HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.07.10 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
July 10, 2007
6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the
public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in the following rooms:
Community/Development Services (Council Chambers), Finance (Jury Room), Public Safety (Police Training Room)
1.Community/Development Services Committee
A.AM-1078
(15 Min)
Discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations.
B.AM-1084
(20 Min)
Consideration of request by a non-profit organization to waive ECDC 20.60.020, General Regulations for
Permanent Signs, Subsection (E) – “No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other
illuminating device which has a changing light density or color…”
C.AM-1088
(15 Min)
Discussion of Building Permit application timelines.
2.Finance Committee
A.AM-1081
(10 Min)
Judicial salary certification for State funding reimbursement.
B.AM-1075
(10 Min)
School Resource Officer Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District.
3.Public Safety Committee
A.AM-1083
(20 Min)
Discussion regarding graffiti.
B.AM-1086
(10 Min)
Judicial salary certification for State funding reimbursement.
C.AM-1087
(15 Min)
Request for a contract amendment from City Prosecutor.
Packet Page 1 of 93
AM-1078 1.A.
Plug-in Hybrid Cars and Charging Stations
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For:Councilmember Richard Marin Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
To direct staff to bring back to the Council information on any and all costs associated with
installing, equipping, locating, and maintenance of a hybrid plug-in charging station.
Previous Council Action
During the audience portion of the January 23, 2007 Council Meeting two speakers encouraged the
Council to support plug-in hybrid cars. Councilmember Moore asked that this item be placed on the
CS/DS Committee’s agenda. - Exhibit 1 – Council Minutes -1/23/2007 – pgs. 6 & 9 relating to
hybrid cars.
During the 2007 Council Retreat, Mayor Haakenson raised the issue of creating a parking space for
hybrid plug-in vehicles stating he would bring back information to the Council regarding this issue.
– Exhibit 2 - – Council Minutes -3/23-24/2007 – pg. 3 relating to hybrid cars.
Narrative
Mayor Haakenson asked Don Kreiman, Chairman of the Citizens’ Transportation Advisory
Committee to provide resources for the Council to evaluate relating to plug-in hybrid vehicles. Mr.
Kreiman then provided the Mayor with a list of organizations, people, and articles that were
available on the internet for the Council to access. Mayor Haakenson forwarded this information to
the Council. – Exhibit 3 – E-mail from Mayor Haakenson forwarding information to Council
regarding hybrid plug-in vehicles.
Exhibit 4: Documents submitted by Mr. Bernheim.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exh 1 CM 1-23-07 Hybrids
Link: Exh 2 CM 3-23-24-07 Hybrids
Link: Exh 3 E-mail re Hybrids
Link: Exh 4-Bernheim Documents 7-10-07 CM
Packet Page 2 of 93
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/03/2007 11:02 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/03/2007 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/04/2007 01:25 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 07/02/2007 09:38
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/04/2007
Packet Page 3 of 93
Packet Page 4 of 93
Packet Page 5 of 93
Packet Page 6 of 93
Packet Page 7 of 93
Packet Page 8 of 93
Packet Page 9 of 93
Packet Page 10 of 93
Packet Page 11 of 93
Packet Page 12 of 93
Packet Page 13 of 93
Packet Page 14 of 93
Packet Page 15 of 93
Packet Page 16 of 93
Packet Page 17 of 93
Packet Page 18 of 93
Packet Page 19 of 93
Packet Page 20 of 93
Packet Page 21 of 93
Packet Page 22 of 93
Packet Page 23 of 93
Packet Page 24 of 93
Packet Page 25 of 93
Packet Page 26 of 93
Packet Page 27 of 93
Packet Page 28 of 93
Packet Page 29 of 93
Packet Page 30 of 93
Packet Page 31 of 93
Packet Page 32 of 93
Packet Page 33 of 93
Packet Page 34 of 93
Packet Page 35 of 93
Packet Page 36 of 93
Packet Page 37 of 93
Packet Page 38 of 93
Packet Page 39 of 93
Packet Page 40 of 93
Packet Page 41 of 93
Packet Page 42 of 93
Packet Page 43 of 93
Packet Page 44 of 93
Packet Page 45 of 93
Packet Page 46 of 93
Packet Page 47 of 93
AM-1084 1.B.
Blinking Sign Regulations
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:20 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Consideration of request by a non-profit organization to waive ECDC 20.60.020, General
Regulations for Permanent Signs, Subsection (E) – “No sign shall have blinking, flashing,
fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing light density or
color…”
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
The existing sign regulation should not be changed.
Previous Council Action
This matter was brought up under audience comment on May 15, 2007 by Roger Oliver. A copy of
the minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit 1.
Narrative
Edmonds Community Development Code General regulations for permanent signs specifically
prohibits blinking, flashing lights pursuant to subsection (E), which reads as follows:
E. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device
which has a changing light density or color; provided, however, temperature and/or time signs
that conform in all other respects to this chapter are allowed. Electronic reader boards may have
messages that change, however, moving messages are not allowed. Messages that change at
intervals less than 20 seconds will be considered blinking or flashing and not allowed.
In order to waive the regulation, the City would need to pass an amendment to the sign code to
allow such an exception for a non-profit business. The most likely scenario would be to create
some kind of conditional use permit process.
Staff does not support this idea. Setting the unsightly aesthetic issue aside, businesses complain
enough about signs and this would certainly generate feelings unequal treatment not to mention
more paperwork. A double standard does not now exist. The signs mentioned in the comment
before the City Council comply with code and one sign even existed before annexation to the City
of Edmonds.
Fiscal Impact
Packet Page 48 of 93
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 -Audience Comment 5/17/07 City Council
Meeting
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 01:24 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/05/2007 01:27 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 02:10 PM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 07/05/2007 12:09
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/05/2007
Packet Page 49 of 93
Council President Pro Tern Wambolt referred to the comment that the Council should not enact
ordinances the City did not intend to enforce other than via complaint. He noted this would not be a
precedent as many of the City's codes were enforced on a complaint basis. When this issue first arose, he
was opposed to containing cats; once he was educated, he found it the right thing to do.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked whether there had been an increase in abandoned cats in other cities where
similar ordinances had been adopted. Officer Dawson answered she would need to contact the cities;
however, her experience in animal shelters did not fmd cats were surrendered due to changes in laws.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson commented some of the opposition was not fact-based but based on supposition.
She noted residents who liked to garden had no recourse against a neighbor's cat that used their garden as
a litter box. This issue arose because those property owners had no way to prevent cats from trespassing
on their property. She agreed it was unfortunate more laws were required, pointing out laws that have
been enacted with regard to seatbelts, helmets, etc. She supported the ordinance.
UPON ROLL C,\I.I. hlOTION CARRIED (5-2), hIAYOR PRO TEhI OLSON, COUNCII.
PRESIDENT PRO TEhl WA\lBOLT, ,\ND COL'NCILhlEhlBERS ORYIS, .\L\lUY AND \100RE
IN FAVOR. AND COl'NCII.\IE\IRERS DA\VSOS AND PI.UNW1I'OPPOSED. The Ordinance
that was adopted reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3645 - AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5.05.050 RUNNING AT
LARGE PROHIBITED TO DELETE THE EXCEPTIONS FOR CATS, AND REQUIRE THAT
THE CUSTODY OF CAPTURED STRAY ANIMALS BE TURNED OVER TO THE ANIMAL
CONTROL AUTHORITY.
(Councilmember Orvis left the meeting.)
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Oliver, Edmonds, explained he volunteered for an organization that picked up and distributed
disability equipment, located under the Pancake House behind Petosa's Grocery. In an effort to make
ocated at End their location more visible, he asked whether a flashing green light could be placed at the end of the
private alley and was told it was not allowed by the building department as the sign ordinance did not
allow light intensity changes less than 20 seconds in duration. If that were true, he questioned how the
Westgate Chapel, Edmonds-Woodway High School, Westgate Canvash signs were allowed. He objected
to what appeared to be a double standard.
Jan Vance, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, advised the Chamber planned
to provide a monthly report to the Council to keep the Council and the public informed of the Chamber's
activities. The mission of the Chamber's Economic Development Committee was to foster a vibrant
economic environment for Edmonds in the area of indusw, service and retail business and keep abreast
of legislative issues that may affect the business community. The function of the committee is to keep the
Chamber informed of governmental affairs, transportation and economic development matters, propose
statements that were relevant to the mission to the Chamber board, foster a vibrant economic environment
for the Edmonds area, and hold a candidate forum to keep the community informed on issues. The
Chamber's policy has been not to endorse or support candidates; the Chamber does endorse issues
pertinent to their mission.
Dale Hoggins, Edmonds, on behalf of the Edmonds Cemetery Board, invited the Council and the public
to the 25Ih Annual Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday, May 28 at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery
and Columbarinm. The ceremony will remember and honor the memories of all military personnel who
have died serving the country during times of war and honor all veterans and gold star families. He noted
the Edmonds Cemetery was the final resting place for over 400 veterans including 40 who served in either
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15,2007
Page 10
Packet Page 50 of 93
AM-1088 1.C.
Discussion of Building Permit Application Timelines
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:15 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of Building Permit application timelines.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None
Previous Council Action
Narrative
As requested, Duane Bowman, Development Services Director, will report on building permit
activity and review timelines at the committee meeting.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 03:58 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/05/2007 04:12 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 04:17 PM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 07/05/2007 03:54
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/05/2007
Packet Page 51 of 93
AM-1081 2.A.
Judicial Salary Certification for State Funding Reimbursement
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:10 Minutes
Department:Municipal Court Type:Action
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Judicial salary certification for State funding reimbursement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Please see attached memorandum.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Judicial Salary Memorandum
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/04/2007 01:24 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/05/2007 08:58 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 02:10 PM APRV
Form Started By: Doug
Fair
Started On: 07/03/2007 12:11
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/05/2007
Packet Page 52 of 93
Judicial Salary Memorandum
When I first was appointed to serve as your judge in July, 2005, I finished out the
contract that had been signed with Judge White. Judge White’s original contract
provided that he was an independent contractor without benefits and was set at $65,000
based on a 24 hour work week. State auditors did not agree that the judicial position was
an independent contractor. As a result I negotiated an annualized salary and benefit
package of $59,000 for the remainder of the term (July-December 2005). This was
designed to be the rough equivalent of the previous contract, taking into account the
value of the benefit package.
In 2006 the City Council made the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge an elected position.
This qualified the City to obtain reimbursement from the State for court improvement
account funds. In order to qualify for these funds the judicial position must be paid at a
pro-rated salary that equates to 95% of the salary for a district court judge.
The 2006 salary for the judicial position was negotiated at $63,751 for a 22 hour work
week. This was exactly 95% of the district court salary pro-rated at 55% (22 hours per
week). This made the City of Edmonds eligible for court improvement account funds.
On September 1, 2006, the Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials
increased the district court salary from $122,012 to $125,672 on an annualized basis. To
remain eligible for the court improvement account funds (95% pro-rated salary for 2007)
the contract was renegotiated to a salary of $65,664 commencing January 1, 2007. This
was an increase of $1,913 from 2006.
Recently the Citizen’s Commission approved a large salary increase for district court
judges. The salary of a district court judge will be raised to $134,242 effective
September 1, 2007. On September 1, 2008 the salary will increase to $141,708. If the
City wishes to continue to receive court improvement account funds then it will require
an increase in the judicial salary. The pro-rated 95% salary will need to be $70,136
starting on September 1, 2007 and $74,042 starting on September 1, 2008. Please see the
email correspondence at the end of the memorandum reflecting this information.
In 2006 we received $3999 from the State. It is anticipated that Edmonds will receive
approximately $9200 for the calendar year of 2007 if the salary is increased. Therefore
the anticipated total amount received from the State will be $13,199 for 2006-2007. If
the salary is not increased then the City will receive approximately $2600 during 2007 for
a combined total of $6599 for 2006-2007.
Assuming that the judicial salary remained constant at $59,000 for 2006-2007 and
assuming that there is a salary increase as of September 1, 2007, then the total salary
increases over 2006-2007 will equal $12,055. Based on these assumptions then the net
financial gain to the City over 2006-2007 will be $1,144.
Packet Page 53 of 93
Based on these figures it appears that it still makes fiscal sense to keep the City eligible
for court improvement funds through September 1, 2008. I also believe that it is in the
City’s best interest to wait until next year to determine if it makes sense to increase the
salary in September, 2008. The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the City
will receive $13,000 in 2008 if the City continues to raise the judicial salary.
I respectfully request that we renegotiate the salary term of the contract commencing
September 1, 2007 to set the annualized salary at $70,136.22 in order to keep the City
eligible for court improvement account funds.
Yes, in order to continue qualifying for 5454 contributions, your salary must be equivalent to 95%
of a district court judges salary, or $127,520 for a full time position. If you are still funded at 55%
then your salary at a minimum must be $70,136 ($134,232 x .95 x .55). Also note that another
increase is required to meet the new salary effective September 1, 2008.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fair, Doug [mailto:Fair@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Radwan, Ramsey
Subject: RE: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution
My salary at the city is reviewed on an annual basis with the calendar year. For the past two
years this has been approved as meeting the 5454 criteria. Has that changed? Do I need to
request that the city increase my salary in September?
Thanks, Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:34 PM
To: pburns@auburnwa.gov; Fair, Doug; gphillips@ci.kent.wa.us; tjurado@ci.renton.wa.us;
ron.mamiya@seattle.gov; james.docter@ci.bremerton.wa.us;
michael.morgan@cityoffederalway.com; Gillings, Fred (TAO 7 Days); mlambo@ci.kirkland.wa.us;
aemery@ci.tacoma.wa.us; todell@ci.everett.wa.us; swoodard@ci.yakima.wa.us
Cc: fwebster@auburnwa.gov; Ferebee, Joan; Yetter, Margaret (internet);
jmcguire@ci.renton.wa.us; yolande.williams@seattle.gov; Pettus, Yvonne (internet); Cusimano,
Jeri (internet); gina.palermo@cityoffederalway.com; lmorris@ci.yakima.wa.us;
selsner@ci.marysville.wa.us; Jeffries, Tracy (internet); Haake, Douglas
Subject: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution
As you know, one of the two qualifying criteria for 5454 contributions is the requirement that the
municipal court judge be compensated at a rate of 95-100% of a district court judges' salary. You
may also know that the Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials recently
established a new salary schedule for district court judges.
The new rates are:
$134,232 effective September 1, 2007 and
$141,708 effective September 1, 2008
The entire salary schedule can be viewed at http://www.salaries.wa.gov/documents/Final2007-
08SalarySchedule.pdf.
Packet Page 54 of 93
In the next few days I will be sending a letter to your city notifying them that to continue to qualify
for funding municipal court judges within their jurisdiction must be compensated at the rate noted
above (95-100% of a district court judges' salary) effective September 1, 2007 with an adjustment
on September 1, 2008. I will copy all judges within your court as well as your court administrator.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ramsey Radwan, Director
Management Services Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
(360) 357-2406
ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov
From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:00 AM
To: Ferebee, Joan
Subject: 2008 5454
Joan, Edmonds will receive about $13,000 in calendar year 2008.
Ramsey Radwan, Director
Management Services Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
(360) 357-2406
ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov
Packet Page 55 of 93
AM-1075 2.B.
SRO Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Debbie Smith, Police Department
Submitted For:Debbie Smith Time:10 Minutes
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
School Resource Officer Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend approval by Finance Committee and forward to full Council Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
This is an updated version of our present contract. The changes reflect salary increases based on
contract.
Narrative
A contract has existed with the Edmonds School District to provide a school resource officer at
Edmonds Woodway High School, full time, for nine months. The contract agreement is a 50%
salary contribution from the district toward the salary of the officer. This contract requires periodic
updating and subsequent approval.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2007-2009 Revenue: Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Compensation. In consideration of Edmond’s assignment of the Officer to the District, the
District agrees to pay 50% of the Officer’s base salary and benefits for the duration of the regular
school year. The parties understand and acknowledge that the sums provided under this
Agreement only partially fund the position of one fulltime Officer and that Edmonds reserves the
right to assign the Officer outside of regular school hours to other police duties as determined in
the sole discretion of Edmonds. In addition, Edmonds reserves the right to assign the Officer to
other police functions in the event of an emergent need, such as civil unrest or a natural disaster.
The District and Edmonds agree to negotiate compensation and costs under the Agreement for
any extension beyond the original Agreement term.
Attachments
Link: SRO agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Police Al Compaan 06/28/2007 10:16 AM APRV
Packet Page 56 of 93
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/28/2007 11:08 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/28/2007 12:56 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/28/2007 01:44 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Smith
Started On: 06/28/2007 09:15
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/28/2007
Packet Page 57 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
And
CITY OF EDMONDS
for
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING AGENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the Edmonds School
District, hereafter referred to as “District”, and the City of Edmonds, a
Washington State municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as “Edmonds.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the District and Edmonds desire to cooperate
pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, Interlocal Cooperation Act, in
order to make the most efficient use of their respective
governmental powers within their jurisdiction; and
B. WHEREAS, Edmonds and the District desire to establish a
Community-Oriented Policing Program (hereafter referred to as
“Program,”) to provide security, promote safety and serve as a
positive resource to the District, the participating High School
that is named in this Agreement and the surrounding
neighborhood; and
C. WHEREAS, Edmonds is desirous to assign a uniformed Police
Officer to serve as a Community-Oriented Policing Agent
(hereafter referred to as “Officer”) to be assigned to the High
School location specified herein in order to provide safety, patrol
and assist with certain related duties, in return for a rate of
compensation to Edmonds that is agreed upon by the parties
hereto;
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations and
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose. This Agreement is intended to increase security and
safety for students, staff and property at Edmonds-Woodway High
School located in the District through the assignment by Edmonds
of one (1) experienced commissioned Edmonds Officer to service
that location at the specified rate of compensation herein;
2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2007 and
shall expire on June 30, 2009, unless otherwise terminated under
Packet Page 58 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
2
the provisions of this Agreement. Two additional one-year
extensions are allowed. Such extensions shall occur automatically
and shall not require written notice of such extension. Should
either party desire not to renew for the upcoming school year, such
party must provide written notice by April 1 to the other of its
intent not to renew. Upon expiration of this Agreement and any
extensions, all equipment furnished by Edmonds shall remain the
sole property of Edmonds and any facilities, office equipment or
other material support provided by the District shall remain the
sole property of the District.
3. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any
reason upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. This
Agreement is subject to funding, and either party may terminate
with proper written notice due to lack of funding.
4. Duties of Officer. Edmonds shall assign the Officer to the High
School to promote safety and serve as a positive resource to the
District and the surrounding neighborhood. The duties and
responsibilities of the Officer include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Perform the duties enumerated in the Edmonds Police
Officer Job Description;
b. Patrol the High School and surrounding areas to
identify, investigate, deter and prevent crimes,
especially those incidents involving weapons, youth
violence, harassment, gang involvement, drugs or
similar activities;
c. Act as a liaison between the High School
Administrators and Edmonds;
d. Establish and maintain a working rapport with the
High School administration, staff and students;
e. Provide school-based security during the regular
school day and assist in the promotion of a safe and
orderly environment at the High School. The Officer,
however, shall not act as a disciplinarian. If the
Officer is confronted with a non-criminal violation,
such as a school rule violation, the Officer will inform
the High School Administrators of the same and assist
only for the purposes of providing security for school
staff member(s) charged with enforcing school rules
and providing testimony in a due process hearing. In
Packet Page 59 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
3
the absence of a District Administrator, the Officer
may refer the matter to District administration;
f. Assist in mediating disputes on campus, including
working with students to help solve disputes in a non-
violent manner;
g. Act as a resource person in the area of law
enforcement education at the request of staff, speak to
classes on the law, search and seizure, drugs, motor
vehicle laws, etc.; and,
h. Perform others duties as mutually agreed upon by the
Principal of each High School and the Officer, provided
that the duty is legitimately and reasonably related to
the Program as described in this Agreement and is
consistent with federal and state law, local ordinances,
District and Edmonds policies, procedures, rules and
regulations.
5. Office Space and Supplies. District shall provide the following for
the Officer’s use at each High School, all at the District cost:
a. Private space with sufficient lighting and heat at the
High School to be used by the Officer for general office
purposes.
b. Necessary office supplies, including but not limited to
a four drawer locking cabinet, a desk, a telephone, and
a computer.
c. A portable radio for communication with High School
security personnel.
6. Independent Contractor. Edmonds and the District understand
and agree that Edmonds is acting as an independent contractor
under the terms of this Agreement, with the following intended
results:
a. Control of personnel, standards of performance,
discipline and other aspects of performance of the
Officer shall be governed solely by Edmonds;
b. All persons rendering services hereunder shall be for
all purposes employees of Edmonds;
Packet Page 60 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
4
c. All liabilities for salaries, wages or any other
compensation shall be the responsibility of Edmonds.
7. Supervision of Officer. The Officer shall remain an employee of
Edmonds and is not an employee of District. The Officer shall
remain responsive to the supervision and chain of command of
Edmonds. Edmonds shall be solely responsible for Officer’s
training, discipline or dismissal. Any allegation of improper
conduct shall be referred by High School or District Administration
to the Officer’s immediate supervisor or directly to the Edmonds
Chief of Police.
8. Scheduling of Officer. Edmonds agrees to assign an Officer to the
District during the regularly scheduled school year, for the term of
this Agreement. The Officer will be on the High School campus
throughout the regularly scheduled school day, Monday through
Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., less any scheduled vacation time, sick
time, training time, court time, or any other police-related
emergencies, such as civil disasters. When the Officer is not on the
High School campus, the Officer will advise the High School
Principal in advance of the Officer whereabouts and a number
where the Officer can be reached. On scheduled workdays when
school is not in session, the officer will work as assigned by
Edmonds.
9. Overtime. Officer may not work any overtime without the prior
approval of Edmonds. Overtime will be paid by Edmonds in
accordance with Edmonds policies. The District is not responsible
for any overtime costs.
10. Selection. Edmonds will select an Edmonds uniformed Officer to
perform the services under this Agreement. Officer assignment
vacancies likewise will be filled in accordance with this section.
During the selection process Edmonds may use the following non-
exclusive factors:
a. Officer should be considered capable of conveying a
positive police presence on the High School campus and in
the community.
b. Officer should have the ability to be a positive resource to
the school, staff, students, parents, and residents in the
surrounding neighborhood.
11. Removal. If District has cause to believe that a particular
Officer is not effectively performing in accordance with this
Agreement, the Superintendent or designee may recommend in
Packet Page 61 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
5
writing to Edmonds that the Officer be removed from the Program.
Within ten business days after receiving the recommendation, the
Superintendent or designee will meet with the Edmonds Chief of
Police or designee to discuss the recommendation. If in the opinion
of the Chief or the Superintendent, or their designees, the problem
cannot be resolved, then the Officer shall be removed from the
Program.
12. Compensation. In consideration of Edmond’s assignment of the
Officer to the District, the District agrees to pay 50% of the Officer’s
base salary and benefits for the duration of the regular school year.
The parties understand and acknowledge that the sums provided
under this Agreement only partially fund the position of one
fulltime Officer and that Edmonds reserves the right to assign the
Officer outside of regular school hours to other police duties as
determined in the sole discretion of Edmonds. In addition,
Edmonds reserves the right to assign the Officer to other police
functions in the event of an emergent need, such as civil unrest or a
natural disaster. The District and Edmonds agree to negotiate
compensation and costs under the Agreement for any extension
beyond the original Agreement term.
13. Billing Period. Edmonds shall invoice the District twice a year in
equal installments for the amount due. Invoices shall be delivered
to the District on or before September 1 for the upcoming 4 months
of service; and shall bill on or before January 1 for the remaining
work to be completed during the final 6 months of service during
that school year. Invoices shall be submitted in a form approved by
the District, and shall specify the services to be performed, period of
service and amount due.
14. Payment. District shall pay Edmonds within 30 days from the date
of receipt of a proper invoice. Payments to Edmonds that are later
than 30 days following the date of receipt of a proper invoice shall
accrue interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance due.
All payments shall first be applied to accrued interest.
15. No Third Party Rights. The establishment of this Program and
execution of this Agreement shall create no third party rights. In
particular, the parties agree by establishing this Program that no
past practice has been created with respect to duty assignment, the
maintenance of the Program, or to otherwise limit the management
discretion of Edmonds under its Collective Bargaining Agreement.
This Agreement further shall not create any third party rights to
the Officer or any other officer of Edmonds, to the citizens of
Edmonds District, or to any other person.
Packet Page 62 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
6
16. Insurance and Indemnification. The parties shall separately
maintain their own appropriate liability and casualty insurance
policies as they, in their sole discretion, deem appropriate. The
parties further agree that no indemnification shall be provided for,
except as specifically set forth below, and that the respective
liability of the parties to each other and to third persons shall be
deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
The District will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
Edmonds, its officers, employees, or agents from any and all costs,
claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any
way resulting from, negligent acts or omissions of the District, its
officers, employees or agents. Edmonds will protect, defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers, employees, or
agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of
damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, negligent acts
or omissions of Edmonds, its officers, employees or agents. In the
event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the right of
contribution in proportion to the respective liability of each party.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to waive
immunities established pursuant to state statutes or to create third
party rights or immunities.
17. District Responsibility for Safety and Security. The parties
understand and agree that the District retains its legal
responsibility for the safety and security of the District, its
employees, students and property, and this Agreement does not
alter that responsibility except as provided by paragraph 16 above.
18. Interview and Arrest Procedures. If the Officer plans to interview
suspects or victims of crime, the Officer, to the extent practicable,
will advise and work with the Principal to minimize disruption to
the High School and other students. District employees will make
parental notification of such interviews in accordance with District
policies and procedures and applicable laws. The Principal or
designee may request that s/he or a designee be present during the
interview of a student. The presence of a District employee at an
interview of a student regarding a criminal matter shall make said
employee subject to subpoena as a witness thereto. In the event the
Officer arrests a student at the High School, the Officer shall notify
the Principal or the Principal’s designee as soon thereafter as
practical. In the event that the arrested student is a juvenile,
Edmonds will notify the parent or legal guardian pursuant to
Edmonds policies and procedures. The District may also make
notification as necessary under its own policies and procedures.
Packet Page 63 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
7
19. Release of Student Information. Upon request by Edmonds, the
District will provide directory information relating to its students,
which is permitted under District policy and state and federal law.
20. Police Reports. The Officer shall provide the District with police
reports as permitted by state law and Edmonds policies and
procedures.
21. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Washington.
22. Recording. This Agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish
County Auditor.
23. Notice. Notices under this Agreement shall be sent to the following:
EDMONDS Chief of Police
250 5th Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Superintendent
Edmonds School District
20420 68th Ave. West
Lynnwood, WA 98036
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement
between parties and supersedes and merges with any prior
agreements of the parties, written or oral, with respect to the
Program. This Agreement shall be amended only in writing with
the written consent of the parties. This Agreement shall be
interpreted in order to implement its central purpose, which is the
creation of the Program and the underlying understanding that
only Edmonds shall direct the police functions of the Officer.
Packet Page 64 of 93
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS
8
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF EDMONDS
By: ________________________ By:___________________________
Superintendent, Nick Brossoit Mayor, Gary Haakenson
Dated: __________________
Dated: _____________
Its: ________________________
By:______________________________
City Finance Director, Kathleen Junglov
Dated:________________
Attest as to Form
By:______________________________
City Attorney
Dated: ________________
Packet Page 65 of 93
AM-1083 3.A.
Discussion Regarding Graffiti
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For:Councilmember Deanna Dawson Time:20 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding graffiti.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The Public Safety Committee discussed the issue of graffiti at the February, March and April 2007
Committee Meetings. The minutes from each meeting are attached.
Narrative
Attached is a draft ordinance for discussion purposes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 02-13-07 Public Safety Comm Minutes
Link: 03-13-07 Public Safety Comm Minutes
Link: 04-10-07 Public Safety Comm Minutes
Link: Draft Ordinance for Discussion (Graffiti)
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 01:23 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/05/2007 01:27 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 02:10 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 07/05/2007 10:58
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/05/2007
Packet Page 66 of 93
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
February 13, 2007
Committee Members Present: Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Chair
Councilmember Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Chief of Police David Stern
Assistant Chief of Police Al Compaan
Guests: None
The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours.
A. Discussion regarding graffiti in the city and enacting an anti-graffiti ordinance.
Chief Stern presented an overview of the issue indicating that there was evidence of two
distinct types of graffiti in our community. Those being the so called art form placed by
taggers and a small amount of gang related material. At the present time existing
enforcement is conducted under the malicious mischief provisions of code and is adequate
for the purpose. Chief Stern noted that removal of graffiti is done in part by the city and in
part by property owners depending on who owns the property in question. Edmonds
Community Development Code, section 20.110.030, specifies that graffiti is a nuisance on
private property and must be removed by the owner; however, it does not specify a time
frame.
A discussion was held on several options, including adding code to make it a crime to
possess, purchase or furnish implements used to produce graffiti and formalizing abatement
procedures. It was agreed that a time factor needed to be added to the existing code.
The committee agreed that Chair Person Dawson would look further into the legislative
aspect and consult the City Attorney. The matter will then be brought back to the Public
Safety Committee on March 13, 2007.
Action: On February 13, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Discussion was held regarding
enacting an anti-graffiti ordinance. It was agreed by the committee that Chair Person Dawson would look
into the legislative aspect and consult the City Attorney and that a time factor needed to be added to the
existing code. This item to be brought back to Public Safety Committee on March 13, 2007.
B. Review of 2007 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of
Lynnwood.
Assistant Chief Compaan discussed the 2007 addendum to the Prisoner Detention Agreement with
the City of Lynnwood. This is an annual addendum that covers the costs of the Whatcom County
Cooperative Prisoner Transport, which provides a daily prisoner transport service that runs between
Bellingham and Seattle. This service transports prisoners between the various jails along the I-5
corridor. The proportionate cost to the City of Edmonds for 2007 is $13,067.67 and that is already
budgeted in the current Police General Fund budget.
Packet Page 67 of 93
Councilmembers Dawson and Plunkett agreed that this item should be placed on consent agenda with
a “do pass” recommendation.
Action: On February 13, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. The committee reviewed the “2007
Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood.” Councilmembers Dawson and
Plunkett recommended a “do pass” with the item to be placed on the consent agenda for February 20,
2007.
Meeting adjourned at 1932 hours.
Packet Page 68 of 93
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
March 13, 2007
Committee Members Present: Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Chair
Councilmember Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Chief of Police David Stern
Assistant Chief of Police Al Compaan
Assistant Chief of Police Gerry Gannon
Guests: Mayor Gary Haakenson
Bio Park, City Attorney’s Office
Reporter from the Beacon
One audience members
The meeting was called to order at 1810 hours.
A. Continued discussion regarding graffiti in the city and enacting an anti-graffiti
ordinance.
Previously Chief Stern presented an overview of the issue indicating that there was evidence
of two distinct types of graffiti in the community. Those types being the so called art form
placed by taggers and a small amount of gang related material. It was noted that existing
enforcement is conducted under the malicious mischief provisions of code and is adequate
for the purpose. Removal of graffiti is done in part by the city and in part by property owners
depending on who owns the property in question. Edmonds Community Development Code
section 20.110.030 specifies that graffiti is a nuisance on private property and must be
removed by the owner but does not specify a time frame.
Previous discussion of several options, included adding code to make it a crime to possess,
purchase or furnish implements used to produce graffiti and formalizing abatement
procedures. It was agreed that a time factor needed to be added to the existing code.
Chair Dawson invited Bio Park from the City Attorney’s Office to present their view of legal
issues involved in some of the options previously discussed. Mr. Park mentioned the use of
public funds to remove graffiti on private property as a potential obstacle which could be
avoided by use of monies recovered from suspects. Mr. Park also noted that for City
personnel to enter private property for abatement purposes a warrant from superior court
would be needed. Mr. Park also discussed the differences between burden of proof and
affirmative defense issues relating to possession of graffiti implements and recommended the
latter. The final issue dealt with service by certified mail in abatement cases as an acceptable
method.
It was determined by the Council members that a broad range of options should be presented
to the full Council in a public hearing format to allow for citizen input. Chief Stern and
Chair Dawson will collaborate on a presentation
Packet Page 69 of 93
Action: On March 13, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Continued discussion was held regarding
enacting an anti-graffiti ordinance. It was agreed by the committee that a broad range of options be
presented to the full Council in a public hearing format to allow for citizen input. Chair Person Dawson
and Police Chief David Stern will collaborate on a presentation. This item will be placed on the City
Council Agenda for a public hearing on a date to be determined.
Meeting adjourned at 1834 hours.
Packet Page 70 of 93
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 10, 2007
Committee Members Present: Council member Deanna Dawson, Chair
Council member Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Fire Chief Thomas J. Tomberg
Police Chief David Stern
Assistant Chief Mark Correira
Guests: Mark Bailey
The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours.
A. Request for Qualifications – Fire Department Medical Program Director (MPD)
Dr. James Mercer, a member of the Edmonds Emergency Physician's Group, and long time
Medical Program Director (ALS and BLS) for the Edmonds and Lynnwood Fire Departments,
has decided to step back from the MPD position he has held since 1998. Dr. Mercer began
service under Medic 7, served both departments for three years after the January 1, 2003 Medic
7 dissolution, and subsequently signed individual contracts with the two fire departments to
continue as MPD.
After consulting with the City Attorney on a replacement process, Fire Administration seeks to
publish a "Request for Qualifications - Medical Program Director" document to begin the hiring
process. Dr. Mercer has agreed to serve until his successor assumes MPD duties.
AC Correira reviewed the attached RFQ with Public Safety Committee members. Edmonds is
working in concert with Lynnwood Fire in the hiring process although the MPD contracts are
separate. The candidate selection process includes submission of qualifications, background
check, and an interview panel. Committee members indicated their willingness to serve on the
interview panel. Part of the hiring process requires approval of the appointee by Snohomish
County MPD Dr. Ron Brown. The City Attorney will review the MPD employment contract.
When a successor is chosen, the MPD employment contract will be reviewed by the Public
Safety Committee prior to Council submission on the consent agenda. Committee members
indicated they could be contacted for contract approval prior to a scheduled Public Safety
Committee meeting.
Action: After approval by the City Attorney, the Medical Program Director position RFQ will be
published.
B. Update on Graffiti Enforcement (Unscheduled)
Council Chair Dawson gave an update on a discussion from previous meetings on the graffiti
enforcement. Chair Dawson noted that she had contacted other departments and found that
their legislative approach was measured as opposed to very aggressive. Chief Stern indicated
that such an approach would be his recommendation to the Council as well.
A target date of May 1, 2007 was agreed upon for presentation to the full Council.
Packet Page 71 of 93
Action: On April 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Chair Dawson gave an update on
her findings of other department approaches regarding graffiti enforcement. A target date of
May 1, 2007 was agreed for presentation to the full Council.
Meeting adjourned at 1817 hours.
Packet Page 72 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.60, GRAFFITI;
DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE;
PROHIBITING DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH
GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS;
IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE
REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI; ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS
PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, cities are authorized under Titles 35 and 35A RCW to make and enforce by
appropriate ordinances all such police and sanitary regulations as are not in conflict within state
law; and
WHEREAS, cities are authorized under Titles 35 and 35A RCW to declare by ordinance
what shall be deemed a nuisance; and
WHEREAS, cities are authorized under Chapter 7.48 RCW to abate public nuisance at
the expense of the parties creating, causing, committing, or allowing the same to continue; and
WHEREAS, graffiti is vandalism; and
WHEREAS, the defacement of public and private property by graffiti vandals costs
businesses, property owners, cities, the counties, and the State millions of dollars a year; and
WHEREAS, graffiti is a visual symbol of disorder that erodes feelings of safety in and
demoralizes our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, some forms of graffiti can create a climate of intimidation, contributing to
neighborhood decline; and
WHEREAS, the existence of graffiti often becomes an invitation to additional crime; and
WHEREAS, graffiti can result in lowered property values, business viability, and
community pride; and
WHEREAS, there is substantial evidence that the prompt removal of graffiti is an
effective prevention strategy which discourages its return, while the failure to promptly remove
graffiti increases the likelihood that more graffiti will occur on the same site and on nearby
property; and
Packet Page 73 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 2 -
WHEREAS, public and private efforts to reduce graffiti are undermined by those few
property owners who fail to cooperate in cleaning graffiti from their property despite requests
from their neighbors; and
WHEREAS, the failure to maintain one's property by removing graffiti to a reasonable
degree and within a reasonable period of time constitutes a public nuisance for the reasons set
forth above; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to take steps now to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of our community against this threat; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new Chapter 5.60 Graffiti is hereby adopted and added to Title 5
ECC to read as follows:
Chapter 5.60
GRAFFITI
Sections:
5.60.010 Declaration of policy – Findings.
5.60.020 Definitions.
5.60.030 Prohibited acts.
5.60.040 Display and storage of graffiti implements.
5.60.050 Declaration of public nuisance.
5.60.060 Notice of graffiti nuisance.
5.60.070 Appeal, abatement and cost recovery proceedings.
5.60.080 Trust fund.
5.60.090 Remedies not exclusive.
5.60.100 Severability.
5.60.010 Declaration of policy – Findings.
The City Council finds that graffiti on public and private buildings,
structures, and on personal property, including motor vehicles,
creates a condition of blight within the City that can result in the
deterioration of property values, business opportunities, and
enjoyment of life for persons using adjacent and surrounding
properties. The City Council further finds that the presence of
graffiti is inconsistent with the City's goals of maintaining
property, preventing crime, and preserving aesthetic standards.
Accordingly, it is the purpose of this Chapter to promote the
Packet Page 74 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 3 -
health, safety and welfare of the general public. No provision of
this Chapter and no action taken pursuant hereto is intended to
impose any duty whatsoever upon the City or any of its officers or
employees. Further, nothing contained herein is intended or shall
be construed as forming the basis of any liability on the part of the
City, its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage
resulting from any action or inaction on the part of the City, its
officers, employees or agents.
5.60.020 Definitions.
A. “Abate” or “abatement” means the removal, painting over,
or the obscuring of graffiti from view.
B. “Graffiti” means any unauthorized inscription, word,
figure, painting or other defacement that is written, marked,
etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted, or engraved on or
otherwise affixed to any surface of public or private property by
any graffiti implement, to the extent that the graffiti was not
authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or,
despite advance authorization, is otherwise recognized and deemed
a public nuisance.
C. “Graffiti implement” means an aerosol paint container, a
broad-tipped marker, gum label, paint stick or graffiti stick, etching
equipment, brush or any other recognized, similar and comparable
device capable of scarring or leaving a visible unauthorized
inscription, word, figure, painting, mark or other defacement on
any natural or manmade surface. A “broad-tipped” marker is any
form of ink pen with a tip exceeding one-quarter (1/4) inch in
width.
5.60.030 Prohibited acts.
A. Defacement. It shall be unlawful for any person to apply
graffiti to any natural or manmade surface on any City-owned
property or, without the permission of the owner or occupant, on
any non-City-owned property.
B. Possession of Graffiti Implements. It shall be unlawful for
any person to possess any graffiti implement, with intent to
damage property or under circumstances evincing an intent to use
the same in order to damage property, while in or upon any public
facility, park, playground, swimming pool, school property,
recreational facility, or other public building or structure owned or
operated by the City or while in or within fifty (50) feet of an
Packet Page 75 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 4 -
underpass, bridge abutment, storm drain, or similar types of
infrastructure unless otherwise authorized by the City.
C. Furnishing to Minors. It shall be unlawful for any person,
other than a parent or legal guardian, to sell, exchange, give, loan,
or otherwise furnish, or cause or permit to be exchanged, given,
loaned, or otherwise furnished, any aerosol paint container, paint
stick or graffiti stick, or etching equipment to any person under the
age of eighteen (18) years without the written consent of the
parents or guardian of the minor. It shall be an affirmative defense
to prosecution under this subsection that the defendant made a
good faith attempt to comply with the requirements of this section
by requesting that a customer present photo identification, making
a reasonable effort to determine the customer's age.
D. Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this
section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 5.50
ECC. In the case of a minor, the parent or guardian having
custody of the juvenile shall be jointly and severally liable with the
minor for the payment of all fines and/or restitution imposed as the
result of a violation of this section, except that liability shall not be
imposed upon any governmental entity, private agency, or foster
parent assigned responsibility for an unemancipated minor
pursuant to court order or the department of social and health
services.
5.60.040 Display and storage of graffiti implements.
A. Every person who owns, conducts, operates, or manages a
retail commercial establishment selling aerosol paint containers,
paint sticks, or broad- tipped markers shall store the containers,
sticks or markers in an area continuously observable, through
direct visual observation or surveillance equipment, by employees
of the retail establishment during the regular course of business. In
the event that a commercial retail establishment is unable to store
the aerosol paint containers, paint sticks, or broad-tipped markers
in an area as provided above, the establishment shall store the
containers, sticks, and markers in an area not accessible to the
public in the regular course of business without employee
assistance.
B. Signage Required. Every person who operates a retail
commercial establishment selling graffiti implements shall:
Packet Page 76 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 5 -
1. Place a sign in clear public view at or near the display of
such products stating: "Graffiti is against the law. Any person who
defaces real or personal property with paint or any other liquid or
device is guilty of a crime punishable by 90 days in jail and/or
$1,000 fine."
2. Place a sign in the direct view of such persons responsible
for accepting customer payment for graffiti implements stating:
"Selling any aerosol paint, paint stick or graffiti stick, or etching
equipment to persons less than 18 years of age is against the law
and punishable by 90 days in jail and/or $1,000 fine.”
C. Penalties. Any person found to be in violation of the
provisions of this section of this chapter shall be deemed to have
committed a civil infraction as established in Chapter 7.80 RCW
and for each violation shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100;
provided that penalties for an additional separate violation of a like
nature by the same person within a one year period shall be $250.
Any person charged with a civil infraction under the provisions of
this chapter shall respond to the notice of infraction in the manner
set forth in Chapter 7.80 RCW.
5.60.050 Declaration of public nuisance.
Graffiti is determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare and is a public nuisance. It is a visual symbol of
disorder that demoralizes and erodes feelings of safety in our
neighborhoods. It contributes to neighborhood decline by inviting
crime and leading to a climate of intimidation in our
neighborhoods. Furthermore, it lowers property value, commerce
and community pride.
5.60.060 Notice of graffiti nuisance.
A. When the City has reason to believe that a property within
the City may be a potential graffiti nuisance property, the City
shall identify the party responsible for the property and send the
party an informational letter describing the nature and location of
the graffiti and requesting that the graffiti be removed promptly.
The letter shall explain the problems caused by the continued
presence of graffiti and the need for its prompt removal, describe
the resources available to aid in graffiti removal, and give notice
that failure to remove graffiti is a violation of City code that may
lead to legal action to remove the graffiti at the expense of the
party and may subject the party to civil penalties. The letter may
Packet Page 77 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 6 -
also identify any graffiti removal assistance programs available
through the City, or any private graffiti removal contractors.
B. If the graffiti is not removed within five (5) business days
after the information letter has been sent, the City shall notify
property owner and the occupant of the property, if different, or in
the alternative, the building association or management company if
there are multiple owners and/or occupants, in writing, by certified
mail, that the property has been identified as a potential graffiti
nuisance property. The notice shall be deemed served and
received three (3) business days after mailing, and shall contain the
following information:
1. The names and addresses of the property owners, or
building owners association;
2. The street address and legal description of the property
sufficient for identification of the property;
3. A statement that the property is a potential graffiti nuisance
property with a concise description of the conditions leading to the
finding;
4. An order to abate the graffiti within five (5) business days
after receipt of the notice and that if the graffiti is not abated within
that time the City will declare the property to be a public nuisance,
subject to the abatement procedures herein;
5. A statement that the notice of graffiti nuisance property
may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter
20.100 ECDC by written notice to the Development Services
Director within five (5) business days; and
6. A statement notifying the parties that the failure to file a
timely and complete appeal will constitute a waiver of all rights to
an administrative appeal.
C. Written notice to the Development Services Director
requesting an appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall
include the name of the party requesting the appeal, the address of
the graffiti nuisance property, a statement indicating standing to
appeal, and a concise statement as to reasons why the graffiti on
the property does not constitute a public nuisance.
D. Property owners, or building owners association, that fail to
comply with the terms of a notice of graffiti nuisance property
Packet Page 78 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 7 -
shall be subject to a penalty assessed at the rate of $250.00 per day
per violation. Each and every day or portion thereof during which
any violation is committed, continued, permitted or not corrected
shall be a violation for purposes of this Chapter.
5.60.070 Appeal, abatement and cost recovery
proceedings.
A. Notice of Appeal Hearing. Upon a timely written request
for an appeal, the City shall provide the property owner and the
occupant of the property, if different, or in the alternative, the
building association or management company if there are multiple
owners and or occupants, notice of the appeal hearing before the
Hearing Examiner at least five (5) business days in advance of the
same. Notice shall be deemed served three business days after the
same is mailed to the parties by certified US mail.
B. Determination of Hearing Officer. The determination of the
Hearing Officer after the due process hearing shall be final and not
appealable. If, after the due process hearing, regardless of the
attendance of the property owner or the responsible party or their
respective agents, the Hearing Officer determines that the property
contains graffiti viewable from a public or quasi-public place, the
Hearing Officer shall declare the same a nuisance and order the
property owner, or building owners association, to abate it. Should
the party fail to comply with the Hearing Officer’s order within
three business days, daily fines of $250.00 shall accrue until the
nuisance is abated. Each and every day or portion thereof during
which any violation is committed, continued, permitted or not
corrected shall be a violation for purposes of this chapter.
C. Abatement. The City may, pursuant to Chapter 7.48 RCW,
obtain a warrant of abatement to enter upon the property, cause the
removal, painting over (in such color as shall meet with the
approval of the Court), or such other eradication thereof as the
Court determines appropriate, and shall provide the property
owner, or building owners association, thereafter with an
accounting of the costs of the eradication effort on a full cost
recovery basis.
5.60.080 Trust fund.
The City Council hereby creates the City of Edmonds Anti-Graffiti
Trust Fund. Penalties assessed against violators of this Ordinance
shall be placed in the fund, along with any monetary donations
received from persons wishing to contribute to the fund. The City
Packet Page 79 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 8 -
Council shall direct the expenditures of monies in the fund. Such
expenditures shall be limited to the payment of the cost of graffiti
removal, the payment of rewards for information leading to the
conviction of violation of the Ordinance, the costs of administering
the Ordinance, and such other public purposes as may be approved
by the Council by resolution.
5.60.090 Remedies not exclusive.
The remedies for violation of this chapter that are set forth in this
chapter are not exclusive.
5.60.100 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is
not affected.
Section 2. 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 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Packet Page 80 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 9 -
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 81 of 93
{BFP667136.DOC;1/00006.900020/}- 10 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2007, 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, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.60, GRAFFITI;
DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE;
PROHIBITING DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH
GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS;
IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE
REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI; ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS
PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2007.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 82 of 93
AM-1086 3.B.
Judicial Salary Certification for State Funding Reimbursement
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office
Submitted For:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Judicial salary certification for State funding reimbursement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Please see attached memorandum.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Judicial Salary Memorandum
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 02:17 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/05/2007 02:18 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 02:20 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 07/05/2007 02:13
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/05/2007
Packet Page 83 of 93
Judicial Salary Memorandum
When I first was appointed to serve as your judge in July, 2005, I finished out the
contract that had been signed with Judge White. Judge White’s original contract
provided that he was an independent contractor without benefits and was set at $65,000
based on a 24 hour work week. State auditors did not agree that the judicial position was
an independent contractor. As a result I negotiated an annualized salary and benefit
package of $59,000 for the remainder of the term (July-December 2005). This was
designed to be the rough equivalent of the previous contract, taking into account the
value of the benefit package.
In 2006 the City Council made the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge an elected position.
This qualified the City to obtain reimbursement from the State for court improvement
account funds. In order to qualify for these funds the judicial position must be paid at a
pro-rated salary that equates to 95% of the salary for a district court judge.
The 2006 salary for the judicial position was negotiated at $63,751 for a 22 hour work
week. This was exactly 95% of the district court salary pro-rated at 55% (22 hours per
week). This made the City of Edmonds eligible for court improvement account funds.
On September 1, 2006, the Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials
increased the district court salary from $122,012 to $125,672 on an annualized basis. To
remain eligible for the court improvement account funds (95% pro-rated salary for 2007)
the contract was renegotiated to a salary of $65,664 commencing January 1, 2007. This
was an increase of $1,913 from 2006.
Recently the Citizen’s Commission approved a large salary increase for district court
judges. The salary of a district court judge will be raised to $134,242 effective
September 1, 2007. On September 1, 2008 the salary will increase to $141,708. If the
City wishes to continue to receive court improvement account funds then it will require
an increase in the judicial salary. The pro-rated 95% salary will need to be $70,136
starting on September 1, 2007 and $74,042 starting on September 1, 2008. Please see the
email correspondence at the end of the memorandum reflecting this information.
In 2006 we received $3999 from the State. It is anticipated that Edmonds will receive
approximately $9200 for the calendar year of 2007 if the salary is increased. Therefore
the anticipated total amount received from the State will be $13,199 for 2006-2007. If
the salary is not increased then the City will receive approximately $2600 during 2007 for
a combined total of $6599 for 2006-2007.
Assuming that the judicial salary remained constant at $59,000 for 2006-2007 and
assuming that there is a salary increase as of September 1, 2007, then the total salary
increases over 2006-2007 will equal $12,055. Based on these assumptions then the net
financial gain to the City over 2006-2007 will be $1,144.
Packet Page 84 of 93
Based on these figures it appears that it still makes fiscal sense to keep the City eligible
for court improvement funds through September 1, 2008. I also believe that it is in the
City’s best interest to wait until next year to determine if it makes sense to increase the
salary in September, 2008. The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the City
will receive $13,000 in 2008 if the City continues to raise the judicial salary.
I respectfully request that we renegotiate the salary term of the contract commencing
September 1, 2007 to set the annualized salary at $70,136.22 in order to keep the City
eligible for court improvement account funds.
Yes, in order to continue qualifying for 5454 contributions, your salary must be equivalent to 95%
of a district court judges salary, or $127,520 for a full time position. If you are still funded at 55%
then your salary at a minimum must be $70,136 ($134,232 x .95 x .55). Also note that another
increase is required to meet the new salary effective September 1, 2008.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fair, Doug [mailto:Fair@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Radwan, Ramsey
Subject: RE: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution
My salary at the city is reviewed on an annual basis with the calendar year. For the past two
years this has been approved as meeting the 5454 criteria. Has that changed? Do I need to
request that the city increase my salary in September?
Thanks, Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:34 PM
To: pburns@auburnwa.gov; Fair, Doug; gphillips@ci.kent.wa.us; tjurado@ci.renton.wa.us;
ron.mamiya@seattle.gov; james.docter@ci.bremerton.wa.us;
michael.morgan@cityoffederalway.com; Gillings, Fred (TAO 7 Days); mlambo@ci.kirkland.wa.us;
aemery@ci.tacoma.wa.us; todell@ci.everett.wa.us; swoodard@ci.yakima.wa.us
Cc: fwebster@auburnwa.gov; Ferebee, Joan; Yetter, Margaret (internet);
jmcguire@ci.renton.wa.us; yolande.williams@seattle.gov; Pettus, Yvonne (internet); Cusimano,
Jeri (internet); gina.palermo@cityoffederalway.com; lmorris@ci.yakima.wa.us;
selsner@ci.marysville.wa.us; Jeffries, Tracy (internet); Haake, Douglas
Subject: E2SSB 5454 Salary Contribution
As you know, one of the two qualifying criteria for 5454 contributions is the requirement that the
municipal court judge be compensated at a rate of 95-100% of a district court judges' salary. You
may also know that the Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials recently
established a new salary schedule for district court judges.
The new rates are:
$134,232 effective September 1, 2007 and
$141,708 effective September 1, 2008
The entire salary schedule can be viewed at http://www.salaries.wa.gov/documents/Final2007-
08SalarySchedule.pdf.
Packet Page 85 of 93
In the next few days I will be sending a letter to your city notifying them that to continue to qualify
for funding municipal court judges within their jurisdiction must be compensated at the rate noted
above (95-100% of a district court judges' salary) effective September 1, 2007 with an adjustment
on September 1, 2008. I will copy all judges within your court as well as your court administrator.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ramsey Radwan, Director
Management Services Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
(360) 357-2406
ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov
From: Radwan, Ramsey [mailto:Ramsey.Radwan@courts.wa.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:00 AM
To: Ferebee, Joan
Subject: 2008 5454
Joan, Edmonds will receive about $13,000 in calendar year 2008.
Ramsey Radwan, Director
Management Services Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
(360) 357-2406
ramsey.radwan@courts.wa.gov
Packet Page 86 of 93
AM-1087 3.C.
Prosecutor Request for Contract Amendment
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:07/10/2007
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office
Submitted For:Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Request for a contract amendment from City Prosecutor.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On May 17, 2005, the City Council approved the current contract between the City and the law
firm of Zachor & Thomas, Inc. A copy of the current contract is attached as Exhibit 1.
Narrative
The City Prosecutor submitted the attached letter (Exhibit 2) requesting a contract amendment (fee
increase).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Current Prosecutor Contract
Link: Exhibit 2 - Letter Requesting Fee Increase
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 03:29 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/05/2007 03:39 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/05/2007 03:43 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 07/05/2007 02:57
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/05/2007
Packet Page 87 of 93
Packet Page 88 of 93
Packet Page 89 of 93
Packet Page 90 of 93
Packet Page 91 of 93
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S.
Prosecuting Attorney
Sunset Building
23607- Highway 99, Suite 3D
H. James Zachor, Jr. Edmonds, WA 98026
Melanie S. Thomas Dane Tel 425-778-2429 / FAX 425-778-6925
Jomel A. McNair e-mail melanie@zachorthomas.com From the Desk of
Joseph D. Everett e-mail jim@zachorthomas.com Melanie S. Thomas Dane
1
July 5, 2007
To: Mayor Haakenson
City Counsil Member Deanna Dawson
Acting Chief Compaan
Re: Fee Proposal increase to City Prosecutor contract
Effective April 1, 2005, the City of Edmonds, and our firm entered into a three-year contract to
provide prosecution services. Prior to that date our office effectively took over the contract
which was previously was awarded to Judge Jeffrey Goodwin. To date, our office has not
proposed a fee increase to the contract. The total filings for the City have increased by 1876
cases from 2005 to 2006. There has been a dramatic increase in DUI and criminal traffic cases.
According to the terms of the contract under subsection 2, paragraph 2.3, our office may request
a fee increase to its base fee and hourly rate. To avoid having to revisit the base fee each year,
we are proposing that an increase each year be provided for at the start of each calendar year at
the same rate as the CPI % given to non-union City of Edmonds employees, but not less than
3%, whichever is greater. As you are aware, the cost of doing business, the cost of living, and
the cost of maintaining good talented prosecutors increases annually. Our office is proposing an
increase in our base monthly rate as well as our hourly fee. This increase will allow our office to
continue to provide the best possible service to the City.
In addition to contracting for criminal prosecution, our office also contracted for prosecution of
the civil forfeitures. The continued performance of the forfeiture prosecution is also subject to
review and a fee increase, should additional compensation be needed based on volume, is
permissible under subsection 1, paragraph 1.10 of our contract. From 2004 to present, our office
has reviewed, prepared, and filed numerous forfeitures for the City. Forfeiture work is a
specialty practice most attorneys do not handle and are not familiar with. Forfeiture cases take
additional time to prepare and expose our office to additional liability. These cases often take
more time to prepare than most criminal appeals. Given the number of cases we prosecute and
the steady forfeiture case load, our office is incorporating in its base fee request additional funds
for the continued prosecution of forfeiture cases. In addition, we are proposing an hourly rate be
billed if the forfeiture filings exceed 20 cases in a calendar year.
Packet Page 92 of 93
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S.
Prosecuting Attorney
Sunset Building
23607- Highway 99, Suite 3D
H. James Zachor, Jr. Edmonds, WA 98026
Melanie S. Thomas Dane Tel 425-778-2429 / FAX 425-778-6925
Jomel A. McNair e-mail melanie@zachorthomas.com From the Desk of
Joseph D. Everett e-mail jim@zachorthomas.com Melanie S. Thomas Dane
2
Concerning the increased caseload in the City of Edmonds, this may also be an appropriate time
to discuss additional court time to manage court calendars. Currently we are in court once a
week on Wednesdays and we have scheduled jury trial days on every other Friday. With the
current court schedule, we are hard pressed to finish calendars on time, hear testimonial motions
on their scheduled date and time, and often we set addition hearing days to handle the overflow
in-custody cases. Whereas our office was once able to manage the calendar with one prosecutor,
we now appear with two prosecutors on a regular basis to facilitate the cases in court. To assist
with the caseload, our office hired Joseph Everett, a new and highly skilled prosecutor, who
regularly assists our office in court. In addition, we have also hired two new staff members to
assist with our caseload volume. As you may be aware, the court is in the process of going
“paperless” which adds additional expenses and staff time to our office, as we are now required
to print many of the documents, which were once furnished to our office by the court. Our office
is open to the idea of adding court days to the week to alleviate some of the pressure of the
growing caseload. We welcome the opportunity for further discussion on this issue.
As a proposed figure, our office is asking for an increase from our current monthly rate of $6,000
per month, to $8,000.00 per month. In addition, we are proposing an increase in our hourly rate
from $75.00 to $95.00. We are asking that the increases be backdated to June 1, 2007. Since the
start of our contract, our firm has not requested a fee increase.
Our office looks forward to discussing the attached fee proposal with you at a mutually
convenient time. We look forward to the continued prosecution of the Cities cases. Our office
strives to provide the City with the best possible prosecution services and we will continue to do
so in the years to come.
Very Truly Yours,
Melanie Thomas Dane
Prosecuting Attorney, WSBA 31564
Zachor & Thomas, Inc. P.S.
23607 Hwy 99 Ste. 3D
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 778-2429 (phone)
(425) 778-6925 (fax)
Packet Page 93 of 93