling. He noted that the applicant has made the request and has submitted the justification for why they think it should be allowed to be filled. That has not been approved. A steep slope critical area is different from a critical areas wetland or stream or habitat critical area. Wetland, stream and habitat critical areas are by State law supposed to be protected and preserved and even allowed for enhancement. At the same time, State law also calls steep slope hazard areas, or geologically hazardous areas, critical areas, too, but setting those aside or identifying them separately is to assure that development happening in steep slope hazard areas is done in a safe manner and is not going to damage the proposed development or any surrounding development. There is no requirement that says there needs to be x number of square feet of steep slope hazard area. There is a requirement that says there needs to be 10 percent of the site set aside as usable open space and the area of the path will be allowed to be counted towards that 10 percent usable open space, but not the entire steep slope area. The PRD ordinance encourages using the flexibility built into that development tool to allow significant areas to be preserved and protected. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 17 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 273 of 369 Craig Kruger appreciated staff’s recommendations for approval with conditions. He presented aerial photos showing the site and pointed out the Perrinville commercial area, the post office, Olympic View Drive, surrounding streets, 80th Avenue West along the west side, and the east-west 184th Street Southwest. He showed views that depicted the proposed landscaping over the site plan and what the uses are in the surrounding streets. He provided views to show the separation of the existing homes from the boundary of Angler’s Crossing and an idea of the vegetation that exists on the adjacent properties surrounding Angler’s Crossing. He displayed ground level photos to show the site from the intersection of 80th Avenue and 184th Street facing towards the east. Other photos showed the proximity of the existing homes and neighborhoods adjacent to the property, principally to the southwest, to show the scale of the homes and the types of homes. Mr. Kruger felt that the site plan was fairly straightforward, given its configuration, the site constraints, the site topography and the constraint that was part of the original contract rezone to provide a road from the intersection of 80th Avenue and 184th Street down through that connected with Olympic View Drive. A cul-de-sac is proposed for the southern part of the property because there were no other roads to connect to and because of the topography. The other constraint that arose with the contract rezone was the limitation to a total of 21 percent building coverage for the net area. With the road system in place, the building footprints on average will be 1,500 square feet per home. The site plan is for 27 single-family lots. The staff report indicates under the PRD code that with the density it could go up to 30 lots. The lot width will be a minimum of 50 feet for each of the lots. The site plan also includes several open space tracts. The critical area next to Olympic View Drive is a tract that is along the east side of the property. There is a small passive park at the east entry. There is a park area over the storm detention vault that will be underground at the east entry, and there is a trail connection from the vault area. There is an open space area in the northwest corner, which is for preservation of that natural area and the existing slope. There is a small tot lot also at the east entry. They looked at the small open space areas that have either a tot lot or a passage area, in combination with the area over the storm detention vault, which will be a flat, open, active area, and the trail system is limited to those trails, which adds up to 11.9 percent of the site as usable open space, and exceeds the 10 percent requirement for the PRD scope. Mr. Kruger described the site sections representing the existing grade and showed the topography through the site sections and then showed the proposed grade and where the cut will take place. In making the road connection from Olympic View Drive up to 80th and 184th, he explained, it required a maximum road grade of 12 percent per the city code. They have made the road alignment and profiled the road to not exceed that maximum. From there they needed to extend the cul-de-sac, not exceeding the 12 percent maximum grade, and that created a regrading of the site to bring the roads to the city’s standards. The cross-sections showed the existing grade, the proposed grade, and the building line that would be the maximum 25-foot height requirement per the city code. They tried to show the way that the homes have been designed to fit within or below the 25-foot height limitation. On site section one, Mr. Kruger continued, running in the north-south direction in the northwest portion of the property, they worked with the topography and stair-stepped the foundation down of the home that is to the north side of the road, such that the grade of the lot conforms to the grade at the bottom of the existing slope up in the northwest portion of the property. Instead of filling the ravine area, they worked with the topography through house design and stair-stepping down the foundation from the front to the back to maintain the open space area. Section two is in an east-west direction, through the middle of the site, and shows the cut that will take place. In some cases, they are looking at 2-story homes, and in some cases they are looking at 3-story homes that conform to the city’s building height limitation of 25 feet over existing grade. Mr. Kruger introduced Sue Jensen, the landscape architect, who would address open space areas and the landscaping. Ms. Jensen complimented Mr. Kruger on his presentation. She reported that sidewalks will be put on both sides of the road and there will be street trees, one tree per house minimum, and more may be added. The trees will be medium size trees that are moderately drought-tolerant, including maples and smaller ash trees. Entering the site and coming down Olympic View Drive, she described the prominent corner that will be a potential entry signage location with nice entry Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 18 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 274 of 369 planting. The sign is not proposed at this point. Sweeping curves will be incorporated near the ground cover, with accent plantings, colorful bulbs and perennials, and a series of shrubs and grasses and trees on the corner. Leading into the site, there will be street trees, the lawn edge, nice plantings, leading into one of the open spaces, which is on a bank, with great views and a promontory kind of feeling. Walking up the pathway, they envision a cluster of nicely-detailed wood trellises, or a small structure with some benches, that will be more of an adult gathering place or a quiet spot. Across the street, over the storm vault, they propose putting a lot of soil over the top and it will be suitable for an informal play area. She described a pathway and a couple of benches, leading into a soft surface trail. Utility work will have to be installed and the applicant will come back and do some repairs to the landscape, using mostly native species on the back edge and a few ornamentals closer to the front. She pointed out a couple of different viewpoints and more benches. Enhancement is proposed for the native vegetation around the edge of the trail. At the other end of the site, she described a preliminary concept of wrapping the corner, probably with a strip of lawn and using native trees in the background, with additional shrubs and accent plantings to provide color, and it may have a sign in the future. Ms. Jensen described a low fence that is proposed along the roadway to prevent kids from running out into the street. There will be benches, picnic tables, a small lawn, and a nice orientation. As part of the PRD proposal, perimeter buffers are required around the site of 15 feet, with a stipulated distance between trees. She thought they had 15 to 20 feet on average, using a combination of native and deciduous trees, as well as some shrubs, and those will line a good portion of the site. In other areas, there is existing vegetation and trees and under-story that can be used as part of the buffer and the plan is to supplement that with additional conifers sprinkled in to help stabilize the bank and provide additional buffering. She pointed out the green/gray area from the middle of the site that represented the lot areas that will be landscaped in the future by the homebuilder or owner. Mr. Kruger explained that the McNaughton Group is the developer of neighborhoods and not a homebuilder. He noted that Jeff McNaughton of McNaughton & Associates has developed some plans and elevations for homes that would fit within the neighborhood, a footprint of the home and a variety of heights and massing of the structure that will work with the city’s building height limitation and grading of the site. There is a mix of one-story homes, 2-story homes, and 3-story homes on the site. He described the configuration of the homes off the sloping streets. He thought Jeff had done a good job with the mix of materials proposed for the homes, the potential roof shapes and massing, the front entries and front porches and the way the visual impact of the garage door is minimized. He pointed out the material board that Mr. McNaughton had put together to show potential color combinations on the elevations and thought the colors would be a good mix for a nice variety. He asked to submit a letter to the board in response to staff’s report. Mr. Bullock noted that the board had been provided copies of the letter. Mr. Kruger explained that the letter tries to cover the 10 percent usable open space. He noted that Sue Jensen has addressed additional landscaping at the west entrance to the neighborhood and also that sidewalks are being provided on both sides of the internal roadway, except at the very southwest entry where there is constraint from the road. Pro Tem Chairman Utt appreciated the presentation and seeing the sections through the site and also appreciated the attempt to point out the adjacent existing homes along the edge and what is happening to them. He asked Mr. Bullock about the staff recommendation that consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the homes and the intent in that regard, referring to Madrona Cove. Steve Bullock explained that what happened on Madrona Cove is similar to what will probably happen on this site. The company that develops the PRD will end up selling it to another builder to build the homes on it, and they will sit down with the city and go over the exact requirements. He tells people that he not looking for them to do the exact same treatment on the main front facade all the way around, but at the same time he wants them to make sure that they take the same kind of care and consideration for using a consistent trim package around the entire building. Boardmember Schaefer noticed that there were a couple of different survey layouts on the site, which differ between 05 and 06, and questioned why 06 has steeper areas. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 19 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 275 of 369 Mr. Kruger stated that they could look at that but noticed that it seemed like there were more trees shown on one plan than on the other one and, typically, when the surveyors are locating those trees, they will also choose the grade at the base of the tree. It may have been a first survey where they went and surveyed the ground and then came back later and added more detail on the trees, which might have led to a difference when it was computed. Ms. Jensen thought that the surveyor had been asked to provide a sheet to show the trees more clearly. Boardmember Schaefer inquired about significant trees on the site. Mr. Bullock explained that the city does not have a significant tree ordinance, but it does consider the steep slope and the large evergreen trees that are on the north bank to be a big issue and a major character mark for this neighborhood, which the applicant proposes to retain. Boardmember Schaefer noted that the layout of the site in the way it sits on the land will be pretty shady. He wondered how that will affect the plant selection. Ms. Jensen explained that the intent is to open up a good portion of the site to create the paths, so initially there will be more sunlight in the center of the site, but she imagined over time that would fill in, too, and it will become more like the neighborhoods around it. She pointed out that a variety of plants are proposed for the deep shade, as well as some for the sunny spots. Pro Tem Chairman Utt noticed on the plant palette the use of native plants that are not indigenous to the area. Ms. Jensen thought that half of them were and pointed out that some of them do not do well in bright, brand-new sites. Boardmember Schaefer recalled a comment that landscaping on the building pads would be the responsibility of the builder or homeowner. Mr. Kruger explained that in other neighborhoods they have hydroseeded and seeded the pads to avoid erosion in the interim before the foundation is excavated and installed. Boardmember Schaefer confirmed that there are computations for the building pad area to show the compliance with the 21 percent cap. Mr. Bullock explained that staff will know ahead of time what the 21 percent is. He had told the applicant that he was happy to take that number and divide it by 27 and saying each lot has 1,500 square feet. He also offered to keep a running total of it. BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF PRD-2005-137 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: • CONSISTENT USE OF MATERIALS OR BUILDING FORMS MUST BE USED ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOMES; • BUILDING PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS MUST STILL BE RESOLVED WITH THE SITE PLAN; • REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE MUST STILL BE DEMONSTRATED; • A SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD; • A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH ENTRANCES. BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES ANDTHE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.060, PRD – SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 10. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 20 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 276 of 369 Pro Tem Chairman Utt reported from his meeting with the Mayor that there was a concern about a belittling comment that was made during the initial application for the elementary school playground project. Mr. Utt stated that he had reviewed the minutes and found that the drawings were referred to as cartoons and guessed that someone had taken offense to that term. It never dawned on him that someone would be offended by that because in the architectural profession it is a term that is used and means a very preliminary drawing. Often times they will say that to people. He did not know if it was meant that way but it was taken that way and he thought he would review the minutes and give the Mayor a call and say that he went through them, but there was no misintention there because he uses that term a lot. Boardmember Schaefer agreed that it is used in the engineering profession as well. Boardmember Kendall confirmed that it was in no way meant as a pejorative comment. Mr. Utt concurred. Steve Bullock explained that he had a number of meetings with the parents’ group in the couple of weeks after the last ADB meeting to try and give them direction and sensed that they were feeling a little bit put upon and he had tried to reassure them several times that the board was not trying to belittle them at all and that, given the right amount of detail and clarity with their proposal, it would be very easy to get through the board review process. He thought they may have shared some of their concerns with the Mayor before he had had a chance to talk with them. Boardmember Kendall pointed out that there was also the issue with the stream. Pro Tem Chairman Utt recalled explaining to the applicant that the reason the project was continued was because of conflicting information, not the presentation. He appreciated any parents who get so involved in this kind of process. Boardmember Schaefer complimented Pro Tem Chairman Utt on his role as chair and thought he had appropriately deferred to staff. 11. ADJOURNMENT: Pro Tem Chairman Utt adjourned the Architectural Design Board meeting at 10:28 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 21 September 6, 2006 Draft Minutes Packet Page 277 of 369 Packet Page 278 of 369 Packet Page 279 of 369 Packet Page 280 of 369 Packet Page 281 of 369 Packet Page 282 of 369 Packet Page 283 of 369 Packet Page 284 of 369 Packet Page 285 of 369 Packet Page 286 of 369 Packet Page 287 of 369 Packet Page 288 of 369 Packet Page 289 of 369 Packet Page 290 of 369 Packet Page 291 of 369 Packet Page 292 of 369 Packet Page 293 of 369 Packet Page 294 of 369 Packet Page 295 of 369 Packet Page 296 of 369 Packet Page 297 of 369 Packet Page 298 of 369 Packet Page 299 of 369 Packet Page 300 of 369 Packet Page 301 of 369 Packet Page 302 of 369 Packet Page 303 of 369 Packet Page 304 of 369 Packet Page 305 of 369 Packet Page 306 of 369 AM-718 5. Draft "BD - Downtown Business Zones" Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:60 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Continued Council deliberation and action on the public hearing held on September 18, 2006 on the draft "BD - Downtown Business Zones" intended to be applied to the downtown area to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on the draft BD zoning proposals on September 18, 2006, and continued deliberations to October 3, 2006. Unable to consider the item that night, the deliberations were continued to this meeting. Narrative A public hearing was held on September 18, 2006, on proposed new "BD - Downtown Business" zones and a new zoning map applying the zones to downtown properties. This is a continuation of Council deliberations on the zoning proposals, with the purpose of providing direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption. For more detail, you should refer to the agenda material from the September 18, 2006, public hearing. The draft BD zone language (Exhibit 1) and proposed new zoning map for downtown properties (Exhibit 2) are attached here for easy reference. Exhibit 3 contains the minutes from the 9/18/2006 public hearing. Councilmember Orvis has submitted some suggestions for changes he would like to have considered during the deliberations (Exhibit 4) as well as his presentations from the September 18th hearing (Exhibit 5). As an additional note, the existing definition of "height" in ECDC 21.40.030 (3) provides a height exception for elevator penthouses "not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit," while (4) and (5) of the same definition provide for exceptions for vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches and standpipes not to exceed 30 inches above the height limit. Councilmembers Wambolt and Plunkett have also provided suggested changes that they would like to have considered; these are attached as Exhibits 6 and 7. One staff note. As an alternative to the option of placing a 28-foot height limitation on BD1 buildings, and to address the concern about the interaction of slope and building height, the Council could establish a step-back rule for the BD1 zone. Similar to the other downtown zones, buildings in the BD1 zone would be required to step back any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet above average grade, whichever was less. In contrast to the 25-foot step back rule in the other BD zones, the 30-foot step back threshold would be in consideration of the fact that the BD1 zone has the higher 15-foot ground floor requirement and a history of more elaborate facade decoration. This would allow for two-story buildings at the street front, provide some flexibility in facade design, and provide sufficient height for a 15+ foot ground floor with adequate room for second-floor commercial space. A 28-foot height limitation, for example, would not allow a building like Chanterelle's to be built in the BD1 zone. It will be most helpful to staff to have a clear consensus from Council on changes that are to be made in the draft code language and map, working from the hearing drafts that were recommended by the Planning Board (Exhibits 1 and 2). The intent is to bring a final ordinance back for Council approval. With adoption of the new zones and map, it will also be possible to lift the moratorium on certain development applications in the current downtown BC zone. Recommendation (1) Provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption of new "BD - Downtown Business" zones and a new zoning map for downtown. (2) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption to lift the moratorium on certain development applications in the BC zone. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Packet Page 307 of 369 Link: Exhibit 1: BD Zone Language Link: Exhibit 2: BD Zoning Map Link: Exhibit 3: Council Minutes 9/18/2006 Link: Exhibit 4: Orvis Amendments Link: Exhibit 5: Orvis Presentations 9/18/2006 Link: Exhibit 6: Wambolt Amendment Link: Exhibit 7: Plunkett Amendments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/21/2006 08:34 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/21/2006 09:06 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/21/2006 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 11/20/2006 10:28 AM Final Approval Date: 11/21/2006 Packet Page 308 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 1 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Sub-districts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi-family residential uses. 16.43.010 Sub-districts. The “Downtown Business” zone is subdivided into five (5) distinct sub-districts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each sub-district contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five sub-districts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor Packet Page 309 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 2 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A New automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Residential Uses Single family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Packet Page 310 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 3 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in businesses X C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Packet Page 311 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 4 Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D A=Permitted Primary Use B=Permitted Secondary Use C=Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit D=Secondary Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit X=Not Permitted For Conditional Uses listed in Table 16.43-1, above, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall be only be provided consistent with Chapter 18.80.060 ECDC. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four (4) feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50% open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when Packet Page 312 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 5 unavoidable due to the nature of the use, shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. architectural features or details; b. artwork; c. landscaping. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Site Development Standards BD1 5 BD2 5 BD3 5 BD4 3 5 BD5 5 Minimum Lot Area 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Lot Width 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Street Setback 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Side Setback 1 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Rear Setback 1 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Height 2 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ Minimum Height of Ground Floor 4 15’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in Chapter 16.43.030.C ECDC. 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g. an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 for further detail. 4 “Minimum height of ground floor” means the height measured from the base of the ground floor to the top of the ground floor ceiling plate, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the ‘finished’ ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25%. 5 Site development standards for single family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Packet Page 313 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 6 Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. 2. When the street frontage of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely within 7 inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so that either: a. The entry for the commercial portion of the ground floor is located within 7 inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor is within 7 inches of the grade level of the entry; or, b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. Packet Page 314 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 7 3. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from the street front of the building. 4. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in Chapter 16.43.030.B.3, above, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four (4) feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50% open, such as in a lattice pattern. 5. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e. ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. Live/work space means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. Packet Page 315 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 8 Figure 16.43-_: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 6. Exceptions and clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in ECDC 16.43.030.B.1-5 (above) apply with the following exceptions or clarifications. a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single- family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement (i.e. when the first 60 feet of the building, as measured perpendicular to the street, is required to be in commercial use, parking may not be located within that 60 feet). However, for properties with less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rear-most 30 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. d. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consists only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. e. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. This provision does not apply to any residential uses located behind commercial uses. Packet Page 316 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 9 f. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC). 2. Within the BD1 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height. 3. Step-back rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones (see Figures 16.43-2 and 16.43-3 for illustrated examples). a. An additional 5 feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (e.g. normally the back of sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e. less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step- back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton, or Main Streets. ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step- back. For example, a 5-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot step-back requirement. Packet Page 317 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 10 Packet Page 318 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 11 4. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof are at least 6-in-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in (a), above, step backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in ECDC 16.43.030.C.3. 5. Height exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this Chapter. a. Building cornices or parapet walls extending along the roof edge, to a maximum of 3 feet above the specified height limit for that portion of the building. All such cornices or parapet walls shall include decorative patterns, layering or scrolling, and/or repeating sub-elements that result in an overall appearance that is not a single, flat, uninterrupted surface along the face of the building. When such a decorative cornice or parapet wall is provided along the entire perimeter of the building, skylights and/or rooftop mechanical equipment may be provided on the roof so long as these items do not exceed the height of the cornice or parapet wall. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit if the railing is constructed so that it is at least 75% “open.” A simple example would be a 42-inch-high railing that consists of a series of 1-inch-wide vertical elements spaced at 4-inch intervals, on-center. c. A decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or façade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of the building. d. When a pitched roof is provided for a building, portions of the roof that are at a pitch of 12-in-12 or greater may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit. The portions extending above the height limit must be designed as an integral part of the roof using traditional pitched roof types (e.g. hip, gable, gambrel, etc.); dormers or gable ends may also be part of the roof design. e. Elevators or stairs opening onto a roof deck may extend a maximum of 12 feet above the specified height limit if (1) the elevator or stair enclosure is provided so that it does not appear to be an unadorned “box,” and, (2) the roof or roof deck is developed with gardens, planters, or landscaped areas covering at least 50% of the roof area. Artistic elements or features, such as architectural detailing, ornaments, Packet Page 319 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 12 or shapes shall be required to be incorporated into each enclosure design that exceeds the building height limit. Elevator or stair enclosures shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of the roof, unless the enclosure is designed as an integral architectural feature of the building edge, such as a turret, tower, or other decorative element. Elevator or stair enclosures shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of the building. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this Chapter and the provisions contained in ECDC 17.50 – Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. 1. No parking is required for any permitted uses located within the BD1 zone. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least 5% of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10%. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. [Note: minimum % or sq. ft. requirement?] 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75% of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e. width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). Packet Page 320 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 13 F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Staff decision – Notice required, as provided for in ECDC 20.95.050. a. Building step backs required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.3. b. Open space required under ECDC 16.43.030.E. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in 17.50.070.C. 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings is retained on site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the Packet Page 321 of 369 Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 14 exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. [Note: update of sign code is required] J. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Note: update required to 16.20.050 to reflect 2 meters for commercial antennas.] 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.70.040 ECDC. 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. Packet Page 322 of 369 3 R D A V E N 2 N D A V E N MAGNOLIA LN 6 T H A V E N S U N S E T A V E N 4 T H A V E N JAMES ST R A I L R O A D A V E 5 T H A V E N HEMLOCK WAY HOWELL WAY S U NS E T A V E S GLEN ST HOLLY DR 2 N D A V E N 2 N D A V E 3 R D A V E N CAROL WAY 3 R D A V E N BELL ST MAIN ST 6 T H A V E N DAYTON ST HOMELAND DR SATER LANE W D A Y T O N S T 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y /S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S WALNUT ST 5 T H A V E S HEMLOCK WAY SEAMONT LN ERBEN DR 3 R D A V E S R A I L R O A D S T GILTNER LANE D U R B I N S T ALOHA WAY 2 N D A V E S EDMONDS ST 6 T H A V E S ALDER ST A D M I R A L W A Y 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S PINE ST 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W A Y /S R 1 0 4 4 T H A V E S MAPLE ST DAYTON ST ALDER ST MAIN ST BELL ST EDMONDS ST DALEY ST SPRAGUE ST 5 T H A V E S BELL ST MAIN ST Planning Board Recommendation 7/26/2006 BD1 = Downtown Retail Core BD2 = Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 = Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 = Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 = Downtown Arts Corridor RM-1.5 = Multi Family RM-1.5 BD1BD2 BD2 BD2 BD2BD4 BD3 BD5 BD2 BD2 BD4 Proposed New Downtown Zones RM-1.5 BD2 B D 2 Packet Page 323 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 3 3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE KISA NISHIMOTO FROM EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL Council President Dawson introduced Kisa Nishimoto, a senior at Edmonds-Woodway High School, and described her background. Ms. Nishimoto thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE HEARING IS ON: (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS" ZONES IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND (2) APPROVING A NEW ZONING MAP FOR DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES (FILE NO. CDC-06-37 / R-06-50). Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a public hearing on the recommendation from the Planning Board on a proposed new zoning scheme for downtown. This began with the update to the Comprehensive Plan in March 2005; zoning was a follow-up to implement planning. The Planning Board’s recommendation includes proposed zoning and zoning maps for properties in the downtown area. He reviewed recent Council action including a series of workshops with design professional Mark Hinshaw in 2005 to discuss a variety of issues associated with implementing the Comprehensive Plan, follow-up discussion in March 2006, and direction to the Planning Board for development of the zones. The current zoning proposal was based on Council discussions that followed adoption of the downtown plan. Modifications can be made to the zoning proposal and potentially the plan to address issues that arise during the zoning process. Mr. Chave displayed two maps of the downtown area, one that reflected the Council’s March 2006 proposal and the other the Planning Board’s zoning proposal. The Planning Board’s proposal was similar to the Council’s, identifying minor differences including changing the zoning of the property across the street from the Public Safety Complex from BC to RM 1.5. Mr. Chave reviewed key sections in the BD chapter including a use matrix and site development standards for ground floor, building heights and exceptions, parking, open space for larger lots and buildings and exceptions for historic buildings. He reviewed issues addressed by the Planning Board including how the arts corridor should be configured relative to other areas of downtown, how the new standards would apply to existing buildings particularly if additions were proposed, how the ground floor should be handled, whether the height exceptions (incentives) were the right ones, whether the open space requirement was appropriate, how small lots were dealt with and how complex the regulations should be. He highlighted key concepts including no change in the way height was calculated – it was still based on average level or average grade – 25 feet is the base with rules on how 30 feet could be obtained which vary by zone. Height exceptions provide incentives to obtain certain design features the Planning Board felt would be positive additions to buildings. Minimum ground floor heights in commercial areas encourage commercial uses. He recalled the City’s former Economic Development Director stressed the importance of a 15-foot ground floor height in an effort to protect and enhance the retail core. He emphasized 15 feet would not be the ceiling height, it was the height between the first and second floor which must also accommodate mechanical equipment, structural elements, etc., thus the ceiling height for a 15-foot first floor would be approximately 12 feet and the ceiling height for a 12-foot first floor would be 9-9½ feet, possibly 1 additional foot with exposed mechanical equipment. He referred to a retail study done for the City of Falls Church that cited the importance of floor to ceiling clear heights of at least 14 New Student Representative Draft BD – Downtown Business Zones Packet Page 324 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 4 feet for quality retail space. He noted real estate advertisements for commercial space also consistently refer to 14-16 feet ceiling heights. Mr. Chave displayed a drawing illustrating a step-back, explaining the step-back was intended to relate the building to the streetscape, to provide the appearance of a 25-foot, 2-story building at the street level. He displayed and described an uphill and a downhill example. He displayed examples of how the step- back would have applied on existing buildings including the Wiggins building and the historic Chanterelle building. He reviewed photographs of several downtown buildings, commenting the buildings on streets perpendicular to Puget Sound and below 5th were broken up consistently by alleys which created 120 foot block sections, one of the rationales for the Planning Board’s selection of 120 foot frontage for the open space requirement. The Planning Board was concerned anything smaller would eliminate the consistent block face along the retail streets. He noted the same pattern was not present on the streets parallel to Puget Sound due to the absence of alleys which has allowed the combination of smaller lots and construction of larger buildings. Mr. Chave pointed out zoning was only one way to implement the Downtown Plan; the streetscape provisions would be key for the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. He explained the Planning Board’s recommendation was not a final ordinance; the zoning and map would need to be approved by Council. He suggested holding the public hearing in two parts, first focus on the draft text of the BD zones and then focus on the map and where the zones would be applied. Councilmember Orvis recalled the Council’s direction to the Planning Board included three elements for BD1 – 15 foot first floors, allowing for 30-foot buildings and a two floor maximum which he noted was not included in the current proposal. He explained the reason 30-foot buildings would be allowed in the BD1 zone was due to the 15 foot first floor requirement. He displayed an example of a downhill lot, explaining if the building were restricted to 25 feet with a 15-foot first floor, only a one story building could be built on downhill lots. He noted a two floor maximum was considered to eliminate the potential for a building on an uphill lot to achieve three floors with a 30-foot height limit. Mr. Chave suggested an alternative would be to require the step-back in the BD1 zone at 30 feet. Mr. Chave displayed the map of proposed new downtown zones, identifying the boundaries of each zone. He explained the BD1 zone was essentially the retail core, where buildings could be 30 feet from average grade with a 15 foot ground floor. The BD5 zone was the Arts Corridor/4th Avenue Corridor, intended to link the Edmonds Center for the Arts with downtown. In the Arts Corridor, property owners could develop similar to downtown or with more residential-type uses via live/work units. The BD3 zone is the one area downtown where auto-oriented uses would be allowed such as the existing uses Baskin & Robins, Petosa’s Grocery, etc. He noted another reason for allowing auto-oriented uses was the distance of this area from downtown. The BD4 zone recognizes that most of the uses in that zone are already residential. Development in the BD4 zone could be traditional commercial/mixed use or a multi family building using the multi family provisions of the code. The BD2 zone is closer to the traditional BC zoning in that setback rules apply and uses are a mixture of commercial and residential but the ground floor must be commercial. The one exception was the opportunity for residential on the ground floor beyond a 60 foot depth. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received correspondence from: 1) Larry D. Stout, government affairs/legal department of Washington Realtors, expressing support for the intent of the proposed zoning to be flexible in use but restrictive in appearance in the BD1 zone and for allowing commercial office and retail activities in the BD1 zone. 2) Law Offices of William Hochberg, expressing support for the new BD2 zone and urging the Council to adopt the BD2 zone as recommended. Packet Page 325 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 5 3) David Page, local realtor, urging Council not to restrict zoning in the retail core to retail only. 4) Larry and Anne Temple, urging consideration of the impact that height limit exceptions could have on adjacent property and ensuring only a single architectural element to qualify for the additional 5 feet. 5) Paul C. Sorensen, S & E Partners, opposed to not allowing offices in the BD1. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented there were positive elements in the proposed ordinance as well as areas in need of improvement. As a property owner in the BD5 zone, he noted one of the allowed uses was residential. He asked whether the 12-foot first floor height requirement applied to residential uses. He pointed out the site development standards referred to a maximum height of 25 feet and a minimum 15-foot ground floor height, yet later in the code heights of 30 feet are allowed. He referred to a height exception in Section 5 that allowed an additional 5 feet for a pitched roof and asked whether that was in addition to the 30-foot building height. He supported the open space requirements for jumbo developments, the step-back for buildings over 25 feet particularly for the backside of properties, street level retail, the guidance provided by the zoning for neighborhood development, connecting the Arts Corridor to downtown, and historic property incentives. John Reed, Edmonds, on behalf of ACE, advised the Council packet included the presentation they made to the Planning Board on May 24 as well as a memo dated September 15. He expressed concern that the issues they expressed to the Planning Board had not been adequately addressed by the Planning Board. He relayed ACE’s support for the following: the step-back for heights over 25-feet, the tradeoff of a setback in exchange for a step-back, the Arts Corridor, ground floor rules including 60 foot commercial depth, RM 1.5 zone and requiring setback between commercial and residentially zoned properties. He enumerated ACE’s concerns/suggestions, 1) the uses section is too complex, looks toward existing uses rather than what was desired. Consider whether five zones were needed – could there be a retail core, Arts Corridor and the remainder in one zone, 2) require step-back for all buildings downtown, 3) height exceptions allow height creep above the 25-foot base and 30-foot maximum and some are based on percentages that could allow excessive space and a square footage limitation would be a more reasonable alternative, 4) setback avoids the tunnel affect, 5) too little open space required, and 6) consider pros and cons of insufficient parking downtown. He summarized ACE’s perception that the proposal did not fully address the direction provided by the Council and there was significant work to be done to finalize the ordinance to maintain the 2-story look and feel of downtown. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged the Council received the correspondence from ACE that Mr. Reed mentioned as well as correspondence from Chris Fleck who was opposed to limiting the BD1 zone to retail uses only and from Paul Weller who was opposed to the proposed BD concept. Gary Schmitt, representing the customers and employees of Bank of Washington, referred to not allowing financial drive-throughs in the proposed BD1 zone, explaining a healthy downtown core required a healthy financial district. He noted over 30% of a bank’s customers traveled over 5 miles to do their business, 20% traveled 2-3 miles, and 50% traveled 0-2 miles. Bank customers often visit other downtown businesses. He explained many pedestrian friendly cities with a strong retail environment such as Carmel, California, did not allow general drive-throughs but did allow bank drive-throughs. He proposed not allowing general drive-throughs in the BD1 but allowing financial drive throughs as a conditional use. He noted bank drive-throughs were of great assistance to customers and increased the availability of parking in downtown. Tim Stensland, Edmonds, provided a letter regarding the BD5 and BD1 zones. While he applauded the City’s efforts to incorporate arts into the community, he was concerned the requirements proposed for the BD5 zone were too restrictive and lacked detail. He noted the live/work spaces needed to be eclectic, flexible and market responsive. He recommended a further discussion regarding flexibility of units as Packet Page 326 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 6 well as building massing. He concluded the regulations limited the potential for good building design in the Arts Corridor. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recommended the BD1 zone on Main Street end east of the Shell Creek restaurant, and the west end be extended to Railroad Avenue. She also recommended amending the uses to make the BD1 primarily pedestrian retail with two floors of retail and no residential. She recommended the first floors have 12-foot finished ceilings and uses that attracted strolling, shopping and eating; the second floors could accommodate a broader range of retail including offices. She recalled a concentration of retail on one street such as Main on two floors was recommended by three consultants. With regard to her suggestion to extend BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue, she explained the goal of the Downtown Waterfront Plan was to integrate the downtown core with the waterfront by encouraging pedestrian access. She noted the west end of Main currently had severe visual issues. John Heighway, Edmonds, suggested the proposed zoning address the restoration and maintenance of existing buildings in the BD zone. He recommended the City post for the public any work to be done on buildings downtown such as the Yost Building. He noted existing properties may be purchased and/or consolidated, leading to the potential for phased construction. He noted many Conditional Use Permits were handled administratively and he preferred they be subject to public scrutiny. He recalled the person constructing the Gregory included bay windows on that building because he liked the bay windows on the Yost building, yet he now proposed removing the bay windows from the Yost building. He objected to the ability for an elevator to cover no more than 5% of the roof area and to extend a maximum of 12 feet above the specified height limit. He envisioned the result could be larger than anticipated. James Clauson, Edmonds, commercial real estate broker, recalled there had been numerous discussions regarding retail versus office in the retail core. He commented there were new buildings with floor space that interested major retailers, however, allowing office uses in the core area diluted the retail focus of the retail core. Most property owners in downtown Edmonds received $8-12/square foot gross rent compared with retail in Mill Creek where owners received $32.50/square foot net. He cited numerous studies and seminars that stress retail as the heart of revived city cores. He urged the Council to require retail uses in the downtown core. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, agreed with encouraging retail in the BD1 zone but did not support mandating retail. If the Council mandated retail, he recommended it be only on the first floor. He recalled Mark Hinshaw’s indication that retail on the second floor did not work. He also recommended the City clarify the definition of restaurant to ensure they were not excluded from the retail zone. He did not object to requiring a 15-foot step-back above 25 or 30 feet in the BD1 zone. Cary Adams, Edmonds, commercial real estate agent, objected to the two floor maximum, noting much of the profitability for developers was in the third floor. A two floor maximum made it difficult to develop property and could also decrease a property’s value. He recommended the City focus on incentives rather than restrictions; using incentives to achieve desired development. He remarked that although the different zones were effective on some levels, they were not on others as they restricted property owners to certain types of development rather than allowing the market to dictate development. He preferred the existing one zone downtown that allowed the market to dictate development to create a vibrant downtown. He recommended the definition of retail be clarified as many businesses currently in the BD1 zone were a combination of office and retail. He summarized the City needed to consider what would be best for the future and not just keep everything the way it was. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Adams’ preference for a one zone downtown, commenting the proliferation of zones would require more staff time to review applications. With regard to 15-foot ceiling heights, he disagreed the record showed there was any literature other than comments by local Packet Page 327 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 7 merchants supporting 15-foot ceilings. He recalled his research about 15-foot ceiling heights found only one article regarding shops in downtown San Francisco. As a property owner in the current BC zone, if he redeveloped his property, he preferred not to construct 15-foot first floors due to the cost of heating the increased space. He questioned why developers who provided a 15-foot first floor height rather than a 12-foot first floor would be allowed an increase of 5 feet rather than only an additional 3 feet. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked whether the city wanted notched buildings on east and west streets, envisioning notches on buildings would not be uniform as they were dependent on the average grade. He pointed out notches did not protect views and a 5-foot setback was preferable to a notch and provided more open space. He asked whether the proposed zoning would prevent land owners from using their property via restricting to whom they could rent their property. He agreed with the need for a retail core but questioned whether the City could restrict to whom a property owner rented. He questioned if the proposed zoning would allow construction of buildings like the Chanterelle or movie theater in the future. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, found the proposed five zones excessive, commenting staff had enough difficulty making decisions with the existing one zone. He objected to the lack of parking requirements for any use in the proposed in the BD1 zone, no parking requirements for commercial uses in BD2, BD4 or BD5, and no parking requirements for any building with a footprint of less than 4800 square feet. He objected to allowing balconies in the public right-of-way. He commented massing was not addressed in the proposed document, expressing concern with the consolidation of lots that could result in a long wall and/or massive buildings. He recalled a formula used in the past for mixed use that required 51% of the building be developed commercial. As an option, he suggested the proposed document could limit mixed use residential to a floor above. Bruce Nicholson, Edmonds, referred to the Bank of Washington’s request, commenting the conditional use process worked well. He described his construction of a building on an RM zoned property which required he meet the condition of a CUP. The building now houses a company with 20 employees and its location outside of the business district does not impact downtown parking. He encouraged the use of a CUP for bank drive-throughs. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Chave responded to questions/issues raised by the public. With regard to whether the 12-foot first floor height in BD5 applied to single family development, Mr. Chave answered no, pointing out the code required single family be developed in accordance with the RS-6 zone. He agreed a minor correction needed to be made to address the conflict between the statement that the basic height limit was 25 feet and the 30-foot building height allowed with a 15 foot first floor height. With regard to the multiple zones, he explained the distinctions between zones were subtle but important. For example, without the BD3 zone, drive-through businesses would be allowed throughout downtown or all drive-through businesses would be nonconforming. Without the BD4 zone, multi family building could be allowed throughout downtown or all existing multi family buildings would be nonconforming. He summarized the Comprehensive Plan differentiated parts of downtown. He anticipated the upcoming code rewrite would simplify the code, particularly the use patterns. With regard to the 15-foot first floor height, he explained that was essential to economic development and the Planning Board felt if retail was not mandated in the retail core, the only thing that would encourage retail uses was to require space that accommodated retail uses. With regard to whether to mandating only retail/services uses rather than office, he referred to the pros and cons expressed by the public. He acknowledged the City wanted to encourage retail uses, however, without a strong retail market, those spaces could remain vacant. He emphasized a strong retail core could not be obtained via only zoning, it Packet Page 328 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 8 also required a strong economic development effort, strong Chamber of Commerce, and mechanisms to work with retailers to ensure downtown was economically healthy. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether restaurants could locate in the core. Mr. Chave answered yes, restaurants were considered a service use which was permitted in the BD1 retail core. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment that the Arts Corridor was not flexible enough, explaining he wrote code language via the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the Arts Corridor was as flexible as possible. Mr. Chave explained that area would be considered in the discussion regarding the nonconforming regulations. Public improvements would likely have a great deal of impact on development of the Arts Corridor. Councilmember Plunkett clarified this was the beginning of developing regulations for the Arts Corridor, not the end. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board’s intent was to provide some flexibility in use. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff address the issue of drive-throughs. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board voted 4-3 in favor of not allowing drive-throughs in the BD1 zone. The majority of the Planning Board felt drive-through uses including banks should be prohibited in the BD1 zone. The remainder of the Planning Board felt drive-throughs for banks could be approved via a CUP. Councilmember Plunkett supported a bank, pharmacy, etc. having the option of a drive-through via a CUP. He asked what standards a business had to meet to have a CUP approved. Mr. Chave answered CUPs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. He referred to additional conditions any Conditional Use in the BD1 zone must meet including pedestrian access from the sidewalk, vehicular access, landscape design, etc. The Planning Board’s primary concern was that too many drive-throughs resulted in multiple curb cuts which lead to the loss of on-street parking as well as conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether massing had been adequately addressed. Mr. Chave answered yes, via the combination of open space and step-backs as well as building heights. He commented the source of the massing discussion referred to by Mr. Reed was the draft design guidelines the Planning Board worked on in 2000-2001 that included specific requirements for buildings over a certain size. He noted the step-back and open space requirements were very similar to those massing requirements because the step-back created two masses and an open space would create a third. City Attorney Scott Snyder commented there was a limit to how much massing could be addressed via bulk requirements such as setbacks and notching. At some point it became a design guidelines issue. If the approach became any more sophisticated, he suggested it was an issue best addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) via definitional requirements. Mr. Chave cautioned a threshold for open space could have unintended consequences as typically in a downtown retail area, there were few breaks in the storefronts. If the threshold were too small and applied to buildings in the downtown, there could be holes created in the retail environment which could have a negative impact. Councilmember Orvis asked if the difference between BD3 and BD2 was auto-oriented were prohibited in BD2. Mr. Chave advised auto-oriented uses were only permitted in BD3; drive-throughs were considered an auto-oriented use. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the bed & breakfast on 3rd & Dayton in the BD4 zone would be allowed. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Orvis clarified the 15-foot first floor height was only required in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave agreed, advising that the other zones required a 12-foot first floor height other than residential development. Councilmember Orvis asked why elevator penthouse would be allowed. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board was interested in roofs that functioned as gardens. Councilmember Orvis asked whether elevator penthouses could be eliminated with the use of a piston style elevator. Mr. Chave Packet Page 329 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 9 answered he was not familiar with that technology; an alternative could be to require the elevator be combined with a design element such as a clock tower. Councilmember Moore asked why some Planning Board Members felt an exception could be made for a bank drive-through and not a pharmacy or other use. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board did not discuss other drive-throughs; their intent was to limit the number of drive-throughs. A minority of the Planning Board felt a bank was part of the retail fabric as shoppers needed money to visit retail stores. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Ms. Shippen’s suggestion to expand the downtown retail core to Railroad Avenue. Mr. Chave agreed there was potential for retail in that area but it was long term and the Council may want to consider it when the ferry terminal was relocated or significant development occurred that would encourage retail development in that area. He noted the intent of the 12-foot first floor heights in that area was to encourage retail uses. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Adams’ comment regarding incentives versus restrictions, asking whether sufficient incentives were provided. Mr. Chave answered parking was the primary incentives other than incentives to obtain design features. He acknowledged there were few incentives that could be provided due to the restrictions in bulk and height. Councilmember Moore asked whether requiring less parking downtown was intended to encourage downtown to be pedestrian friendly. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the limited commercial parking requirement was intended to provide an incentive for construction of commercial space. He noted the height restrictions limited how parking could be provided on smaller sites, the reason for the 4800 square foot threshold for parking. Councilmember Moore referred to the definition of retail, noting many service businesses also sold products. Mr. Chave acknowledged most business were a mixture, the predominate character of the business determined how it was classified. For example an office was an office regardless of whether it had a walk-in sales component; a restaurant may also have a catering service but was still a service business. Councilmember Moore asked whether a real estate office was considered retail because they sold houses. Mr. Chave answered no. He noted all zones currently allowed retail stores, offices and services. It only became an issue if the Council wanted to be more restrictive with regard to uses. Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Kreiman’s question whether the proposal would prevent the construction of a building like the Chanterelle or the Edmonds Theater. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on the zone; the Chanterelle, currently approximately 30 feet in height at the street, could be constructed in the BD1 zone, the BD2 zone would require a step-back. He noted there were provisions in the code that would allow restoration of a building similar to the Chanterelle. Councilmember Moore commented that would be a good argument for extending the BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue. Councilmember Moore inquired about the Planning Board’s vision for the 4th Avenue Corridor. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board felt the driver for the 4th Avenue Corridor would be the public improvements. The Planning Board tried an initial concept for the entire corridor, but concern was expressed by property owners that their options were restricted much more than downtown properties. The Planning Board then decided to provide options for property owners in the corridor – construction of a traditional commercial building, renovating one of the existing homes, or construction of a multi family building that provided a live/work component. The Planning Board felt until the public improvements began to occur, it was too soon to prescribe anything specific for that corridor. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 330 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 10 Councilmember Moore referred to setback versus step-back, recalling the argument against mandating setback was that without a comprehensive redesign of Main and 5th, the result would be buildings that jutted in and out. Mr. Chave agreed that Mr. Hinshaw was concerned that requiring a setback that pushed new buildings back from the sidewalk would create an uneven façade. When the Planning Board discussed this previously, they were interested in obtaining additional sidewalk regardless. Councilmember Moore commented she could support setbacks in some areas but not in the retail core as there were several buildings in that area that were unlikely to redevelop. Mr. Chave agreed it would be unrealistic in the retail core; there may be opportunities via redevelopment in other zones. Councilmember Olson commented even with a 15-foot first floor height, the mechanical equipment, etc. would result in a first floor ceiling height of 15 feet. She asked if the ceiling height would be greater if the mechanical equipment was exposed. Mr. Chave estimated exposed equipment could create ceiling heights of 13.5-14 feet maximum. Councilmember Olson recalled Planning Board Member Guenther mentioned there were new procedures to resolve concerns with energy consumption with higher ceiling heights. Mr. Chave stated Board Member Guenther’s point was heating had more to do with insulation, building design, and circulation and less with total space. Councilmember Wambolt questioned the likelihood and/or desirability of new automobile sales and service locating downtown. He suggested it be changed to only used automobile sales and service, noting there was an auto service shop in the Petosa’s building. Mr. Chave answered it was one of the historic listed uses. Councilmember Wambolt suggested including a definition of primary and secondary uses. Mr. Chave advised the definitions were in the definition section of the development code. Councilmember Wambolt suggested the code state that within the BD1 zone the maximum height was 30 feet with no more than 2 floors about the street level and the ground floor must be at least 15 feet in height. He pointed out Section 16.43.030.C.2 stated, “within the BD1 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height,” but did not state that the first floor must be 15 feet in height. Mr. Chave noted this was what Mr. Marmion was referring to during the public hearing. He acknowledged this would need to be clarified to state the 15-foot first floor was a requirement in the BD1 zone, not an option. Councilmember Wambolt commented if it was agreed that buildings would be restricted to two floors, why not state two floors above the street level. Mr. Chave answered properties on a downhill slope may have three floors due to the slope. He noted the step-back would accomplish the same goal. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Kreiman’s comment regarding notched buildings on east-west streets. Mr. Chave envisioned the only place in the BD1 zone where there would be the possibility of an additional floor was the east side of 5th due to the slope. He noted there was a provision in the code that allowed entrances to be staggered to accommodate a building that stepped down the slope. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Section 16.43.030.C.5 regarding architectural features, recommending the language read a “single” decorative element. Councilmember Orvis asked if the open space requirement was the same for all zones. Mr. Chave stated it applied to all buildings in all zones. Councilmember Orvis asked if the open space requirement could be tailored to each zone. Mr. Chave agreed it could as long as reasoning/logic was provided. Council President Dawson questioned whether the protections for historic buildings in the BD1 zone should be expanded beyond buildings on the historic register to include buildings that were part of the downtown fabric. Mr. Chave answered the reason for linking the protections to the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings was it was difficult to define a historic building without a mechanism to declare it historic. The Edmonds Register was in the code, was a voluntary measure property owners could take Packet Page 331 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 11 and provided a mechanism for identifying a building as historic. He agreed there was the risk that a building that was not on the Register could possibly be lost. Council President Dawson envisioned a scenario where a building that the Council wanted preserved but the property owner wanted to sell for redevelopment, the property owner could refrain from having the building added to the register. She observed there was a disincentive for property owners to place their building on the Register. Mr. Chave answered the Edmonds Register of Historic Building was strictly voluntary; without a mandatory listing, property owners could place their buildings on the register and later remove it from the register to sell/demolish it. Mr. Snyder commented a draft of the nonconforming provisions would be presented to the Council shortly. Those provisions address the void between a building that is truly historic and commercial/residential reuse. Council President Dawson commented allowing construction of a building to 30 feet in the BD1 did not give as much incentive to remodeling an existing building if it could be replaced with a new 30 foot building. Mr. Chave referred to the Heartland study which found the income/investment in many of the buildings downtown was so high that it would be difficult to create an economic incentive to demolish the building. Council President Dawson commented one incentive would be requiring 1-story or 25-foot buildings in the BD1 zone. In regard to the question whether a building like Chanterelle could be constructed, Council President Dawson pointed out a new building could look like Chanterelle but could not be as tall. Mr. Chave displayed the façade of the Chanterelle building, identifying where the 25 foot height would be if buildings were not allowed to achieve 30 feet. Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board discussed the concept of allowing a 30-foot building height with a 15-foot first floor versus allowing 28 feet for the additional 3 feet of first floor height. Mr. Chave answered it would be difficult to provide two floors with a 25 foot height. He noted the building height often depended on cornices; if decorative cornices were allowed, 28 versus 30 feet was less of an issue. If cornices were required to be below the height limit, then it was a bigger issue because a 15-foot first floor height and a 3-foot cornice would allow only another 12-feet for the second floor which would make it difficult to accommodate a commercial space. He noted the buildings in the BD1 were among the most elaborately decorated. Council President Dawson observed the additional height appeared to be for decorative elements and not the building itself. Mr. Chave answered it allows flexibility in design. Council President Dawson noted there was no requirement that the additional feet be used for decorative elements in the BD1 zone and asked whether that could be required. Mr. Chave answered it could be required; staff would need to develop appropriate language. He noted the difference between 28 and 30 feet would not provide usable space, only additional opportunity for embellishment/decoration. Council President Dawson questioned whether that should be required if that was the intent or whether that was a feature of design guidelines. Mr. Chave agreed it may be more appropriately considered in the design guidelines. Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board or staff had discussed a requirement for a building to provide 51% commercial space in the BD1. Mr. Chave answered the 51% was eliminated from the code because 51% required not only the ground floor but also a portion of the upper floors be commercial which created isolated offices in a mixed use building. Another issue was that requirement pushed commercial space to the upper floors in buildings where parking was provided on the first floor. Council President Dawson recalled the City reduced the parking requirement for residential uses previously using the rationale the parking could be used by retail during the day. She questioned whether consideration would now need to be given to increasing the parking requirements for residential if the Packet Page 332 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 12 parking requirement for commercial uses was reduced. Mr. Chave agreed it may be necessary to reconsider the parking requirements once the City had some experience with development under these regulations. The reduction in parking was one of the few incentives provided to developers. He commented one space for smaller units was adequate; however, it may be appropriate to increase the parking requirement for larger residential units as they were more likely to house more people and have more cars. Increasing the parking requirement for larger units may encourage smaller, more affordable units to be built. He suggested talking with lenders regarding their requirements for lending construction funds. Council President Dawson supported decreasing the parking requirements for retail/commercial with a corresponding increasing in the residential parking requirement. Council President Dawson asked whether there was any danger in allowing new car sales subject to a CUP. She recalled there were retail areas in Seattle with luxury car showrooms. Mr. Chave noted the proposal was to permit new car sales in the BD2 and BD3. He did not envision a CUP would be needed in BD3, but possibly in BD2 due to its more pedestrian environment. Council President Dawson asked whether the size of the elevator shaft should be limited. Mr. Chave suggested a percentage or square foot limitation, whichever was less. Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board discussed combining an elevator shaft with a decorative element. Mr. Chave answered no. Mr. Snyder suggested the elevator shaft be the minimum necessary to satisfy the International Building Code. Mr. Chave compared the description of decorative architectural elements in Section 16.43.030.C.5.c with the description of elevators or stair openings in 16.43.030.C.5.e. Council President Dawson asked whether balconies were addressed in this section of the code. Mr. Chave answered they were addressed in the engineering standards section of the code; changing the standards would not require Planning Board review but would require a public hearing. Council President Dawson acknowledged the issue of balconies was a concern for many people. Councilmember Orvis asked how establishing a first floor height of 14 feet would affect existing buildings. Mr. Chave stated it would depend on the nonconforming provisions. Councilmember Orvis observed once a building was damaged beyond a certain amount, they were required to update to the current code. Councilmember Wambolt commented there were two different types of elevator shafts, an elevator that served the number of floors in the building for which the code allowed another 3 feet. The 12-foot extension for an elevator shaft was to accommodate an elevator to access the roof. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Marmion’s question whether pitched roofs would allow an additional 5 feet in building height. Mr. Chave commented Mr. Marmion was referencing Section 16.43.030.C.5.d. The Planning Board wanted to encourage pitched roofs on downtown buildings; their intent was the whole building could not be an additional 5 feet, only the most steep portion of the roof could extend higher. Council President Dawson commented it appeared Councilmembers had some amendments they wanted to make to the Planning Board’s recommendation. It was agreed to schedule further discussion/action on the October 3 agenda. She advised the public hearing had been closed and the Council would not take additional testimony on October 3. Council President Dawson recalled Mr. Chave’s suggestion that the public hearing be held in two parts. As the public may have anticipated they would have another opportunity to comment on the map and where the zones were applied, the public hearing was reopened. Packet Page 333 of 369 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2006 Page 13 Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated her suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue, recalling the Downtown Waterfront Plan addressed relating the waterfront with downtown which the current zoning did not do. She recommended zoning on Main be based on current plans and not on the Edmonds Crossing project as that was a nebulous project that was unlikely to be completed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented the zoning map should match existing plans and should extend the BD1 zone to the waterfront. Although he was not opposed to the RM 1.5 zoning, he questioned whether it was mixing a rezone with the creation of the BD zones. John Heighway, Edmonds, recommended the Council take the time necessary to consider the issues that arose tonight including the extension of the BD1 zone to the waterfront. He supported taking a broader view of the zoning so that changes would not be necessary in the near future. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, estimated the ceiling height of the Council Chambers at 15-16-feet, noting that provided some perspective for decision-making on first floor heights. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Shippen’s suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to the waterfront. Ray Martin, Edmonds, agreed with the suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to the waterfront. He referred to Mayor Haakenson’s comments in the Enterprise regarding the possibility of increasing building heights in areas on the waterfront. He summarized too many zones made the process too complex, recommending the use of the KIS (keep it simple) concept. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson asked staff to respond to Mr. Marmion’s comment regarding the change to the RM 1.5 zone. Mr. Chave answered changes in zoning were the subject of this public hearing, creating new zones as well as rezoning property. Both were advertised at the Planning Board public hearing and the City Council public hearing. Council President Dawson asked why the BD1 zone was not extended to the waterfront. Mr. Chave answered the intent was to focus retail where the strength was and not extend it into areas that might become retail in the future but was not currently established. Council President Dawson asked the rationale for the BD1 boundaries. Mr. Chave responded the intent was to focus the retail core into a small, defined area. It may also be a carryover from the discussion regarding limiting uses; the boundary was less important if retail was encouraged but not mandated. Council President Dawson noted one of the differences between the zones was the first floor height requirement. Mr. Chave pointed out also in the BD1, a step-back was not required to achieve 30 feet. He noted by not extending the BD1 zone to the waterfront, the step-backs would open the views somewhat. There were also no parking requirements for any use in the BD1 zone versus no residential parking requirements in the BD2 zone. Council President Dawson commented the market would likely address residential units without parking. Councilmember Wambolt recalled at the time of Mr. Hinshaw’s workshops with the Council, a Councilmember recommended extending the BD1 zone to the waterfront but Mr. Hinshaw convinced the majority of the Council that it should end at 3rd because there was not enough retail business to occupy a larger area. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess at 9:40 p.m. Packet Page 334 of 369 Orvis Amendment 1: As you know, I have expressed concerns about height exceptions. I would like to remedy the situation with following amendment. 1) Delete 16.42.030.C.5a regarding height exception for building cornices. 2) Delete 16.42.030.C.5b regarding height roof or deck railings. 3) Change 16.42.030.C.5c to insert the word “single” before “decorative architectural element” 4) Delete 16.42.030.C.5d regarding pitched roofs. 5) Delete 16.42.030.C.5e I believe the remainder of the exception for elevators and pipes are covered in the definitions section of our code. Rob, could you correct me if I am wrong? The intent of the amendment is to limit exceptions to the height limit to a single architectural feature (which is new to our code), and of course pipe, chimneys, and elevator penthouses (which already are allowed by our code). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Orvis Amendment 2: After reviewing the comments of Steve Burnheim and Deana Dawson at the last public hearing, I would like propose the following amendment. 1) Change 16.42.030.C.2 to read: Within the BD1, the maximum height is 28 feet. Steve stated it very clearly. 15-12 = 3. 25+3 = 28. Council President Dawson also pointed out the buildings that already exceed this height limit will come in as non- conforming uses. The three additional feet will also allow a second story on those lots with a little bit downhill as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Orvis Amendment 3: This amendment falls under the category of “I really want to this, so I have got to try.” I would like propose we amend 16.42.030.E.1 to start out by saying “For building larger than 6,000 square feet…”. (The amendment lowers the open threshold from 12,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet). I would like to see more open space in downtown Edmonds, and while I like that we have an open space requirement in our codes, I feel that it won’t be used often enough, if the threshold is left at 12,000 square feet. Thanks, -Dave Packet Page 335 of 369 30 ’ 35 ’ 25 + 5 = 3 5 ? Pa c k e t P a g e 3 3 6 o f 3 6 9 30 ’ 35 ’ Th i s r o o f i s p i t c h e d , y e t i t a l l o w s t h r e e mo r e f e e t o f b u i l d i n g r o o m . Pa c k e t P a g e 3 3 7 o f 3 6 9 30 ’ 35 ’ Pa c k e t P a g e 3 3 8 o f 3 6 9 30 ’ 35 ’ Wh e r e d i d th a t t a l l bu i l d i n g c o m e fr o m ? Pa c k e t P a g e 3 3 9 o f 3 6 9 Ra p u n z e l ! Th r o w d o w n yo u r h a i r ! So r r y , m y h a i r ’ s o n l y 25 f e e t l o n g . 5’ Pa c k e t P a g e 3 4 0 o f 3 6 9 Pa c k e t P a g e 3 4 1 o f 3 6 9 Di r e c t i o n f o r BD 1 ( d o w n t o w n c o r e ) •15 f t f i r s t f l o o r s •30 f o o t o k a y •2 f l o o r m a x i m u m ( n o t i n c l u d e d i n c u r r e n t d r a f t ) Pa c k e t P a g e 3 4 2 o f 3 6 9 Wh y m u s t w e a l l o w 3 0 f e e t ? • A l l d o w n h i l l l o t s w o u l d o n l y g e t o n e s t o r y i f we l i m i t e d h e i g h t t o 2 5 f t . Do w n h i l l s l o p e Si d e w a l k 25 f t m e a s u r e d f r o m l o t c e n t e r 15 f t m e a s u r e d f r o m s i d e w a l k No t en o u g h sp a c e fo r a se c o n d st o r y Pa c k e t P a g e 3 4 3 o f 3 6 9 Wh y m u s t w e r e s t r i c t b u i l d i n g s t o 2 f l o o r s ? • S o m e u p h i l l s i t e s h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r th r e e f l o o r s w i t h a 3 0 f t l i m i t Up h i l l s l o p e Si d e w a l k 30 f t 15 f t Th e r e a po t e n t i a l f o r 2 a d d i t i o n a l fl o o r s Pa c k e t P a g e 3 4 4 o f 3 6 9 Ho w d o y o u a d d t h e t o 2 f l o o r re s t r i c t i o n b a c k i n t o t h e c o d e ? • R e s t r i c t B D 1 t o t w o f l o o r s ( r e q u i r e s de f i n i t i o n o f f l o o r ) . • R e s t r i c t B D 1 t o t h e mi n i m u m of t w o he i g h t s : o n e h e i g h t m e a s u r e d f r o m t h e ce n t e r o f t h e l o t ( 3 0 f t ) , t h e o t h e r h e i g h t me a s u r e d f r o m t h e s i d e w a l k ( 2 5 f t o r m a y b e 26 f t ) . •O t h e r s Pa c k e t P a g e 3 4 5 o f 3 6 9 Packet Page 346 of 369 Packet Page 347 of 369 Packet Page 348 of 369 AM-736 7. Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Linda Klein, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:5 Minutes Department:Public Works Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Agenda Memo Subject Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for the Frances Anderson Center Seismic Structural Retrofit Project -Phase 2- Design and Construction Documents in the amount of $169,299. Previous Council Action At the January 17, 2006 City Council Meeting, the Mayor was authorized to sign a Washington State Military Department Emergency Management Mitigation Grant Agreement up to a maximum of $782,190. Narrative A predesign structural engineering report was prepared by Reid Middleton this summer for the Frances Anderson Center to structurally withstand a major seismic event. A seismic event is characterized as a major earthquake that Snohomish County could experience approximately every 500 years. The total estimated project cost, based upon the predesign report is $1,504,900. In 2005 staff secured a FEMA Predisaster Mitigation in the amount of $782,190 which will pay approximately 50% of the estimated project cost. Council should be aware that the grant request was submitted in March 2005, and at that time, the project cost submitted was estimated at $1,042,900. Unfortunately, the FEMA Grant Program does not allow for the normal practice of adding contingencies for project cost escalation, and the Grant amount is fixed. On the positive side, part of the project work plan requires the replacement of the flat roofs at the Frances Anderson Center at an estimated cost of $250,000. All of these roofs are in need for replacement within the next few years. This work was not originally anticipated as part of the project scope to provide structural support of the building complex. The project schedule calls for the completing the engineering design and construction documents in the first half of 2007 and complete construction in early 2008. Recommendation Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement to Reid Middleton, Inc. for the Frances Anderson Center Seismic Structural Retrofit Project -Phase 2- Design and Construction Documents in the amount of $169,299. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: $782,190 Expenditure: $169,299 Fiscal Impact: Attachments Link: Reid Middleton Agreement Link: Exhibit A - Reid Middleton Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/07/2006 04:29 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Klein Started On: 12/05/2006 08:12 AM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 349 of 369 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Reid Middleton, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide design and other engineering and consulting services with respect to the Frances Anderson Center Seismic structural Retrofit Project; Phase II – Design and Construction Documents; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $169,299 . B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the Public Works Director three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. Packet Page 350 of 369 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all injury or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of negligent tortious or illegal acts in the performance of the work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Consultant may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant further agrees to fully indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to this contract a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage; and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Such policies, except the professional liability insurance policy, shall name the City as a named insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen days of execution of this Agreement. Packet Page 351 of 369 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. Packet Page 352 of 369 14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7110 – 210TH ST. SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: REID MIDDLETON, INC. 728 – 134TH STREET SW EVETETT, WA 98204 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. Packet Page 353 of 369 DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____. CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT: By By Gary Haakenson, Mayor Its ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ,to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 354 of 369 Packet Page 355 of 369 Packet Page 356 of 369 Packet Page 357 of 369 Packet Page 358 of 369 Packet Page 359 of 369 Packet Page 360 of 369 Packet Page 361 of 369 Packet Page 362 of 369 AM-744 8. Report on City Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/12/2006 Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Report on City Council Committee Meetings. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The following Committee Meeting Minutes are attached: 1. Community/Development Services Committee - 12/05/06 2. Finance Committee - 12/05/06 3. Public Safety Committee - 12/05/06 Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: CSDS Committee Minutes Link: Finance Committee Minutes Link: Public Safety Committee Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/06/2006 02:11 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/06/2006 02:39 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/07/2006 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/06/2006 02:05 PM Final Approval Date: 12/07/2006 Packet Page 363 of 369 M I N U T E S Community Services/Development Services Committee December 5, 2006 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Michael Plunkett, Committee Chair Duane Bowman, Dev. Services Director Chair Plunkett convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. A. Continued Discussion on temporary Sign Regulations. This matter was continued from the November 14, 2006 CS/DS Committee meeting to allow the City Attorney to prepare a response to a letter that was submitted by the Snohomish County-Camano Association of Realtors. Chair Plunkett asked Mr. Bowman what options the City has and whether or not the staff had a specific recommendation for the Committee. Mr. Bowman responded that the staff has not formed a specific recommendation at this time. He noted that past City Councils and Mayors have not favored heavy enforcement. Mr. Bowman outlined the options as being either to completely prohibit off-premises temporary signs or, through the legislative process, establish a record to allow them by zone district covering such things as size, location and number but remain content neutral. Chair Plunkett asked that the matter be referred to the full Council for discussion and direction. He noted that public hearings would be held through the code amendment process to ensure that public comment is taken. ACTION: Refer the topic of temporary sign regulation to the full City Council for discussion with a Committee recommendation to establish content neutral temporary sign regulations by zone district. The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Packet Page 364 of 369 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES December 5, 2006 6:00 PM V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\FINANCE - 051205.DOC Present: Councilmember Ron Wambolt Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson Staff: Kathleen Junglov Dan Clements Deb Sharp The Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. Item A: Utility Tax Ordinance Kathleen Junglov provided a brief overview of the 2007 utility tax ordinance. The increases were discussed as part of 2007-08 budget deliberations. This is recommended as a consent item. Item B: Mike Doubleday Intergovernmental Contract Committee members reviewed Mike Doubleday’s 2007 intergovernmental relations contract. After reviewing correspondence from Mr. Doubleday, committee members felt a 3.3% increase in contract rates was appropriate. Rates have remained the same for 2005 and 2006. It was the Committee consensus to move this item forward as a consent item. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM. Packet Page 365 of 369 Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting December 5, 2006 Committee Members Present: Council member Richard Marin, Chair Council member David Orvis Staff Present: Chief of Police David Stern Assistant Chief of Police Al Compaan Assistant Chief of Police Gerry Gannon Municipal Court Judge Douglas Fair Human Resources Manager Debi Humann Guests: Mayor Gary Haakenson EPOA President Steve Harbinson Four Members of the Public The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours. A. Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace for court security for 2007. Judge fair began with a brief description of General Rule 29 (GR 29) and its impact on his duties and authority. GR 29 is a rule passed by the Supreme Court that directs that the Presiding Judge is responsible for working conditions, hiring, discipline and termination of all court personnel. These responsibilities cannot be delegated to another branch of government. It was his opinion that this rule governed his decision on court security as long as court security was placed under his budget. It would be a violation of his duties under GR 29 to allow the Council to set any contractual limits on his authority to administer the Interlocal Agreement. The Council’s authority is to provide or withhold budget approval, not to set the terms of the contract. He gave a brief background of the court security position to date. It was his opinion that Court security is not police work as contemplated by the union. Even if it was the unions had waived their rights to bargain the work under the CBA by accepting Puget Sound Executive Services to perform the work. He had requested an opinion by the City Attorney and felt that he was on solid legal ground for his decision to pursue an Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace. The decision was budget driven. In a perfect world, with unlimited resources, he would be happy to have the work performed by Edmonds Police Officers. That is not the case here with limited budgets. Mountlake Terrace can provide the most affordable, safe and effective court security. He respects the union’s position and their president, Officer Harbinson. They have simply reached a point where they do not agree. Packet Page 366 of 369 Officer Harbinson did not disagree with the facts as set forth by Judge Fair. He also agreed that the negotiations have been cordial and there is no animosity between the parties. Officer Harbinson further stated that the union honestly cannot fill the position for the next year or even two. However, as the union president he cannot agree to a precedent that would allow Mountlake Terrace officers to come into Edmonds and serve police functions such as carrying weapons and arrest powers. He does not agree that the union agreed to waive any rights by not asserting their rights when the contract was made with PSES for court services. His primary concern was about setting a precedent that would allow the City to hire outside officers by using this agreement as an example. Councilmember Marin and Councilmember Orvis asked some questions to clarify their knowledge of the process and the parties’ position. They asked both Judge Fair and Officer Harbinson if there was language that the Interlocal Agreement does not establish a past practice if that would be acceptable. Officer Harbinson indicated it might be but he would need to see the language. Judge Fair said it was possible but he needed to consult with the City Attorney. Both Councilmember’s agreed that if both sides could agree to such language then it could be put on the Council agenda for discussion and approval. If they could not agree then it was to be placed back on the Public Safety Committee agenda, on an emergency basis, so the issue could be resolved before the end of the year. Action: On December 5, 2006 the Public Safety Committee met. Discussion was held on the Interlocal Agreement with Mountlake Terrace for court security. Judge Fair will consult with the City Attorney regarding the Interlocal Agreement not establishing past practice. Officer Harbinson would then review the language. Councilmembers Marin and Orvis stated if Officer Harbinson and Judge Fair agree on the language then this item would be placed on the Council agenda for discussion and approval. If both parties do not agree then the issue would be brought before an Emergency Public Safety Committee meeting so item can be resolved before the end of the year. B. Enforcement options related to barking dogs. Continued discussion was held relating to possible enforcement options. It was determined that sufficient options were currently available to deal with the issue. Councilmember Orvis will make contact with two complainants to review the options. Action: Discussion was held on “Enforcement options related to barking dogs.” Sufficient options were currently available so Councilmember Orvis will make contact with two complainants to review the options. C. Enforcement options related to stray cats. Continued discussion was held relating to the enforcement options available for dealing with stray cats. Staff was directed to have the City Attorney draft language for the ordinance changing the notification time to twelve hours, adding language pertaining to the humane treatment of animals being held prior to release to Animal Control and language pertaining to the use of humane trapping devices. Draft language to be placed on the consent agenda for the full Council. Packet Page 367 of 369 Action: Discussion was held on “Enforcement options related to stray cats.” Councilmembers Marin and Orvis directed the staff to have the City Attorney draft language for the ordinance changing notification time to twelve hours, adding language pertaining to the humane treatment of animals being held prior to release, and language pertaining to use of humane trapping devices. When completed, draft language to be placed on the consent agenda for full Council. D. Professional Services Contract with Jeannie Dines. Assistant Chief Compaan reviewed the “Professional Services Contract.” Further discussion was held. A do pass recommendation was made by Councilmembers Marin and Orvis with further recommendation that the Professional Services Contract be placed on the Consent Agenda for December 12, 2006. Action: On December 5, 2006 the Public Safety Committee met. A do pass recommendation was made that the “Professional Services Contract” be placed on the Consent Agenda for review and approval by City Council on December 12, 2006. E. Police Towing Contracts First Amendment. Assistant Chief Compaan reviewed the “Police Towing Contracts.” Further discussion was held. A do pass recommendation was made by Councilmembers Marin and Orvis with further recommendations that the Police Towing Contracts be placed on the Consent Agenda for December 12, 2006. Action: On December 5, 2006 the Public Safety Committee met. A do pass recommendation was made that the “Police Towing Contracts” be placed on the Consent Agenda for review and approval by the City Council on December 12, 2006. F. Contract for Deceased Animal Disposal Services with the S. Morris Company Assistant Chief Compaan reviewed the “Deceased Animal Disposal Services Contract.” Further discussion was held. A do pass recommendation was made by Councilmembers Marin and Orvis with further recommendations that the contract with “S. Morris Company for Deceased Animal Disposal Services” be placed on the Consent Agenda December 12, 2006. Action: On December 5, 2006 the Public Safety Committee met. A do pass recommendation was made that the “Deceased Animal Disposal Services contract with S. Morris Company” be placed on the Consent Agenda for review and approval by the City Council on December 12, 2006. Packet Page 368 of 369 G. Contract for Animal Kenneling Services with Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats. Assistant Chief Compaan reviewed “Animal Kenneling Services with Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats.” Further discussion was held. Councilmember Marin felt the contract should be approved. Councilmember Orvis said he could not support the contract. The two councilmembers discussed the contract and decided the matter should be put on the Consent Agenda for December 12, 2006 with no recommendations for Public Safety Committee. Action: On December 5, 2006 the Public Safety Committee met. The “Animal Kenneling Services with Adix’s Bed and Bath” was discussed at length. Councilmember’s Marin and Orvis had no recommendations but asked that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for review with a possible decision on the contract for December 12, 2006. Meeting adjourned at 1903 hours. Packet Page 369 of 369