The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.08.05 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ August 5, 2008 7:00 p.m. Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-1703 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2008. C. AM-1706 Approval of claim checks #105843 through #106039 for July 31, 2008 in the amount of $237,455.63. D. AM-1694 Report on final construction costs for the Natural Gas Line Replacement Project and Council acceptance of project. E. AM-1702 Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Sanders and Associates Inc. (SAI) for the outfall sediment sampling and analysis project. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee. F. AM-1696 Authorization to Advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consulting firms or consultant teams to perform an Aquatics Center Feasibility Study. G. AM-1700 Authorization to solicit quotes in excess of $50,000 for new South County Senior Center kitchen equipment. H. AM-1704 Proposed Resolution establishing criteria for use of the "Community Service Announcement" portion of the City Council Agenda. 3. AM-1699 (30 Minutes) Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision to deny the request by Steve Smith Development LLC, represented by Jean Morgan of Morgan Design Group, to subdivide Arbor Court, a 1.27 acre parcel developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee-simple townhouse parcels. The site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-1.5) and is located at 23800 – 23824 Edmonds Way. (File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4) 4. AM-1697 (45 Minutes) Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to amend Chapter 16.43 ECDC to incorporate design standards for the BD1 zone. 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. Packet Page 1 of 247 6. AM-1673 (60 Minutes) Continued discussion and potential action regarding the Downtown Master Plan Area - Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square and Skippers properties. 7. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Minutes)Council Comments Adjourn Packet Page 2 of 247 AM-1703 2.B. Approval of Draft 07-29-08 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2008. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 07-29-08 Draft City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 11:53 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 01:03 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:26 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/31/2008 11:52 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 3 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 29, 2008 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 Michael Plunkett, Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember (arrived 7:05 p.m.) Ron Wambolt, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Haakenson advised Item 3, Swearing In Ceremony for Corporal Damian Smith, would be rescheduled next month. He requested replacing that item on tonight’s agenda with a report on PCC Market. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2008. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #105682 THROUGH #105842 FOR JULY 24, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,031,103.25. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM DAVID BARNUM & CHERYL BARNUM (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED. E. APPROVAL OF 2008 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR YELLOW CAB OF WASHINGTON. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH CH2M HILL FOR OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE WATER MAIN AND SEWER LATERALS PROJECT. G. ORDINANCE NO. 3692 - AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 3691 IN ORDER TO INSERT A HEARING DATE. Packet Page 4 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 2 With regard to Public Service Announcements, Council President Plunkett advised an ordinance providing the necessary structure for public service announcements as part of the Council’s agenda would be scheduled on a future Council agenda. 3. REPORT ON PCC MARKET Mayor Haakenson recalled Councilmember Wambolt requested staff provide a report on the progress of PCC. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained PCC Market would be occupying the space of the former Albertson’s store at Westgate. He reported that an interior demolition permit was issued in December 2007. An application for administrative architectural design review was approved in January 2008 that included the building exterior remodel such as the new required trash enclosure, and bio-retention areas. Signage is under review via a separate permit for signage. A shell core permit including structural alteration was issued in February 2008; a tenant improvement permit was issued in April 2008; secondary permits such as plumbing, mechanical, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, sign, grease interceptor, side sewer have also been issued. The permit applications have been submitted for the fire suppression system for the commercial cooking hoods and are currently under review. The Architectural Design Board (ADB) approved a package for project signage on April 18, 2008; the approval included the proposed sign package for building and site signage and artwork. A permit application for alteration of the parking lot for bio-retention area, rain gardens, is currently under review. A permit application for the rainwater harvesting system that includes the cistern tank is also currently under review. The permit application was received on June 19, 2008; on July 11, 2008, a complaint was filed regarding the installation of the cistern without first obtaining permits. The City’s Building Inspector verified the tank had been installed and a stop work order was issued on July 11, 2008 for the tank. A fine for doing work without an approved permit will be assessed when the permit is issued. On June 30, 2008 a complaint was received regarding cutting of trees on the north corner of the sidewalk on 100th Avenue. Upon investigation, staff determined a total of three trees were cut, trees that were part of the approved landscape plan for the former Albertson’s store, which was in violation of the City’s code. A letter was sent to PCC on July 1, 2008 notifying of the violation and a $500 per tree fine was levied for a total of $1500. The fine was subsequently paid by PCC and an ADB application for an updated landscape plan was submitted with double application fees assessed due to the violation. PCC’s updated landscape plan shows the removal of a total of 13 trees throughout the site including the 3 trees already removed and 27 new trees planted. On July 22, 2008 a complaint was received regarding the trash enclosure in the setback on the west side of the building. The trash enclosure was shown on the approved plans for the project and reviewed under the earlier ADB design review. The trash enclosure walls are considered a fence and are permitted within the setback area consistent with City code requirements. An application for ADB review of the landscape plan for the site was reviewed and approved on July 23, 2008. The review included integration of the rainwater collection system and trash enclosure into the landscaping, the removal of a total of 13 trees from the site and replanting of 27 new trees. 4. SECOND READING: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON GRANTING A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND REPAIR A CABLE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE CABLE SERVICES IN, ACROSS, OVER, ALONG, UNDER, UPON, THROUGH AND BELOW THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3693. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 5 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 3 COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST BY STEVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT LLC, REPRESENTED BY JEAN MORGAN OF MORGAN DESIGN GROUP, TO SUBDIVIDE ARBOR COURT, A 1.27 ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPED WITH 35 TOWNHOMES, INTO 35 FEE-SIMPLE TOWNHOUSE PARCELS. THE SITE IS ZONED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-1.5) AND IS LOCATED AT 23800 – 23824 EDMONDS WAY. (FILE NOS. P-08-16 AND APL-08-4). City Attorney Scott Snyder advised because the Council had not been provided a copy of the verbatim transcript, it would be necessary for the Council to have an opportunity to review the transcript before rendering a final decision. The Council could hear from the parties tonight and continue the closed record review to a later date following the Council’s review of the transcript or postpone the matter entirely. Council President Plunkett preferred to hear the matter tonight and continue Council deliberation to a later date. Councilmember Dawson anticipated the parties would need to return for Council deliberation to answer any questions and asked whether the parties preferred to have the hearing in two parts or have the hearing at one time. Jean Morgan, representing Steve Smith Development LLC, asked the date of the continued hearing. Mayor Haakenson answered it would be next Tuesday, August 5. Ms. Morgan advised they would be available. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the parties would prefer to have the entire hearing at one time or have testimony tonight and return for questions based on Council’s review of the record. Ms. Morgan advised they would prefer to proceed tonight and return next week if needed. For Councilmember Bernheim, Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would take testimony this evening and delay deliberation until next Tuesday. No further public comment from parties of records would be taken next week and following the Council’s review of the verbatim transcript, the Council would ask questions and deliberate next week. Mr. Snyder clarified because this a closed record review, there was no testimony, only oral argument based on the existing record. He suggested the Council have an opportunity to review the record before asking questions to avoid going outside the record. He recommended proceeding with oral argument and comments from parties of record and continuing the hearing to a date certain. He noted the Council may find their questions were answered via the transcript and he did not want to invite matters outside the record via Council questions. Councilmember Wambolt inquired whether he could ask questions of staff. Mr. Snyder advised staff was limited to referencing relevant areas in the record. Mayor Haakenson commented it appeared it would be preferable to hold all questions until next week. Mr. Snyder answered it would be neater but it was up to the Council. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether staff could respond to questions via email. Mr. Snyder responded staff could not respond via email as Council deliberations needed to occur within the context of the Council Chambers. Mr. Snyder commented he was more comfortable with the Council asking questions of staff because staff understood they were limited to what was in the record. He suggested it would be more orderly for the Council to review the record to determine if their questions were addressed in the record and ask questions at one time. Council President Plunkett agreed it would be more orderly to take testimony tonight and take questions next week. Observing this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication to disclose regarding the hearing. He read the list of parties of record: Northwest Townhomes, Steve Smith Development LLC, Jean Morgan, Al Rutledge and Roger Hertrich. Packet Page 6 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 4 Councilmember Dawson disclosed that one of the parties of record supported her campaign in the past and one was her opponent in the last campaign but that would not affect her decision. Councilmember Orvis disclosed his father lived near the site but that would not affect his decision. Councilmember Wambolt disclosed Mr. Hertrich contributed to his campaign but that would not affect his views in this matter. Council President Plunkett disclosed Mr. Hertrich called him to ask a procedural question; before proceeding with the conversation, both acknowledged they could not talk about substantive matters. He relayed Mr. Hertrich’s question, why was the Hearing Examiner not present. Councilmember Orvis advised Mr. Hertrich contributed to his campaign but it would not affect his decision. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the four Councilmembers who made disclosures felt they were capable of making a decision without any bias. Councilmembers Dawson, Orvis, and Wambolt and Council President Plunkett advised they could. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record had any objection to the participation of any of the four Councilmembers. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Haakenson established time limits for staff and applicant presentations, 10 minutes for staff and 20 minutes for the applicant. Planner Mike Clugston explained the applicant applied for design review of the project in February 2007. After a public hearing, the 35-unit project received ADB approval in June 2007. In November 2007 the applicant applied for building permits to redevelop the site. At this time the building permits are under review. In March 2008 the applicant applied for a formal plat subdivision to create fee-simple lots associated with each of the residential units. The formal plat review process was based on the concept of a townhouse subdivision for multi-family developments. The townhouse review process is based on a formal staff interpretation from 2003 which was not appealed and has been in effect since that date. Since the Interpretation was issued, the process has been used several times and those formal plat subdivisions were approved by former Hearing Examiners as well as the current Hearing Examiner. For this project, staff prepared a report recommending the Hearing Examiner approve the townhouse subdivision with conditions. A public hearing on the proposed subdivision was held on May 15, 2008. The Hearing Examiner subsequently denied preliminary plat approval. Three Requests for Reconsideration were filed in a timely manner. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the requests and upheld the denial. In their appeal, the applicant requests the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner’s denial of the proposed 35-lot formal plat. They maintain that the plat as originally proposed and as further clarified in their Reconsideration meets the criteria for approval of a townhouse subdivision. In their reconsideration request, staff also raised concerns noting that a number of similar projects have previously been approved using the townhouse model. Staff raised these concerns and others in the City’s Reconsideration Request and while the Hearing Examiner did not reverse entirely, she agreed that her understanding regarding the minimum lot area requirements for multi-family developments had been in error. That concern, minimum lot size, is no longer at issue. Mr. Clugston pointed out the townhouse subdivision process exists only to create fee-simple lots in multi-family developments. The buildings the applicant has proposed were approved by the ADB and can receive building permits as long as they meet the required building and zoning codes. The proposed structures are currently being reviewed for building permits. If approved, and without the subdivision, the applicant could build the Packet Page 7 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 5 proposed multi-family structures and either rent them or create condominiums. The other option, as intended by the townhouse subdivision process, is to create what are in essence single-family ownership opportunities in the development rather than having a rental or condominium situation. Staff recommends the Council consider the appeal and following next week’s deliberation either, 1) affirm, modify or reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision to deny the subdivision, or 2) remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner for additional consideration or clarification, with the Council specifying the items or issues to be considered. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed copies of the verbatim minutes of the Hearing Examiner public hearing to the Council. Council President Plunkett clarified the verbatim minutes were being distributed for the Council’s future review. Jay Young, owner, Steve Smith Development LLC, explained over the past five years they have successfully built townhouse projects similar to Arbor Court and the type described in the Edmonds townhouse ordinance in Seattle, Shoreline, Juanita and Bellevue. He described their intent to build a well designed, infill housing product, affordable to workforce buyers. He explained there was no difference between a condominium project and a townhouse project; they preferred to build townhouses because a fee-simple townhouse was a more desirable product and it was less expensive to build as it did not require a homeowners association or expensive condominium liability insurance and were more attractive to first time homebuyers because they are less expensive, easier to finance and do not have homeowners’ dues. This site was advertised for sale as a development site; in 2006 they negotiated a purchase and sale agreement that included a feasibility period that would provide enough time for due diligence. During the feasibility period, they held a pre-application meeting with the City, meeting with a City planner and officials from the Building, Fire, Engineering and Water Departments. They had the property surveyed, met with the Department of Transportation, did an environmental review and conducted soil sampling. Based on the results of their pre- application meeting with the City and favorable findings from all the experts they hired, they proceeded with purchase of the property and the application process to obtain a building permit and subdivision. Now two years later after working diligently with the Planning and Building Departments, spending tens of thousands on professional fees to design and engineer this project to meet the code and current townhouse ordinance, and obtaining approval of the ADB and the City Planning Department, the Hearing Examiner denied their subdivision application. And after developing a comprehensive point-by-point appeal, the Hearing Examiner again denies their appeal. He summarized they had done everything according to the City’s code, hired the most competent experts, and adhered to the process as presented. He emphasized they were not requesting any variances, rezones, departures or special favors; their project mirrors the other townhouse projects recently approved and constructed. He expressed frustration that it did not matter what the Planning Department said with regard to a townhouse subdivision, its fate relied solely on the interpretation of an independent Hearing Examiner who in their opinion, did not accurately apply the Edmonds townhouse ordinance. Jean Morgan, architect, President, Morgan Design Group, commented in the 20 years she has been designing single family and multi family homes in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties, she had never encountered a situation where a Hearing Examiner overturned a formal code interpretation. She noted architects rely on City municipal and land use codes and clarification from City Planners in order to prepare site layouts. They conducted their due diligence including meeting with City Planners, Engineers, the Fire Marshal, and WSDOT multiple times. At no time was it ever indicated that this type of project could not be built as proposed on this site. In September they were provided a copy of Michel Construction’s recently approved townhouse plat to use as a guideline; they designed their project using the same setbacks. She identified the four internal driveways in the project with no setback from the road, and 24-foot access road with no internal setback. She concluded that without consistency in how codes and regulations were applied project to project and reliance on code interpretations by Planners, it was impossible for architects, developers or landowners to know how or what they are able to build in Edmonds. Packet Page 8 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 6 Megan Nelson, attorney, GordonDerr, Seattle, explained in this instance, the Hearing Examiner had overturned a well considered, formal code interpretation five years after the fact. The Hearing Examiner second-guessed the subdivision recommendation of City staff, ignored the bad policy outcomes as a result of her decision and contradicted legal doctrines supported by Washington case law. Ms. Nelson requested the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision and approve the Arbor Court townhouse plat. She provided the facts, public policy and law that should lead the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision in this matter. She explained in 2003 the City’s Planning Division issued its formal code interpretation, known as the townhouse subdivision policy. This formal code interpretation found that interior building and street setback requirements were not applicable to townhouse subdivisions. This interpretation was not appealed and therefore became the City’s final authorized code interpretation. Over the past five years the City has approved several townhouse developments based on this formal code interpretation and last year this same Hearing Examiner affirmed the townhouse subdivision policy in her approval of the Michel Construction plat. In relying on this policy, past approvals and the assurance of the City Planning Division, the applicant submitted their application for the Arbor Court plat. As outlined in the staff report, approval of the plat was recommended; staff found the applicant’s proposal complied with the subdivision ordinance, the City’s code and flood plain management provisions. Despite this recommendation, the Hearing Examiner denied the applicant’s plat. Both the Planning Division and the applicant filed motions for reconsideration based on the formal code interpretation which allows plats such as the applicant proposed. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner for a second time disregarded the Planning Division’s request and rejected the townhouse subdivision policy. If the Council affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s decision, Ms. Nelson asserted it would set a bad precedent and would set a poor public policy for the City. First, the Hearing Examiner’s decision paralyzes the Planning Division; the Edmonds Municipal Code grants the Planning Division the authority to issue formal code interpretations. Such interpretations are appealable to the Hearing Examiner; this interpretation was not appealed. The Examiner’s decision places into question the authority of the Planning Division to issue such interpretations. She questioned the incentive for the Planning Division to issue future interpretations if such decisions could not be relied upon by property owners, pointing out the Department could not move forward with any townhouse subdivisions until the application of interior setback requirements to townhouses was clarified. Second, the Examiner’s decision jeopardizes development within the City; by removing certainty within the planning process, property owners can no longer rely on formal code interpretations even decisions issued five years ago and relied upon in other projects. The City will suffer if property owners are unable to develop their land without reasonable certainty. Third, the Hearing Examiner’s decision is contrary to previously approved townhouse projects. The Hearing Examiner approved the very similar Michel Construction plat that relies on this policy. She noted there are no discernable, factual differences between the two plats; the internal access road is actually wider in the applicant’s plat as compared to the Michel Construction plat. Fourth, the Examiner’s decision violates the City’s infill related goals; the staff indicates the applicant’s project exemplifies designed infill as stated as a policy goal in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is to be redeveloped from 12 units to 35 units, a more efficient use of a previously zoned multi family parcel. The Examiner’s decision undermines the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal of providing infill development consistent with neighborhood character based on streamlined permitting, flexible standards, and improved design guidelines by impeding infill development. Fifth, the Examiner’s decision is fundamentally unfair to the applicant. Developers must be able to determine the rules that govern their development. In this case the applicant relied on a five year old townhouse subdivision policy, several prior townhouse subdivision approvals, the Michel Construction plat and the assurances of the City’s Planning Division. But the rules were changed and the reasonable expectations of Steve Smith Development have been violated. The Hearing Examiner’s decisions are contrary to the outcome Packet Page 9 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 7 recommended by City staff. The staff report recommended approval of the plat. The Planning Division’s motion for reconsideration stated its strong disagreement with the Examiner’s denial of the plat and requested she revisit her decision regarding the townhouse subdivision policy. The Examiner ignored the Planning Division’s requests and denied the applicant’s plat. Ms. Nelson commented the Examiner’s rejection of the City’s townhouse subdivision policy and resulting denial of the applicant’s plat are without legal basis. She referred to legal arguments in their motion for reconsideration, identifying the applicable legal doctrines, the doctrine of collateral estoppel and legislative acquiesce. She explained collateral estoppel prohibits the re-litigation of a previously adjudicated legal issue; in this case the legal issue of permitted exception from interior setback for townhouse subdivision has already been decided and the Examiner cites no legal authority to reexamine the validity of the townhouse subdivision policy. The doctrine of legislative acquiesce recognizes after an extended period of time, in this case five years, a rule adopted by a governmental agency is deemed acquiesced to by the legislative branch. Again, the Examiner cites no authority allowing departure from this doctrine. Ms. Nelson summarized the Hearing Examiner’s decisions resulted in bad public policy, are contrary to the City’s Planning Division recommendations and are unsupported by law. For those reasons, she requested the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision and approve the applicant’s subdivision. She noted the City’s Request for Reconsideration stated a condition could be placed upon the subdivision approval which would allow certain technical issues to be revisited during review of building permits. The applicant is amenable to including such a condition on any future subdivision approval. Mayor Haakenson invited parties of record to provide comment. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Hearing Examiner finding #28 regarding his comments about the site not being included in the City’s stormwater plan. There were no other parities of record who wished to speak and Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for participation by parties of record. Ms. Nelson did not offer any rebuttal to Mr. Rutledge’s comments. Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Hearing Examiner was not represented at the meeting. Mr. Snyder explained the Hearing Examiner was a decision-maker, not a party to the matter. Her opinion as written speaks for itself and typically a judge was not questioned at a later proceeding. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO AUGUST 5. Councilmember Bernheim asked if Councilmembers could submit questions in writing prior to the meeting. Mr. Snyder answered yes as long as they were placed in the record and there was no response outside the meeting. He reminded staff was only able to cite the record or indicate the information was not contained in the record. Mr. Snyder clarified a Councilmember could provide written questions to allow the applicant and/or staff to respond, however, no response should occur outside the record and any written comments would be entered into the record at the next proceeding. He noted staff could prepare a written response that could be included in the Council packet; however, no discussion may occur outside the record or proceeding. Councilmember Orvis requested the verbatim minutes be included in the packet for next week’s meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 10 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 8 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM “DOWNTOWN MIXED COMMERCIAL” TO EITHER (1) “DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OFFICE” OR (2) “MULTI FAMILY – HIGH DENSITY” AT 110 SUNSET AVE. N. (FILE NO. AMD-07-16). Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan map at 110 Sunset Avenue was referred to the Planning Board by the Council. The Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended the Council not approve the change in the zoning. The Planning Board agreed with staff’s analysis that possibly in the future some transition would be appropriate for the area but changing the designation of this particular area was not appropriate as it would be an intrusion into the consistent commercial corridor along Main Street. The Planning Board also felt it was not appropriate to extend further north as those properties are currently zoned single family and there has not been any interest expressed by property owners for any change. The Planning Board was also concerned it could create a situation that compromised the existing transition. The Planning Board felt the OR zone was specifically tailored to a topographical situation on the west side of Sunset as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and it was not appropriate for these properties. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council received documents from Alan Young related to the public hearing. Mr. Chave advised the documents provided by Mr. Young were circulated to the Planning Board and were not returned to staff for inclusion into the record. Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented he has no problem with the property owner. The house on 110 Sunset was built in 1948 and had been a residential house for over 60 years, prior to the inception of the City’s first zoning map in 1956. He relayed before he made his proposal, he discussed it with Councilmembers and did not feel there was any opposition. Two senior planners concurred with his proposal and one suggested a moratorium on development of the lot until the Planning Board completed their review. He expressed concern with a Planning Board Member’s question at the July 29 public hearing regarding the Council’s authority to refer this proposal to the Planning Board, pointing out the Planning Board served at the pleasure of the Council and the Council was elected by the citizens. He recalled Mr. Chave’s suggestion at the September 21 Planning Board that he consider proposing a multi-family zoning designation for the subject parcel to provide appropriate transition. He expressed opposition to another mega building in Edmonds, noting the street was one of the busiest in Edmonds. Alan Young, Edmonds, owner of the subject property, requested the Council uphold the Planning Board’s recommendation to deny the rezone. He noted there had been no communication with him in 20 months since this began in October 2006 until June 27, 2008. He expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was proposed by Mr. Huston who was not involved until he purchased his condominium. Mr. Huston signed the purchase and sale agreement knowing he (Mr. Young) owned the property in front. Mr. Young recalled on October 1, 2006, 17 days before the Planning Board meeting, Mr. Huston took possession of the property. Then at the October 18, 2006 Planning Board hearing, there was only three sentences regarding the proposed amendment and 20 months later he learned of the proposed amendment for his property. He urged the Council to deny the proposed amendment, noting he purchased the property to preserve his view. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the Planning Board meetings and items to be discussed were posted on the City’s website and the community was aware of the meetings. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there was a loophole in the City’s procedures that the property owner was not notified when someone else proposed a rezone of their property. Mr. Chave answered this was a very unusual situation regarding an individual property. In the past there have been proposals for groups of properties; however, it was extremely unusual to target one property. He explained notifications were typically Packet Page 11 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 9 accomplished for the public hearing and there was not a process for informing property owners of informal discussions without a formal proposal. He suggested discussing with City Attorney Scott Snyder who could propose an amendment. Historically the codes have not required an ownership interest; Comprehensive Plan amendments were a legislative decision and did not require an ownership interest. He noted this had not occurred since he had been employed by the City. Councilmember Wambolt commented it was not reasonable to expect a property owner to review the City’s meeting agendas to determine if their property was being discussed. Mr. Chave commented Mr. Young received notification and attended both Planning Board hearings. He acknowledged Mr. Young’s frustration that a property owner should be informed if their property was the subject of discussion. On behalf of the Council, Councilmember Wilson offered Mr. Young an apology that this had progressed this far without his being notified. Councilmember Wilson asked staff to identify what could be constructed under the existing BD2 zoning versus the new zone. Mr. Chave advised the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning would allow a broad range of downtown commercial uses up to a height of 25 or 30 feet. The OR Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning has a cap of 25 feet and additional setback requirements not found in the BD2 zone. The multi family zones allow 25 plus 5 feet with specific pitched roof requirements to achieve a height above 25 feet. The multi family zones also allow multi family uses versus commercial which was one of the Planning Board’s major concerns. Councilmember Wilson asked if this was a spot rezone. Mr. Chave answered it was technically not a spot rezone as there were adjacent similar uses. The difficulty was that it negates/impinges on the pattern of use on Main Street. He noted the maps illustrate a consistent line that demarks the border between commercial and other uses. While technically not a spot rezone, it was a change in the pattern that was not warranted. Mr. Snyder referred to it as “ad hoc zoning creep,” noting zoning creep referred to changes that did not follow a logical boundary. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Bernheim commented the agenda memo did not refer to the Planning Board’s reasons for denying the proposed amendment and suggested in the future there be specific findings and conclusions. Councilmember Wilson appreciated Mr. Huston’s concern with regard to traffic and maintaining his view, noting one option may be to approach Mr. Young with a proposal to purchase the development rights on the property above a certain height. Councilmember Wambolt acknowledged Mr. Huston would be disappointed but agreed with the Planning Board’s unanimous decision. He relayed the Planning Board’s suggestion that if there was to be a transition zone, it should be further north. He concurred with the Planning Board’s reasoning. Councilmember Orvis noted Mr. Young purchased the property to protect his views, suggesting the common goals of the two parties could be achieved without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He encouraged Mr. Young to consider the difference in the zoning, noting although BC appears to have more development potential, it has stringent commercial standards that may be counter to the property’s value. He did not agree with the Planning Board’s concern regarding the depth of the commercial, noting the lots would need to be combined before that would be an issue as the current depth of the commercial would be measured from Sunset. Council President Plunkett found this a difficult decision in view of Mr. Huston’s long history of community involvement and his 40 year friendship. However, based on the facts and in the community’s interest, he would support the motion. Packet Page 12 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 10 Councilmember Dawson did not support the motion, commenting the zoning creep was the result of this parcel’s commercial zoning. She found it more appropriate to zone the property residential or business/office and found it peculiar that it was zoned in the current manner. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dave Page, Edmonds, commented most other counties believe the United States has a democratic form of government by majority rule. He referred to his earlier comments regarding the protection of several species over humans, noting the Porcupine Caribou was recently protected to prevent drilling in the artic. He noted the Porcupine Caribou population that live under the Prudhoe Bay pipeline have increased 900% due to the warmth from the pipeline. He commented to other counties it may appear the people of the United States would rather protect fish, birds and animals than Homo sapiens, spend billions on foreign oil rather than use their own resources and fight wars on foreign soil rather than use their own resources. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recommended keeping the potential property purchase in front of the public. Next, he commented on the continuation of the case regarding the former Woodway Elementary School property. He encouraged the public to attend the Taste of Edmonds on August 8-10. Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the Council’s upcoming discussion regarding the property at 190 Sunset and the former Skipper’s property, suggesting the Council may be premature in making a decision regarding which path to follow. The owners have not made a specific proposal or design plan although there has been a great deal of speculation. He suggested delaying any action such as obtaining an appraisal until the property owners’ proposals were made public and a determination could be made regarding how it would benefit or hurt the City. If the Council chose the path of the City developing the properties, he urged full funding from start to finish, recalling past plans that did were not funded such as the downtown street lighting, Arts Corridor, and many other projects. He reiterated his request to discontinue the use of plastic bags. Harold Huston, Edmonds, commended the City’s employees and the Mayor who also acts as the City Manager. He expressed frustration with the amount of time staff must spend with citizens he called “nitpickers.” He spoke favorably regarding the Planning Division, pointing out even if a person did not like an individual, they should respect the position. He respected staff who were doing a job for the City and he was proud to live in Edmonds. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson reported on the activities at Edmonds Night Out, expressing his appreciation to the Edmonds Police Foundation who sponsored the event. He next announced the City’s annual document shredding event will be held on August 23 at TOP Foods from 9:00 a.m. to Noon. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Plunkett referred to Item 6 where a single property owner was the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and there did not appear to be any rules that he receive special notice. He inquired whether the Community Services/Development Services Committee wanted to take up this issue or have staff provide a recommendation. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised revisions to the City’s procedures had been drafted to simplify and provide great guidance to the public but not yet been presented to the Planning Board due to their workload. He suggested adding notification of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that was instituted by Packet Page 13 of 247 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 29, 2008 Page 11 someone other than the property owner to those revisions. Council President Plunkett requested staff investigate when the Planning Board could consider the revisions. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Dr. Senderoff’s comments regarding his editorial in the Edmonds Beacon. With regard to Dr. Senderoff’s concern with the use of subjective language, Councilmember Wambolt suggested he be similarly concerned about being factual, noting he made several errors last week. First, the owners of the old Safeway and Skippers did not purchase the properties with the intention of waiting until taller buildings were allowed; they would like taller buildings but are proceeding with code-compliant projects. The Skipper’s property was acquired December 2007. Second, Dr. Senderoff alleged he campaigned for election saying he would not change the building code. Councilmember Wambolt stated this was untrue, the central plank in his platform was his opposition to taller buildings downtown. That objective was accomplished with the establishment of the BD zones in 2006; he was the fourth vote on the Council that made that possible. Third, Dr. Senderoff said he had chosen to side with developers and not citizens, who Dr. Senderoff believed the majority favored the City purchasing the property. Councilmember Wambolt noted there were an abundance of citizens on both sides of the issue and the Enterprise newspaper stated its opposition to the purchase in an editorial last week. Fourth, in response to Dr. Senderoff’s statement that it was speculation that the property purchase would be combined on the ballot with other items, Councilmember Wambolt assured that would be decided by the City Council and he was in a better position to assess Council views than Dr. Senderoff. Councilmember Wambolt summarized the Council welcomed citizen comments but urged them to be factual. Councilmember Dawson concurred tonight’s Edmonds Night Out celebration was great, expressing her appreciation for the community’s support of the event, particularly in the poor weather. She pointed out Edmonds has its Night Out Celebration on a different night than other cities/counties; the other Night Out celebrations are next Tuesday including one hosted by the Snohomish County Executive’s office at McCollum Park. Councilmember Wilson reported Stevens Hospital has put on hold any plans to sell the hospital and is considering a ballot measure. It was conveyed to him by Commissioners, employees and union members that one of the actions with the most impact in the past few months was the Edmonds City Council’s resolution and they expressed their appreciation for the Council’s leadership and attention to the matter. 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Packet Page 14 of 247 AM-1706 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #105843 through #106039 for July 31, 2008 in the amount of $237,455.63. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2008 Revenue: Expenditure:$237,455.63 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $237,455.63 Attachments Link: Claim Cks 7-31-08 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 07/31/2008 02:09 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 02:10 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 02:27 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 07/31/2008 01:14 PM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 15 of 247 Packet Page 16 of 247 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 1 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 4 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 1 6 9 5 3 M X A M 3 5 2 2 TP 1 2 1 9 4 ST R E E T - P R O T E C T I V E O V E R L A Y F I L M 3 0 " X ST R E E T - P R O T E C T I V E O V E R L A Y F I L M 3 0 " X 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 461.25 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 41.06 ST R E E T - 1 R O L L W H T D I A M O N D G R A D E TP 1 2 1 9 5 ST R E E T - 1 R O L L W H T D I A M O N D G R A D E 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 326.25 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 29.05 Total :857.61 10 5 8 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 5 0 5 2 A A R D P E S T C O N T R O L 25 6 6 9 7 RO D E N T C O N T R O L ME A D O W D A L E C L U B H O U S E ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 81.68 RO D E N T C O N T R O L 25 6 7 3 8 RO D E N T C O N T R O L 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 92.55 Total :174.23 10 5 8 4 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 6 0 5 4 A D I X ' S B E D & B A T H F O R D O G S A N D A U G U S T 2 0 0 8 KE N N E L I N G S E R V I C E S / A U G U S T 2 0 0 8 - E D M O N D S AU G U S T 2 0 0 8 / K E N N E L I N G S V C S . 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 7 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,921.23 Total :1,921.23 10 5 8 4 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 2 4 2 3 A D P R O L I T H O I N C 71 6 0 6 Ci t y N e w s l e t t e r - J u l y 2 0 0 8 Ci t y N e w s l e t t e r - J u l y 2 0 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 3,260.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 290.14 Total :3,550.14 10 5 8 4 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 1 7 7 A D V A N T A G E B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S 0 8 - 3 5 4 JA N I T O R I A L JA N I T O R I A L 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 2 3 334.00 1 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 2 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :334.00 10 5 8 4 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 1 1 7 7 0 7 1 1 7 7 A D V A N T A G E B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S 10 5 8 4 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 5 5 6 8 A L L W A T E R I N C 07 2 4 0 8 0 4 1 CO E W A S T E DR I N K I N G W A T E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 22.90 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 0.98 Total :23.88 10 5 8 4 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 5 4 1 3 A L P I N E T R E E S E R V I C E 2 0 3 3 TR E E R E M O V A L RE M O V A L O F T R E E S & B R A N C H E S A T P I N E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 700.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 52.80 Total :752.80 10 5 8 5 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K 65 5 - 3 7 9 2 4 1 3 UN I F O R M S E R V I C E S PA R K M A I N T E N A N C E U N I F O R M S E R V I C E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 34.04 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.03 Total :37.07 10 5 8 5 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K 6 5 5 - 3 7 9 2 4 1 6 18 3 8 6 0 0 1 UN I F O R M S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 97.51 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 8.68 Total :106.19 10 5 8 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K 65 5 - 3 7 5 4 5 4 4 ST R E E T / S T O R M U N I F O R M S V C 2 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 18 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 3 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K ST R E E T / S T O R M U N I F O R M S V C 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.24 ST R E E T / S T O R M U N I F O R M S V C 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.24 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 0.29 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 0.29 FL E E T U N I F O R M S V C / W I T H $ 5 6 . 6 3 I N 65 5 - 3 7 6 3 6 6 0 FL E E T U N I F O R M S V C / W I T H $ 5 6 . 6 3 I N 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 24.27 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 2.16 ST R E E T / S T O R M U N I F O R M S V C 65 5 - 3 7 6 3 6 6 2 ST R E E T / S T O R M U N I F O R M S V C 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.24 ST R E E T / S T O R M U N I F O R M S V C 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.24 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 0.29 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 0.29 FA C M A I N T U N I F O R M S V C 65 5 - 3 7 7 4 4 7 2 FA C M A I N T U N I F O R M S V C 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 40.44 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.60 3 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 19 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 4 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K PW A D M I N M A T S 65 5 - 3 7 7 6 4 1 4 PW A D M I N M A T S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1.75 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.16 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.60 FA C M A I N T U N I F O R M S V C 65 5 - 3 7 8 3 3 8 9 FA C M A I N T U N I F O R M S V C 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 40.44 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.60 4 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 20 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 5 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K PW A D M I N M A T S 65 5 - 3 7 8 5 3 6 8 PW A D M I N M A T S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1.75 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.16 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.60 FA C M A I N T U N I F O R M S V C 65 5 - 3 7 9 2 4 1 4 FA C M A I N T U N I F O R M S V C 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 40.44 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 3.60 5 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 21 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 6 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 7 5 1 A R A M A R K PW A D M I N M A T S 65 5 - 3 7 9 4 2 7 6 PW A D M I N M A T S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1.75 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 PW A D M I N M A T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 6.65 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.16 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.59 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.60 Total :287.03 10 5 8 5 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 3 2 2 A R B O R V I L L A L L C Bl d 0 7 - 4 3 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 6 Re f u n d f o r B l d 2 0 0 7 - 0 0 4 3 , 0 0 4 4 , 0 0 4 5 , 0 0 4 6 Re f u n d f o r B l d 2 0 0 7 - 0 0 4 3 , 0 0 4 4 , 0 0 4 5 , 0 0 4 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 7 . 6 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 800.00 Total :800.00 10 5 8 5 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 3 4 3 A T & T 42 5 - 7 7 1 - 4 7 4 1 CE M E T E R Y CE M E T E R Y 13 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 3 6 . 2 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 34.82 6 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 22 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 7 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :34.82 10 5 8 5 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 3 4 3 0 6 4 3 4 3 A T & T 10 5 8 5 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 3 4 3 A T & T 73 0 3 8 6 0 5 0 2 0 0 42 5 - 7 4 4 - 6 0 5 7 P U B L I C W O R K S Pu b l i c W o r k s L I N E S - L O N G D I S T F E E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 1.84 Pu b l i c W o r k s L I N E S - L O N G D I S T F E E S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 7.00 Pu b l i c W o r k s L I N E S - L O N G D I S T F E E S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 7.00 Pu b l i c W o r k s L I N E S - L O N G D I S T F E E S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 7.00 Pu b l i c W o r k s L I N E S - L O N G D I S T F E E S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 7.00 Pu b l i c W o r k s L I N E S - L O N G D I S T F E E S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 6.98 Total :36.82 10 5 8 5 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 3 4 3 A T & T 42 5 - 7 7 1 - 0 1 5 2 ST A T I O N # 1 6 F A X ST A T I O N # 1 6 F A X 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 36.89 Total :36.89 10 5 8 5 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 3 4 1 A T & T M O B I L I T Y 87 1 8 6 0 9 7 0 X 0 7 0 6 2 0 0 8 Ce l l P h o n e C h a r g e s C h a v e Ce l l P h o n e C h a r g e s C h a v e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 53.36 Total :53.36 10 5 8 5 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 3 0 5 A U T O M A T I C F U N D S T R A N S F E R 4 6 0 0 2 OU T S O U R C I N G O F U T I L I T Y B I L L S 7 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 23 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 8 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 5 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 07 0 3 0 5 A U T O M A T I C F U N D S T R A N S F E R UB O u t s o u r c i n g a r e a # 7 0 0 P R I N T I N G 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 23.04 UB O u t s o u r c i n g a r e a # 7 0 0 P R I N T I N G 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 23.04 UB O u t s o u r c i n g a r e a # 7 0 0 P R I N T I N G 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 23.12 UB O u t s o u r c i n g a r e a # 7 0 0 P O S T A G E 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 91.98 UB O u t s o u r c i n g a r e a # 7 0 0 P O S T A G E 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 91.98 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 2.07 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 2.07 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 2.09 Total :259.39 10 5 8 5 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 1 8 3 5 A W A R D S S E R V I C E I N C 70 1 1 4 SO F T B A L L P L A Q U E S SO F T B A L L T R O P H Y P L A Q U E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 159.25 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 14.18 Total :173.43 10 5 8 6 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 2 0 0 5 B A L L A N D G I L L E S P I E P O L Y G R A P H 2 0 0 8 - 5 6 7 IN V # 2 0 0 8 - 5 6 7 - E D M O N D S P D PR E - E M P L O Y M E N T S C R E E N I N G 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 175.00 Total :175.00 10 5 8 6 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 9 9 2 B A N C O F A M E R I C A L E A S I N G 01 0 4 8 9 9 2 7 58 7 0 C o p i e r l e a s e - 9 / 1 - 9 / 3 0 / 0 8 8 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 9 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 6 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 07 0 9 9 2 B A N C O F A M E R I C A L E A S I N G 58 7 0 C o p i e r l e a s e - 9 / 1 - 9 / 3 0 / 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 101.35 58 7 0 C o p i e r l e a s e - 9 / 1 - 9 / 3 0 / 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 101.32 58 7 0 C o p i e r l e a s e - 9 / 1 - 9 / 3 0 / 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 101.33 Su p p l y c h a r g e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 25.01 Su p p l y c h a r g e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 25.00 Su p p l y c h a r g e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 24.99 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 11.25 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 11.25 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 11.25 Total :412.75 10 5 8 6 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 9 2 2 6 B H C C O N S U L T A N T S L L C 17 5 3 E5 G A . S e r v i c e s t h r u 0 6 / 2 0 / 0 8 E5 G A . S e r v i c e s t h r u 0 6 / 2 0 / 0 8 41 2 . 3 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 11,422.32 Total :11,422.32 10 5 8 6 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 2 5 0 0 B L U M E N T H A L U N I F O R M C O I N C 6 8 5 0 9 2 - 0 1 IN V # 6 8 5 0 9 2 - 0 1 - G R E E N M U N / E D M O N D S P D TU R T L E N E C K / G R E E N M U N 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 45.90 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 4.13 IN V # 6 8 5 0 9 2 - 0 2 - G R E E N M U N / E D M O N D S P D 68 5 0 9 2 - 0 2 W O R D I N G O N U N I F O R M 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 18.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 1.62 9 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 10 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 6 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 2 5 0 0 B L U M E N T H A L U N I F O R M C O I N C IN V # 6 8 5 2 6 7 - D . S M I T H / E D M O N D S 68 5 2 6 7 UN I F O R M S H I R T S W / E M B L E M S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 136.32 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 12.27 Total :218.24 10 5 8 6 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 2 3 7 3 B R E T T E N G H O L M T R U C K I N G I N C 7 0 0 ST R E A M R E S T O R A T I O N P R O J E C T ED M O N D S H A T C H E R Y S T R E A M R E S T O R A T I O N 12 5 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 400.00 Total :400.00 10 5 8 6 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 3 B R E W E R , M A R T Y BR E W E R 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 175.00 Total :175.00 10 5 8 6 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 3 5 5 B R E Z N E N , A L Y S S A BR E Z N E N 0 7 2 8 OU T D O O R V O L L E Y B A L L A T T E N D A N T OU T D O O R V O L L E Y B A L L A T T E N D A N T ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 216.00 Total :216.00 10 5 8 6 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 2 8 4 0 B R I M T R A C T O R C O I N C IL 1 7 2 7 5 UN I T 9 1 - F L A I L H A M M E R , B O L T S , L O C K N U T S UN I T 9 1 - F L A I L H A M M E R , B O L T S , L O C K N U T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 994.50 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 34.50 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 86.44 Total :1,115.44 10 5 8 6 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 0 0 5 B R O C K M A N N , K E R R Y B R O C K M A N N 9 5 6 0 YO G A & P I L A T E S C L A S S E S 10 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 11 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 6 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 07 2 0 0 5 B R O C K M A N N , K E R R Y PI L A T E S S T R E T C H & S C U L P T ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 700.00 YO G A # 9 5 2 1 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 392.70 YO G A # 9 5 1 9 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 939.40 YO G A # 9 5 1 7 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 401.80 YO G A # 9 5 1 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 768.60 Total :3,202.50 10 5 8 6 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 2 B R O T T E N , B I L L B R O T T E N 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 25.00 Total :25.00 10 5 8 7 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 0 2 9 8 7 B U I L D E R S H A R D W A R E & S U P P L Y C O S 2 8 5 1 5 0 4 . 0 0 1 YO S T P A R K - 2 - S P R I N G H I N G E YO S T P A R K - 2 - S P R I N G H I N G E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 32.08 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.89 Total :34.97 10 5 8 7 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 3 5 1 0 C E N T R A L W E L D I N G S U P P L Y LY 1 3 4 2 1 4 W E L D I N G S U P P L I E S W E L D I N G S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 81.82 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.29 Total :89.11 10 5 8 7 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 3 5 1 0 C E N T R A L W E L D I N G S U P P L Y LY 1 3 4 0 7 0 AL S S U P P L I E S 11 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 12 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 7 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 3 5 1 0 C E N T R A L W E L D I N G S U P P L Y me d i c a l o x y g e n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.43 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.42 AD M I N S U P P L I E S LY 1 3 4 0 7 1 me d i c a l o x y g e n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 66.08 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.30 AL S S U P P L I E S LY 1 3 4 0 7 2 me d i c a l o x y g e n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 11.21 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.41 Total :160.85 10 5 8 7 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 8 4 0 C H A P U T , K A R E N E CH A P U T 9 4 6 9 FR I D A Y N I G H T O U T FR I D A Y N I G H T O U T # 9 4 6 9 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 50.40 Total :50.40 10 5 8 7 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 0 3 7 1 0 C H E V R O N A N D T E X A C O B U S I N E S S 7 8 9 8 3 0 5 1 8 5 AC C T # 7 8 9 8 3 0 5 1 8 5 - E D M O N D S FU E L / N A R C U N I T 10 4 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 1 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 396.81 CA R W A S H / N A R C U N I T 10 4 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 7.61 Total :404.42 10 5 8 7 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 6 3 8 2 C I N T A S C O R P O R A T I O N 46 0 2 0 3 6 6 4 UN I F O R M S 12 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 13 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 7 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 6 3 8 2 C I N T A S C O R P O R A T I O N Vo l u n t e e r s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 4 1 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 20.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 4 1 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 1.78 OP S U N I F O R M S 46 0 2 0 3 6 6 5 St n . 1 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 105.58 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 9.39 UN I F O R M S 46 0 2 0 4 7 8 4 St n 1 7 - A L S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 113.24 St n 1 7 - O P S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 113.25 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 10.08 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 10.07 OP S U N I F O R M S 46 0 2 0 4 8 0 5 St n . 2 0 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 134.69 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 11.98 Total :530.06 10 5 8 7 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 9 0 2 C I T Y O F E V E R E T T I0 8 0 0 1 5 9 6 W A T E R Q U A L I T Y - W A T E R L A B A N A L Y S I S W A T E R Q U A L I T Y - W A T E R L A B A N A L Y S I S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 410.40 Total :410.40 10 5 8 7 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 9 2 1 5 C I T Y O F L Y N N W O O D 63 3 4 AL S S U P P L I E S & P R O F E S S I O N A L S E R V I C E S me d i c a l s u p p l i e s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5,980.69 ad m i n s e r v i c e f e e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 239.23 13 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 14 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :6,219.92 10 5 8 7 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 9 2 1 5 0 1 9 2 1 5 C I T Y O F L Y N N W O O D 10 5 8 7 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 5 5 1 9 C I T Y O F L Y N N W O O D 2 n d P A Y M E N T RE I M B U R S E M E N T O F N A R C F U N D / E D M O N D S 2n d P A Y M E N T 2 0 0 8 10 4 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 10 5 8 7 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 4 0 9 5 C O A S T W I D E L A B O R A T O R I E S W 1 9 5 1 3 1 0 - 1 SU P P L I E S PA P E R T O W E L S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 70.92 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.31 Total :77.23 10 5 8 8 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 4 0 9 5 C O A S T W I D E L A B O R A T O R I E S W 1 9 5 4 3 6 1 00 5 3 0 2 SO A P / T I S S U E / L I N E R S / T O W E L S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 3 475.07 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 3 42.28 Total :517.35 10 5 8 8 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 4 0 9 5 C O A S T W I D E L A B O R A T O R I E S W 1 9 5 1 4 8 6 FA C M A I N T - T T , B I G F O L D , N A T U R A L R O L L FA C M A I N T - T T , B I G F O L D , N A T U R A L R O L L 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 428.19 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 38.11 Total :466.30 10 5 8 8 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 3 6 9 C O D E P U B L I S H I N G C O 30 9 7 1 EC D C C o d e B o o k s f o r K e r n e n L i e n EC D C C o d e B o o k s f o r K e r n e n L i e n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 76.23 Total :76.23 10 5 8 8 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 2 9 7 5 C O L L I S I O N C L I N I C I N C 10 4 7 2 UN I T 4 9 2 - P A I N T , M A T E R I A L S & L A B O R 14 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 15 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 8 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 2 9 7 5 C O L L I S I O N C L I N I C I N C UN I T 4 9 2 - P A I N T , M A T E R I A L S & L A B O R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 118.40 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 7.68 Total :126.08 10 5 8 8 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 9 8 3 C O M M E R C I A L C A R D S O L U T I O N S 2 4 2 5 CR E D I T C A R D T R A N S A C T I O N S YO S T P O O L S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 44.10 DA Y C A M P S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 621.20 DA Y C A M P S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 523.47 DA Y C A M P M E D I C A L S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 145.07 EL E C T R I C W A L L C L O C K 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 21.76 W A L L C L O C K 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 21.77 CA M P G O O D T I M E S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 168.36 DA Y C A M P S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 110.41 BO O K 11 7 . 1 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 50.00 BL A C K I N K 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 29.39 DA Y C A M P S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 68.06 DA Y C A M P C R E D I T 24 2 5 DA Y C A M P C R E D I T 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -39.20 15 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 16 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 8 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 9 8 3 C O M M E R C I A L C A R D S O L U T I O N S CR E D I T C A R D T R A N S A C T I O N S 29 9 4 CE M E T E R Y B O A R D B A D G E S 13 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 3 6 . 5 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 88.09 MA R I N E R T I C K E T S / S I S T E R C I T Y 62 3 . 2 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 5 7 . 2 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 495.00 Total :2,347.48 10 5 8 8 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 9 9 8 3 C O M M E R C I A L C A R D S O L U T I O N S 9 2 3 7 AC C T # 9 2 3 7 - L A W L E S S DI N N E R / R O T H , H A R B I N S O N , F A L K ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 71.12 LU N C H , R O T H , H A R B I N S O N , F A L K ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 22.57 BR E A K F A S T / R O T H , H A R B I N S O N , F A L K ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 23.88 LU N C H / R O T H , H A R B I N S O N , F A L K 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 31.88 DI N N E R / R O T H , H A R B I N S O N , F A L K ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 85.52 LO D G I N G / R O T H ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 396.00 BR E A K F A S T / R O T H , H A R B I N S O N 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 15.50 Total :646.47 10 5 8 8 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 4 5 9 5 C O N K L I N A P P L I A N C E P0 8 6 8 2 0 MC H - C O N T R O L P A N E L , R O C K E R S W I T C H MC H - C O N T R O L P A N E L , R O C K E R S W I T C H 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 84.50 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.52 PS - I C E M A K E R K I T P0 8 7 7 3 1 PS - I C E M A K E R K I T 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 90.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.01 16 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 32 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 17 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :190.03 10 5 8 8 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 5 9 5 0 0 4 5 9 5 C O N K L I N A P P L I A N C E 10 5 8 8 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 6 3 6 8 C R Y S T A L A N D S I E R R A S P R I N G S 0 7 0 8 2 9 8 9 7 7 1 5 3 7 4 0 4 4 IN V # 0 7 0 8 2 9 8 9 7 7 1 5 3 7 4 0 4 4 - E D M O N D S P D CO O L E R R E N T A L / D R I N K I N G W A T E R 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 76.27 Total :76.27 10 5 8 8 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 2 3 0 D E P A R T M E N T O F L I C E N S I N G Mo n t h l y ST A T E S H A R E O F C O N C E A L E D P I S T O L St a t e S h a r e o f C o n c e a l e d P i s t o l 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 7 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 405.00 Total :405.00 10 5 8 8 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 7 4 5 0 D E P T O F I N F O R M A T I O N S E R V I C E S 2 0 0 8 0 6 0 1 4 2 CU S T O M E R I D # D 2 0 0 - 0 Sc a n S e r v i c e s f o r J u n e , 2 0 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 2 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 303.03 BI L L # I 1 4 7 5 7 5 20 0 8 0 6 0 1 4 2 Ad o b e P r e m i e r e M e d i a 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 8 . 8 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 19.05 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 8 . 8 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.56 Total :326.64 10 5 8 9 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 7 4 5 0 D E P T O F I N F O R M A T I O N S E R V I C E S 2 0 0 8 0 6 0 1 4 2 BI L L # I 1 4 7 8 0 6 Ad o b e S o f t w a r e t o l a y s o u n d t r a c k o n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 5 1 1 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 323.87 Ad o b e S o f t w a r e t o l a y s o u n d t r a c k o n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 8 . 8 8 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 323.87 Total :647.74 10 5 8 9 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 0 6 6 3 5 D E P T O F L I C E N S I N G 07 2 9 0 8 08 2 0 5 1 5 7 4 BA L O N S T O R A G E T A N K L I C E N S E F E E 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 23.33 Total :23.33 10 5 8 9 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 3 2 4 D E S T I N Y S O F T W A R E 28 5 7 SO F T W A R E M A I N T E N A N C E 17 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 33 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 18 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 9 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 07 0 3 2 4 D E S T I N Y S O F T W A R E Ag e n d a Q u i c k S o f t w a r e M a i n t . 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 2,722.50 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 193.38 Total :2,915.88 10 5 8 9 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 5 3 1 D I N E S , J E A N N I E 08 - 2 9 0 0 MI N U T E T A K I N G 7/ 2 2 C o u n c i l M i n u t e s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 417.00 Total :417.00 10 5 8 9 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 4 4 3 0 D M H I N D U S T R I A L E L E C T R I C I N C 4 1 0 6 8 BL O W E R M O T O R P R T E C T O R BL O W E R M O T O R P R T E C T O R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 170.00 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 20.00 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 16.34 Total :206.34 10 5 8 9 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 7 1 7 5 D R I V E L I N E S N W I N C C3 4 5 0 7 3 F L E E T S T O C K - U J O I N T K I T S F L E E T S T O C K - U J O I N T K I T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 101.07 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.69 FL E E T S T O C K - E X C H A N G E D U J O I N T K I T S C3 4 5 0 7 8 FL E E T S T O C K - E X C H A N G E D U J O I N T K I T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 113.64 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.77 Total :233.17 10 5 8 9 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 7 6 2 5 E D M O N D S A R T S F E S T I V A L EA F 0 7 2 3 RE F U N D RE F U N D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 9 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 31.56 18 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 34 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 19 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :31.56 10 5 8 9 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 0 7 6 2 5 0 0 7 6 2 5 E D M O N D S A R T S F E S T I V A L 10 5 8 9 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 0 7 6 7 5 E D M O N D S A U T O P A R T S 93 4 5 2 UN I T E Q 0 3 , 0 4 , 0 6 P O - F L O O R M A T S UN I T E Q 0 3 , 0 4 , 0 6 P O - F L O O R M A T S 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 31.75 UN I T E Q 0 3 , 0 4 , 0 6 P O - F L O O R M A T S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 63.50 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 2.83 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.65 FL E E T S U P P L I E S - C L E A N S T A R 95 8 7 8 FL E E T S U P P L I E S - C L E A N S T A R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.90 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.79 SE W E R - G R I N D E R P U M P - B E A R I N G S 96 4 2 4 SE W E R - G R I N D E R P U M P - B E A R I N G S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 29.16 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.60 Total :145.18 10 5 8 9 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 5 0 6 5 E D M O N D S R O T A R Y D A Y B R E A K E R S D A Y B R E A K E R S 0 7 2 9 TO U R I S M P R O M O T I O N A G R E E M E N T TO U R I S M P R O M O T I O N A G R E E M E N T 12 3 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,100.00 Total :1,100.00 10 5 8 9 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 8 7 0 5 E D M O N D S W A T E R D I V I S I O N 3- 0 1 8 0 8 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 1 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 1 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 26.72 ME A D O W D A L E C L U B H O U S E 3- 0 3 5 7 5 ME A D O W D A L E C L U B H O U S E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 180.59 19 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 35 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 20 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 8 9 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 8 7 0 5 E D M O N D S W A T E R D I V I S I O N LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 2 3- 0 7 5 2 5 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 2 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 56.03 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 5 3- 0 7 7 0 9 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 5 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 21.25 LI F T S T A T I O N # 4 3- 0 9 3 5 0 LI F T S T A T I O N # 4 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 63.32 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 0 3- 0 9 8 0 0 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 0 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 28.55 LI F T S T A T I O N # 9 3- 2 9 8 7 5 LI F T S T A T I O N # 9 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 30.37 Total :406.83 10 5 9 0 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 9 2 4 E I M C O W A T E R T E C H N O L O G I E S 8 4 4 8 8 0 5 18 5 1 8 5 5 1 0 4 W I P E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 36.00 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 14.58 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 3.37 18 5 1 8 5 5 1 0 4 84 4 8 8 3 1 PU M P 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 276.00 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 20.94 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 25.86 Total :376.75 10 5 9 0 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 8 8 1 2 E L E C T R O N I C B U S I N E S S M A C H I N E S 0 3 6 3 5 8 MK 0 6 5 3 20 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 36 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 21 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 0 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 8 8 1 2 E L E C T R O N I C B U S I N E S S M A C H I N E S CO P I E R C O N T R A C T 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 1 1 164.28 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 1 1 14.62 Total :178.90 10 5 9 0 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 8 8 1 2 E L E C T R O N I C B U S I N E S S M A C H I N E S 0 3 6 3 1 0 AD M I N M A I N T ad m i n c o p i e r m a i n t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 1 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 79.50 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 1 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 7.08 Total :86.58 10 5 9 0 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 7 4 0 7 E M P L O Y M E N T S E C U R I T Y D E P T E S # 9 4 5 1 3 3 - 1 0 7 UB I # 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 Q2 , 2 0 0 8 U n e m p l o y m e n t I n s u r a n c e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 7 . 7 8 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 6,572.14 Total :6,572.14 10 5 9 0 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 8 9 6 9 E N G L A N D , C H A R L E S E N G L A N D 9 3 6 5 SA T U R D A Y N I G H T D A N C E C L A S S E S SA T U R D A Y N I G H T D A N C E # 9 3 6 5 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 360.00 SA T U R D A Y N I G H T D A N C E # 9 3 6 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 180.00 SA T U R D A Y N I G H T D A N C E # 9 3 6 7 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 390.00 SA T U R D A Y N I G H T D A N C E # 9 3 6 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 210.00 Total :1,140.00 10 5 9 0 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 9 4 1 0 E V E R E T T S T E E L C O M P A N I E S 39 6 9 9 0 SR . C E N T E R B I R D B L O C K M A T E R I A L SE N I O R C E N T E R B I R D B L O C K M A T E R I A L 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 253.80 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.59 Total :276.39 21 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 37 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 22 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 0 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 9 5 3 E V E R G R E E N S T A T E H E A T & A / C 6 8 0 5 CI T Y H A L L - T R O U B L E S H O O T H V A C , I N S P E C T CI T Y H A L L - T R O U B L E S H O O T H V A C , I N S P E C T 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 311.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 27.68 Total :338.68 10 5 9 0 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 1 3 7 F I R S T A M E R I C A N T I T L E C3 7 8 8 1 4 1 A Ti t l e R e p o r t - B r e s k e P r o p e r t y Ti t l e R e p o r t - B r e s k e P r o p e r t y 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 350.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 31.50 Total :381.50 10 5 9 0 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 1 3 7 F I R S T A M E R I C A N T I T L E C3 7 8 8 1 4 1 D Co u r i e r S e r v i c e - B r e s k e T i t l e R e p o r t Co u r i e r S e r v i c e - B r e s k e T i t l e R e p o r t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 21.51 Total :21.51 10 5 9 0 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 2 7 1 F I R S T S T A T E S I N V E S T O R S 5 2 0 0 2 0 5 9 8 5 TE N A N T # 1 0 1 7 0 6 4 T H A V E P A R K I N G L O T R E N T 08 / 0 8 4 t h A v e n u e P a r k i n g L o t R e n t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 300.00 Total :300.00 10 5 9 1 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 8 5 5 F L E X P L A N S E R V I C E S I N C 7/ 9 / 0 8 Se c t i o n 1 2 5 F o r f e i t u r e - 2 0 0 7 - f o r Se c t i o n 1 2 5 F o r f e i t u r e - 2 0 0 7 - f o r 81 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 1 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 167.53 Total :167.53 10 5 9 1 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 8 5 5 F L E X P L A N S E R V I C E S I N C 7/ 9 / 0 8 20 0 7 S e c t i o n 1 2 5 F o r f e i t u r e - C u r t 20 0 7 S e c t i o n 1 2 5 F o r f e i t u r e - C u r t 81 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 1 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5.87 Total :5.87 10 5 9 1 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 0 8 5 5 F L E X P L A N S E R V I C E S I N C 14 1 8 20 0 7 B a l a n c e d u e f r o m S e c t i o n 1 2 5 20 0 7 B a l a n c e d u e f r o m S e c t i o n 1 2 5 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 0.05 22 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 38 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 23 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :0.05 10 5 9 1 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 0 8 5 5 0 7 0 8 5 5 F L E X P L A N S E R V I C E S I N C 10 5 9 1 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 0 6 0 0 F O G T I T E I N C 2 4 1 2 6 0 W A T E R M E T E R I N V E N T O R Y - ~ W A T E R M E T E R I N V E N T O R Y - ~ 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 2 . 0 0 2,842.20 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 2 . 0 0 255.80 Total :3,098.00 10 5 9 1 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 1 8 0 0 G E N E R A L B I N D I N G C O R P O R A T I O N 1 5 9 6 4 5 9 6 Re p a i r o f B i n d i n g M a c h i n e f o r D S D Re p a i r o f B i n d i n g M a c h i n e f o r D S D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 334.47 Total :334.47 10 5 9 1 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 8 4 9 5 G L A C I E R N O R T H W E S T 90 4 9 2 4 0 5 ST R E E T - C O N C R E T E ST R E E T - C O N C R E T E 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 386.75 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 34.81 ST R E E T - C O N C R E T E 90 4 9 7 6 2 2 ST R E E T - C O N C R E T E 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 386.75 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 34.83 Total :843.14 10 5 9 1 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 2 1 9 9 G R A I N G E R 96 9 4 3 0 6 6 8 0 SU P P L I E S SA F E T Y C A N 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 233.55 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 20.78 Total :254.33 10 5 9 1 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 2 1 9 9 G R A I N G E R 96 8 4 2 3 3 7 7 9 SR C E N T E R - 4 - V B E L T S 23 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 39 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 24 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 1 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 2 1 9 9 G R A I N G E R SR C E N T E R - 4 - V B E L T S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.36 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.75 Total :9.11 10 5 9 1 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 4 4 6 G R E A T F L O O R S C O M M E R C I A L S A L E S 3 3 3 3 8 - 2 0 2 FA C R M 1 2 6 , 3 0 2 - F L O O R R E P L A C E M E N T ~ FA C R M 1 2 6 , 3 0 2 - F L O O R R E P L A C E M E N T ~ 11 6 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 4,389.66 Sa l e s T a x 11 6 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 390.68 Total :4,780.34 10 5 9 1 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 8 4 1 5 H & W E M E R G E N C Y V E H I C L E S 4 4 6 8 1 UN I T 4 8 4 - D O O R H O L D S UN I T 4 8 4 - D O O R H O L D S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 67.92 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.80 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.74 Total :82.46 10 5 9 2 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 2 9 0 0 H A R R I S F O R D I N C 87 8 2 8 UN I T 6 5 0 - W H E E L A S S E M B L Y UN I T 6 5 0 - W H E E L A S S E M B L Y 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 128.02 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 11.39 Total :139.41 10 5 9 2 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 2 9 0 0 H A R R I S F O R D I N C FO C S 2 4 0 4 2 1 UN I T 1 1 9 - S T E E R I N G R E P A I R UN I T 1 1 9 - S T E E R I N G R E P A I R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 123.20 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 10.96 Total :134.16 24 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 40 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 25 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 0 9 0 0 H D F O W L E R C O I N C I2 3 6 5 6 9 4 W A T E R I N V E N T O R Y - W - V A L V C H B - 3 6 - 0 1 0 W A T E R I N V E N T O R Y - W - V A L V C H B - 3 6 - 0 1 0 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 0 366.70 W A T E R I N V E N T O R Y - W - V A L V E C H B - 1 8 - 0 1 0 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 0 280.00 W - V A L V C H B L - 0 0 - 0 1 0 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 0 216.00 W - V A L V C I - 0 2 - 0 1 0 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 0 505.86 W A T E R S U P P L I E S - 1 1 / 2 " B R O N Z E M E T E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 247.30 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 0 21.17 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.83 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 0 125.08 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.60 Total :1,788.54 10 5 9 2 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 3 1 4 0 H E N D E R S O N , B R I A N 61 LE O F F 1 R e i m b u r s e m e n t LE O F F 1 R e i m b u r s e m e n t 00 9 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 7 . 3 7 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 409.60 Total :409.60 10 5 9 2 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 9 H E T Z E L , B O B HE T Z E L 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 75.00 Total :75.00 10 5 9 2 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 3 5 0 0 H I N G S O N , R O B E R T 60 LE O F F 1 R e i m b u r s e m e n t LE O F F 1 R e i m b u r s e m e n t 00 9 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 7 . 3 7 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 275.00 Total :275.00 25 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 41 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 26 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 8 6 2 H O M E D E P O T C R E D I T S E R V I C E S 1 0 3 3 7 7 0 FA C M A I N T S H O P & U N I T 5 - P L U G S , FA C M A I N T S H O P & U N I T 5 - P L U G S , 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 76.75 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.91 FI S H I N G P I E R - S U P P L I E S 10 8 1 9 5 8 FI S H I N G P I E R - S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 20.87 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.87 FA C - S U P P L I E S 25 8 4 6 7 2 FA C - S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 35.01 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.15 SE W E R - L S 6 - S U P P L I E S 30 3 0 2 8 2 SE W E R - L S 6 - S U P P L I E S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.44 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.85 W A T E R - S U P P L I E S - B A G S , P V C P L U G S , P V C 30 7 2 2 1 2 W A T E R - S U P P L I E S - B A G S , P V C P L U G S , P V C 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 17.48 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.57 SR C E N T E R - K I T F A U C E T , W A T E R C O N N , 30 9 0 9 4 4 SR C E N T E R - K I T F A U C E T , W A T E R C O N N , 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 79.54 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.15 MC H - R E P A I R C L A M P S 35 8 0 0 5 9 MC H - R E P A I R C L A M P S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.92 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.51 26 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 42 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 27 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 7 8 6 2 H O M E D E P O T C R E D I T S E R V I C E S FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S 35 8 5 8 6 4 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.89 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.71 MC H P L U M B I N G S U P P L I E S - C O P P E R T U B E S 40 4 0 4 6 2 MC H P L U M B I N G S U P P L I E S - C O P P E R T U B E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 29.48 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.65 FA C M A I N T S H O P - 3 V L I T H I U M B A T T E R Y 40 4 3 4 1 0 FA C M A I N T S H O P - 3 V L I T H I U M B A T T E R Y 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.97 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.36 FA C M A I N T U N I T 5 - C A U L K , B A R , T A B L E , 42 0 8 5 FA C M A I N T U N I T 5 - C A U L K , B A R , T A B L E , 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 79.06 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.12 CI T Y H A L L - E L B O W C O N N E C T I O N , P I P E 45 7 2 5 4 5 CI T Y H A L L - E L B O W C O N N E C T I O N , P I P E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.56 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.41 MC H - D O O R S T O P , S U P P L I E S 45 7 5 1 3 7 MC H - D O O R S T O P , S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 24.42 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.19 MC H - P L U M B I N G R E P A I R S U P P L I E S 50 4 0 2 9 3 MC H - P L U M B I N G R E P A I R S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 197.89 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 17.81 27 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 43 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 28 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 7 8 6 2 H O M E D E P O T C R E D I T S E R V I C E S FA C - M T N G S T R I P , M D F B A S E 50 4 3 2 1 7 FA C - M T N G S T R I P , M D F B A S E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 49.30 FA C M A I N T S H O P - H U K S Y P L I E R S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.96 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.33 FA C - P L U M B I N G S U P P L I E S 55 7 2 4 1 3 FA C - P L U M B I N G S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 23.34 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.10 ST R E E T - G R A S S S E E D , B O L T S , C L E A N I N G 57 3 0 9 2 ST R E E T - G R A S S S E E D , B O L T S , C L E A N I N G 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 121.42 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 10.93 PS - C O R D 57 3 1 0 7 PS - C O R D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.97 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.80 ST O R M - S T O R A G E B I N F O R 6 4 59 1 2 4 8 ST O R M - S T O R A G E B I N F O R 6 4 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.99 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.44 SE W E R - W E D G E A N C H O R S 60 3 5 4 0 2 SE W E R - W E D G E A N C H O R S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 14.47 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.30 28 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 29 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 7 8 6 2 H O M E D E P O T C R E D I T S E R V I C E S FA C - C L A M P S , T E E S , S U P P L I E S 60 9 4 6 2 7 FA C - C L A M P S , T E E S , S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.14 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.99 LO G C A B I N - L I G H T S 63 9 3 2 LO G C A B I N - L I G H T S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 42.93 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.86 FA C - K N O B , H I N G E , W O O D 65 7 4 8 5 4 FA C - K N O B , H I N G E , W O O D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 23.06 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.07 W A T E R - P L A S T I C B A G S , U B O L T S , H E X 70 4 2 8 7 7 W A T E R - P L A S T I C B A G S , U B O L T S , H E X 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 33.09 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.98 FA C - S U P P L I E S 70 7 1 2 3 2 FA C - S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 61.86 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.56 SE W E R - S U P P L I E S 70 9 1 8 3 7 SE W E R - S U P P L I E S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.34 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.66 FA C M A I N T U N I T 5 - S U P P L I E S 90 4 4 4 0 9 FA C M A I N T U N I T 5 - S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 87.55 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.87 29 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 30 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 7 8 6 2 H O M E D E P O T C R E D I T S E R V I C E S ST R E E T - S U P P L I E S F O R U N I T 6 4 95 7 3 2 1 3 ST R E E T - S U P P L I E S F O R U N I T 6 4 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 29.95 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.70 PL A Z A R M - B R O O M 95 7 4 4 7 1 PL A Z A R M - B R O O M 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 10.99 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.98 Total :1,258.47 10 5 9 2 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 0 0 4 2 I K O N F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S 7 6 9 7 3 3 1 9 CO P I E R L E A S E PA R K S & R E C R E A T I O N C O P I E R L E A S E ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 857.35 Total :857.35 10 5 9 2 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 4 9 4 0 I N T E R S T A T E A L L B A T T E R Y C E N T E R 1 1 0 4 2 9 8 8 9 FL E E T - B A T T E R Y I N V E N T O R Y FL E E T - B A T T E R Y I N V E N T O R Y 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 265.75 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 23.65 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - W I R E , C A B L E T I E S , 73 0 8 4 2 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - W I R E , C A B L E T I E S , 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 190.06 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 16.92 Total :496.38 10 5 9 2 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 0 4 0 I N T E R S T A T E A U T O P A R T W A R E H O U S E 4 6 7 2 9 6 FL E E T - D R I L L E X T E N T I O N S FL E E T - D R I L L E X T E N T I O N S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 32.37 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 2.88 30 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 46 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 31 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 2 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 0 4 0 I N T E R S T A T E A U T O P A R T W A R E H O U S E FL E E T S H O P R E T U R N I P A 46 8 9 2 6 FL E E T S H O P R E T U R N I P A 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -74.95 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -6.67 FL E E T S H O P - 6 ' W O O D H A N D L E S 46 9 2 6 2 FL E E T S H O P - 6 ' W O O D H A N D L E S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 23.98 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 2.13 FL E E T S H O P - 2 2 " W I P E R B L A D E S 47 0 0 2 4 FL E E T S H O P - 2 2 " W I P E R B L A D E S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 68.00 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 8.15 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 6.78 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L Y - M A K E A C L A M P 5 0 ' 47 1 1 2 2 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L Y - M A K E A C L A M P 5 0 ' 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 45.30 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 8.15 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 4.76 Total :120.88 10 5 9 3 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 3 6 7 I T A AM D R 0 8 1 0 2 1 98 0 1 1 0 2 1 ME M B E R S H I P D U E S I N S T R U M E N T A T I O N 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 2 2 255.00 Total :255.00 10 5 9 3 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 5 2 3 3 J O B S A V A I L A B L E 81 6 0 1 6 Se n i o r U t i l i t i e s E n g i n e e r a d , # 0 8 - 4 1 Se n i o r U t i l i t i e s E n g i n e e r a d , # 0 8 - 4 1 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 175.00 31 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 47 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 32 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :175.00 10 5 9 3 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 5 2 3 3 0 1 5 2 3 3 J O B S A V A I L A B L E 10 5 9 3 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 5 4 9 0 K & K C O N C R E T E P R O D U C T S 31 1 8 3 ST O R M - 4 " X 8 " X 1 6 " S O L I D ST O R M - 4 " X 8 " X 1 6 " S O L I D 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 4 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 144.00 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 4 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 12.82 Total :156.82 10 5 9 3 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 8 1 4 K I N G , J I M KI N G 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SE N I O R S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 175.00 Total :175.00 10 5 9 3 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 3 4 3 K R A Z A N & A S S O C I A T E S I N C 09 6 8 2 4 9 - 1 4 7 1 8 FA C - C O N S T R U C T I O N T E S T I N G & I N S P E C T I O N FA C - C O N S T R U C T I O N T E S T I N G & I N S P E C T I O N 11 6 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 270.00 Total :270.00 10 5 9 3 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 7 0 5 0 K W I C K ' N K L E E N C A R W A S H 06 1 1 0 8 - 0 3 CI T Y V E H I C L E C A R W A S H CI T Y V E H I C L E C A R W A S H 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 37.57 Total :37.57 10 5 9 3 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 7 3 0 L A M B H A N S O N L A M B A P P R A I S A L S 0 0 8 - 0 6 8 AP P R A I S A L S E R V I C E S CO M M E R C I A L L A N D A P P R A I S A L ~ 12 6 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 10 5 9 3 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 7 1 3 5 L A N D A U A S S O C I A T E S I N C 00 2 2 9 6 6 Ol d M i l l t o w n E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e v i e w t h r u Ol d M i l l t o w n E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e v i e w t h r u 12 6 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 3,892.37 Ol d M i l l t o w n E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e v i e w t h r u 00 2 3 4 4 9 Ol d M i l l t o w n E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e v i e w t h r u 12 6 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 606.83 Total :4,499.20 32 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 48 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 33 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 3 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 7 1 3 5 L A N D A U A S S O C I A T E S I N C 00 2 3 3 7 7 81 0 W A L N U T P R O F S V C - T H R O U G H 6 / 2 8 / 0 8 81 0 W A L N U T P R O F S V C - T H R O U G H 6 / 2 8 / 0 8 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 4 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 563.25 Total :563.25 10 5 9 3 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 7 1 3 5 L A N D A U A S S O C I A T E S I N C 00 2 3 4 1 6 Pr o f S e r v G e o T e c h R e v i e w J o h n s o n Pr o f S e r v G e o T e c h R e v i e w J o h n s o n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 2 4 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 500.00 Total :500.00 10 5 9 4 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 7 2 5 L E S S C H W A B T I R E C E N T E R 14 8 0 3 9 UN I T 9 1 - F L A T R E P A I R UN I T 9 1 - F L A T R E P A I R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 41.25 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 3.67 UN I T 9 1 - C H A N G E F L U I D I N T I R E S 14 8 0 4 7 UN I T 9 1 - C H A N G E F L U I D I N T I R E S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 56.00 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 4.98 Total :105.90 10 5 9 4 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 8 7 6 0 L U N D S O F F I C E E S S E N T I A L S 09 8 7 6 0 OF F I C E S U P P L I E S PA R K S & R E C R E A T I O N L E T T E R H E A D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 159.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 14.15 Total :173.15 10 5 9 4 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 8 7 6 0 L U N D S O F F I C E E S S E N T I A L S 09 8 7 7 3 BU S I N E S S C A R D S F O R D E V . S E R & P D 33 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 49 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 34 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 8 7 6 0 L U N D S O F F I C E E S S E N T I A L S Bu s i n e s s C a r d s : ~ 25 0 - 0 0 2 0 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.87 Je r r y S h u s t e r P . E . 25 0 - 0 0 2 0 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.87 Of f i c e r S a c k v i l l e # 2 5 9 3 25 0 - 0 0 2 0 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.87 D. J . S m i t h # 2 2 3 0 25 0 - 0 0 2 0 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.87 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.01 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.00 Total :73.49 10 5 9 4 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 8 9 0 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O E L E C T R I C 73 0 1 9 UN I T 3 1 - S T A R T E R UN I T 3 1 - S T A R T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 213.00 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 18.96 Total :231.96 10 5 9 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 8 9 5 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O P A R T S I N C 5 5 2 1 5 5 UN I T 1 6 - F I L T E R S UN I T 1 6 - F I L T E R S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 12.10 UN I T 2 0 - T A N K H E A T E R , O I L F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 63.46 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.72 UN I T 1 6 G E N - F U E L F I L T E R 55 2 2 0 3 UN I T 1 6 G E N - F U E L F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.16 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.64 34 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 50 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 35 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 8 9 5 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O P A R T S I N C UN I T 2 0 - F I L T E R S 55 2 5 2 6 UN I T 2 0 - F I L T E R S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 63.37 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.64 UN I T 3 1 - F U E L F I L T E R S 55 2 5 5 3 UN I T 3 1 - F U E L F I L T E R S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 19.33 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.72 FL E E T - R E T U R N F I L T E R 55 2 5 6 5 FL E E T - R E T U R N F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -7.54 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -0.67 UN I T 2 0 - F U E L F I L T E R S 55 2 5 7 3 UN I T 2 0 - F U E L F I L T E R S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.40 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.39 UN I T 3 1 - S E A L 55 2 7 0 3 UN I T 3 1 - S E A L 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 18.88 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.68 UN I T 3 1 - V B E L T 55 2 7 3 2 UN I T 3 1 - V B E L T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.33 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.19 35 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 51 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 36 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 8 9 5 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O P A R T S I N C UN I T 3 1 - V A L V E C O V E R S E T 55 2 7 5 5 UN I T 3 1 - V A L V E C O V E R S E T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.99 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.85 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.05 FL E E T S H O P - S C R E W S 55 2 8 3 9 FL E E T S H O P - S C R E W S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.55 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.14 FL E E T S H O P - B O L T K I T 55 2 8 4 0 FL E E T S H O P - B O L T K I T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.76 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.60 UN I T 1 7 - F I T T I N G S 55 3 1 0 5 UN I T 1 7 - F I T T I N G S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.49 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.22 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - L O O M 55 3 1 2 6 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - L O O M 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 12.00 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.07 UN I T 2 9 - S I N G L E S P R I N G B R 55 3 1 9 8 UN I T 2 9 - S I N G L E S P R I N G B R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 32.94 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.00 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.29 36 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 52 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 37 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 8 9 5 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O P A R T S I N C UN I T 5 1 - T A I L L G T 55 3 2 5 2 UN I T 5 1 - T A I L L G T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 30.42 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.71 UN I T 5 5 - E X H C A P 55 3 3 6 7 UN I T 5 5 - E X H C A P 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 14.52 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.29 FL E E T S H O P - W H I T E L I T H 55 3 5 6 5 FL E E T S H O P - W H I T E L I T H 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 4.00 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 0.36 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - P T E X T H R D S E A L 55 3 6 9 2 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - P T E X T H R D S E A L 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 7.79 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 0.69 UN I T 1 2 7 - A / T R A N S F I L T E R 55 3 7 0 3 UN I T 1 2 7 - A / T R A N S F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 19.50 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.74 UN I T 1 2 7 - F U E L F I L T E R 55 3 7 0 9 UN I T 1 2 7 - F U E L F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.15 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.17 FL E E T S H O P - S M A R T S T R A W L U B R , W D - 4 0 55 3 7 1 1 FL E E T S H O P - S M A R T S T R A W L U B R , W D - 4 0 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 16.67 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 1.48 37 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 53 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 38 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 8 9 5 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O P A R T S I N C UN I T 1 2 7 - F I L T E R E X C H A N G E 55 3 7 4 0 UN I T 1 2 7 - F I L T E R E X C H A N G E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.28 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.02 UN I T 1 2 5 - A I R F I L T E R 55 3 8 1 9 UN I T 1 2 5 - A I R F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.04 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.72 UN I T M - 1 6 - F U E L L I N E H O S E 55 3 9 2 1 UN I T M - 1 6 - F U E L L I N E H O S E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 17.25 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.54 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - A C E T O N E 55 4 0 9 9 FL E E T S H O P S U P P L I E S - A C E T O N E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 21.32 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 1.90 UN I T 9 0 - P I N I O N S E A L 55 4 1 1 5 UN I T 9 0 - P I N I O N S E A L 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 23.50 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.09 UN I T 9 0 - M O T O R T U N E - U P 1 6 55 4 3 4 5 UN I T 9 0 - M O T O R T U N E - U P 1 6 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.05 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.63 UN I T 1 1 5 - T K D R M , W H L S E A L 55 4 4 5 5 UN I T 1 1 5 - T K D R M , W H L S E A L 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 56.96 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.07 38 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 54 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 39 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 8 9 5 0 L Y N N W O O D A U T O P A R T S I N C FL E E T - S E A L R E T U R N 55 4 4 6 4 FL E E T - S E A L R E T U R N 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -28.07 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -2.50 Total :521.04 10 5 9 4 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 1 8 9 8 0 L Y N N W O O D H O N D A 61 1 2 4 4 UN I T M 1 6 - O I L F I L T E R UN I T M 1 6 - O I L F I L T E R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.56 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.47 UN I T 3 0 4 - O I L S E A L S 61 2 7 9 9 UN I T 3 0 4 - O I L S E A L S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 15.18 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.35 UN I T 3 0 4 - O I L F I L T E R , S P A R K P L U G S 61 3 6 9 2 UN I T 3 0 4 - O I L F I L T E R , S P A R K P L U G S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 17.85 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.59 Total :54.00 10 5 9 4 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 1 4 0 M A D S C I E N C E O F K I N G C O U N T Y M A D S C I E N C E 9 4 4 3 MA D S C I E N C E C A M P MA D S C I E N C E C A M P # 9 4 4 3 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,740.00 Total :1,740.00 10 5 9 4 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 0 0 3 9 M C M A S T E R - C A R R S U P P L Y C O 9 3 0 3 9 3 6 8 12 3 1 0 6 8 0 0 FL A N G E / B U S H I N G / N O Z Z L E / R U B B E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 752.53 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 103.91 39 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 55 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 40 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 02 0 0 3 9 M C M A S T E R - C A R R S U P P L Y C O 12 3 1 0 6 8 0 0 93 5 7 0 8 1 3 BL A C K D E L R I N S H E E T 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 279.50 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 14.72 Total :1,150.66 10 5 9 4 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 3 7 7 3 M I C R O F L E X 00 0 1 7 9 5 5 Ju n e , 2 0 0 8 T a x A u d i t P r o g r a m Ju n e , 2 0 0 8 T a x A u d i t P r o g r a m 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 4 . 2 3 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 58.38 Total :58.38 10 5 9 4 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 0 9 0 0 M I L L E R S E Q U I P & R E N T A L L I N C 7 2 0 3 5 W A T E R / S E W E R - 1 1 / 4 " A S P H A L T C U T T E R W A T E R / S E W E R - 1 1 / 4 " A S P H A L T C U T T E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 254.97 W A T E R / S E W E R - 1 1 / 4 " A S P H A L T C U T T E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 254.97 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.69 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.69 ST R E E T - S T I H L L I N E , P O L Y - C U T B L A D E S 72 4 7 8 ST R E E T - S T I H L L I N E , P O L Y - C U T B L A D E S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 7 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 62.70 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 7 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.58 ST R E E T - 2 - T R I M M E R H E A D S F O R W E E D E A T E R 72 5 7 4 ST R E E T - 2 - T R I M M E R H E A D S F O R W E E D E A T E R 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 7 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 47.90 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 7 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.26 40 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 56 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 41 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 4 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 02 0 9 0 0 M I L L E R S E Q U I P & R E N T A L L I N C SE W E R - W E E D E A T E R P A R T S 73 0 6 4 SE W E R - W E E D E A T E R P A R T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 26.44 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.35 Total :704.55 10 5 9 5 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 2 3 7 2 M O N R O E , A L L I S O N MO N R O E 0 7 2 2 RE F U N D RE F U N D I N G C R E D I T O N A C C O U N T 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 9 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 121.00 Total :121.00 10 5 9 5 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 1 9 8 3 M O T O R T R U C K S I N C 11 0 1 1 1 4 2 4 FL E E T R E T U R N - K N O B , H A N D L E FL E E T R E T U R N - K N O B , H A N D L E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -30.79 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -2.65 UN I T 2 2 - F W S E P R 11 0 1 3 7 7 4 2 UN I T 2 2 - F W S E P R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 20.35 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.75 UN I T 1 1 - T R O U B L E S H O O T A N D R E P A I R A B S 11 0 1 4 7 5 4 9 UN I T 1 1 - T R O U B L E S H O O T A N D R E P A I R A B S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 127.20 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 10.94 Total :126.80 10 5 9 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 6 3 9 5 M Y E R S T I R E S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y 8 2 3 0 5 3 8 0 UN I T 6 5 0 - T P M S M O 41 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 57 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 42 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 5 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 6 3 9 5 M Y E R S T I R E S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y UN I T 6 5 0 - T P M S M O 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 80.00 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.63 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.53 Total :92.16 10 5 9 5 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 7 8 9 1 M Y S T I C S E A C H A R T E R S MY S T I C S E A 9 3 5 2 W H A L E W A T C H C R U I S E W H A L E W A T C H I N G C R U I S E # 9 3 5 2 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 490.00 Total :490.00 10 5 9 5 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 4 0 0 1 N C M A C H I N E R Y C O SE C R 0 0 5 4 9 9 2 UN I T 6 3 - C O R E R E T U R N F E E UN I T 6 3 - C O R E R E T U R N F E E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -309.25 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -27.52 UN I T 9 - E N D E D G E , C U T T I N G E D G E , B O L T S , SE C S 0 4 7 2 6 9 0 UN I T 9 - E N D E D G E , C U T T I N G E D G E , B O L T S , 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 618.56 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 55.67 Total :337.46 10 5 9 5 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 4 3 0 0 N E B A R H O S E & F I T T I N G S L L C 20 1 8 2 0 - 0 0 1 HO S E W A T E R H O S E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 190.52 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 20.83 Total :211.35 10 5 9 5 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 4 3 0 2 N E L S O N P E T R O L E U M 03 7 5 1 4 1 - I N FL E E T - F I L T E R I N V E N T O R Y 42 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 58 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 43 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 5 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 02 4 3 0 2 N E L S O N P E T R O L E U M FL E E T - F I L T E R I N V E N T O R Y 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 17.31 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 1.49 FL E E T - F I L T E R I N V E N T O R Y 03 7 6 1 2 9 - I N FL E E T - F I L T E R I N V E N T O R Y 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 25.35 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 2.26 FL E E T - F I L T E R I N V E N T O R Y 03 7 6 1 3 0 - I N FL E E T - F I L T E R I N V E N T O R Y 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 22.73 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 4 0 . 4 0 2.03 Total :71.17 10 5 9 5 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 3 4 8 N E W A R K 16 1 1 4 8 6 9 SE W E R - L S 1 4 - H O U R M E T E R S SE W E R - L S 1 4 - H O U R M E T E R S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 381.78 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.49 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 35.44 Total :433.71 10 5 9 5 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 1 0 1 3 N O R T H W E S T C A S C A D E I N C 07 7 3 9 3 5 HO N E Y B U C K E T R E N T A L HO N E Y B U C K E T R E N T A L : ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 98.02 Total :98.02 10 5 9 5 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 5 6 9 0 N O Y E S , K A R I N 00 0 0 0 5 6 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d M i n u t e t a k e r 7 / 9 / 0 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d M i n u t e t a k e r 7 / 9 / 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 464.00 43 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 59 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 44 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 5 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 02 5 6 9 0 N O Y E S , K A R I N Ve r b a t i m T r a n s c r i p t s P - 0 8 - 1 6 00 0 0 0 5 6 8 Ve r b a t i m T r a n s c r i p t s P - 0 8 - 1 6 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 240.00 Total :704.00 10 5 9 6 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C 77 3 7 2 1 Pr i n t e r t o n e r - H R Pr i n t e r t o n e r - H R 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 90.26 Co p y p a p e r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.26 Co p y p a p e r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.26 Co p y p a p e r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.26 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.21 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.18 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.18 Total :141.61 10 5 9 6 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C 48 1 5 4 3 OF F I C E S U P P L I E S PR I N T H E A D , B A D G E S , E T C . 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 34.98 Ki n g C o u n t y S a l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.14 PO O L O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 50 4 4 3 3 CA R T R I D G E S F O R Y O S T P O O L P R I N T E R 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 51.12 Ki n g C o u n t y S a l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.59 44 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 60 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 45 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 6 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C OF F I C E S U P P L I E S 61 3 2 1 2 CO L O R E D C O P Y P A P E R , P U S H P I N S , E T C . 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 157.69 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 14.03 OF F I C E S U P P L I E S 67 3 7 2 1 IN K J E T C A R T R I D G E S , P E N S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 61.10 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.44 Total :332.09 10 5 9 6 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C 67 8 6 3 5 Sp i r a l N o t e b o o k s ; A - Z I n d e x ; T a p e Sp i r a l N o t e b o o k s ; A - Z I n d e x ; T a p e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 4 . 2 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 54.84 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 4 . 2 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.88 Total :59.72 10 5 9 6 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C 73 6 2 7 5 52 0 4 3 7 MA R K E R S / C O P I E R P A P E R / E N V E L O P E S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 4 1 86.09 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 4 1 7.66 52 0 4 3 7 73 6 3 8 1 PR I N T R I B B O N 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 4 1 20.68 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 4 1 1.84 Total :116.27 10 5 9 6 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C 76 9 4 4 7 OF F I C E S U P P L I E S 45 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 61 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 46 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 6 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C Of f i c e S u p p l i e s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 74.40 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.62 Total :81.02 10 5 9 6 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 5 1 1 O F F I C E M A X I N C 63 0 3 3 1 Cr e d i t f o r O f f i c e S u p p l i e s D S D Cr e d i t f o r O f f i c e S u p p l i e s D S D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -56.36 Of f i c e s u p p l i e s D S D 79 5 0 2 2 Of f i c e s u p p l i e s D S D 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 403.00 Total :346.64 10 5 9 6 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 8 7 4 6 O N Y X V A L V E C O . 01 9 7 2 8 ED M 0 0 2 TE S T / R E P A I R O F S C H W I N G P U M P 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 2 1 250.00 Total :250.00 10 5 9 6 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 3 7 5 0 O R C A P A C I F I C I N C 03 4 8 9 2 YO S T P O O L S U P P L I E S YO S T P O O L C H E M I C A L S & S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 690.70 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 61.47 Total :752.17 10 5 9 6 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 4 9 5 1 O T I S E L E V A T O R C O SS 0 6 2 7 9 G 8 0 8 PW O P E R A T I O N M A I N T C O N T R A C T ~ PW O P E R A T I O N M A I N T C O N T R A C T ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 1,931.64 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 171.92 Total :2,103.56 10 5 9 6 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 2 2 0 3 O W E N E Q U I P M E N T C O M P A N Y 0 0 0 4 8 2 5 2 FL E E T - R E T U R N S 46 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 62 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 47 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 6 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 2 2 0 3 O W E N E Q U I P M E N T C O M P A N Y FL E E T - R E T U R N S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -478.14 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -42.56 UN I T 5 5 - C U R T A I N P R E S S S L 00 0 4 8 6 6 6 UN I T 5 5 - C U R T A I N P R E S S S L 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 382.18 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 18.19 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 35.63 UN I T 5 5 - B E A R I N G S 00 0 4 9 1 1 3 UN I T 5 5 - B E A R I N G S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 14.50 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.17 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.13 UN I T 5 5 - B E A R I N G S 00 0 4 9 1 3 8 UN I T 5 5 - B E A R I N G S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 12.24 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.54 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.96 UN I T 5 5 - R E A R L I G H T , B R K T P A N E L , 00 0 4 9 8 9 7 UN I T 5 5 - R E A R L I G H T , B R K T P A N E L , 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 929.90 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 58.75 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 87.99 Total :1,041.48 10 5 9 7 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 2 7 0 6 0 P A C I F I C T O P S O I L S 31 5 1 6 6 ST R E E T - 3 - W A Y T O P S O I L 47 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 63 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 48 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 7 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 02 7 0 6 0 P A C I F I C T O P S O I L S ST R E E T - 3 - W A Y T O P S O I L 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 183.50 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 16.32 ST R E E T - D U M P F E E S 70 2 9 5 ST R E E T - D U M P F E E S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 214.55 ST R E E T - 3 W A Y S P E C I A L T O P S O I L 71 3 2 1 ST R E E T - 3 W A Y S P E C I A L T O P S O I L 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 106.00 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 3 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.05 Total :528.42 10 5 9 7 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 6 8 1 7 P A N A S O N I C D I G I T A L D O C U M E N T C O M 0 1 0 4 8 9 9 2 4 CO P I E R C O N T R A C T CO P I E R C O N T R A C T 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 4 1 145.22 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 4 1 12.60 Total :157.82 10 5 9 7 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 6 8 1 7 P A N A S O N I C D I G I T A L D O C U M E N T C O M 0 1 0 4 8 9 9 2 3 AD M I N L E A S E Ad m i n c o p i e r l e a s e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 137.06 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 1 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 12.20 Total :149.26 10 5 9 7 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 02 7 1 6 5 P A R K E R P A I N T M F G . C O . I N C . 73 3 6 9 0 PL A Z A R O O M - P A I N T S U P P L I E S PL A Z A R O O M - P A I N T S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 17.19 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1.53 Total :18.72 48 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 64 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 49 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 7 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 6 4 1 2 P A R K S & R E C R E A T I O N D A Y C A M P C A M P C A S H 0 7 2 9 DA Y C A M P P E T T Y C A S H R E I M B U R S E M E N T DA Y C A M P S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 89.20 DA Y C A M P S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 174.27 Total :263.47 10 5 9 7 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 9 3 1 P A T T O N B O G G S L L P 06 2 0 0 8 DC L O B B Y I S T F O R J U N E 2 0 0 8 DC L o b b y i s t C h a r g e f o r J u n e 2 0 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 4,000.00 Total :4,000.00 10 5 9 7 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 3 9 5 1 P E R T E E T E N G I N E E R I N G I N C 27 0 9 6 . 0 0 0 - 7 E7 C B . S e r v i c e s t h r u 0 5 / 2 5 / 0 8 E7 C B . S e r v i c e s t h r u 0 5 / 2 5 / 0 8 11 2 . 2 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 5 . 4 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 13,629.38 E7 C B . S e r v i c e s t h r u 0 6 / 2 9 / 0 8 27 0 9 6 . 0 0 0 - 8 E7 C B . S e r v i c e s t h r u 0 6 / 2 9 / 0 8 11 2 . 2 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 5 . 4 4 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 12,788.12 Total :26,417.50 10 5 9 7 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 7 8 0 0 P E T T Y C A S H t c p e t t y c a s h m i l e a g e r e i m b - M a y o r 49 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 65 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 50 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 7 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 7 8 0 0 P E T T Y C A S H mi l e a g e r e i m b - M a y o r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 89.94 la d d e r a n d c a b l e l o c k f o r i n s p e c t i o n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 2 4 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 53.38 co f f e e f o r 2 n d f l o o r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 49.08 sn o c o c l e r k s m e e t i n g - C h a s e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 12.00 co o k i e s f o r m a y o r s n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 8.98 sn o c o t o u r i s m b u r e a u m e e t i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 30.00 sn o c o c l e r k s m e e t i n g - H y n d 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 12.00 fo o d f o r m a y o r s m e e t i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 87.12 be v e r a g e s f o r m a y o r s m e e t i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 95.86 co f f e e f o r 2 n d f l o o r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 35.98 mi e l a g e f o r t r a i n i n g - S t a r t z m a n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 1 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 27.14 re i m b f o r m e a l f o r c o n f e r e n c e - E s p i n o z a 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 5 1 2 . 5 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 18.59 di s h s o a p - 2 n d f l o o r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.24 sc c f o a m e e t i n g - H y n d 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 24.03 Total :548.34 10 5 9 7 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 0 6 5 P I O N E E R R E S E A R C H C O R P 20 5 4 6 3 GR A F F I T I W I P E S GR A F F I T I W I P E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 698.00 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 29.72 50 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 66 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 51 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :727.72 10 5 9 7 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 9 0 6 5 0 6 9 0 6 5 P I O N E E R R E S E A R C H C O R P 10 5 9 7 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 1 6 7 P O L L A R D W A T E R . C O M - E A S T I2 2 8 2 1 1 - I N W A T E R - H Y D R A N T M E T E R - 2 . 5 " X 5 ' W A T E R - H Y D R A N T M E T E R - 2 . 5 " X 5 ' 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 432.00 HY D R A N T W R E N C H & S P A N N E R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 85.96 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 21.61 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 48.56 Total :588.13 10 5 9 8 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 5 1 0 5 P O R T S U P P L Y 27 4 1 UN I T M 1 6 - C A B L E T I E C R A D L E M O U N T UN I T M 1 6 - C A B L E T I E C R A D L E M O U N T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.39 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 0.48 UN I T E Q 3 5 P O - F U S E B L O C K , D O M E L I T E 60 1 3 UN I T E Q 3 5 P O - F U S E B L O C K , D O M E L I T E 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 53.98 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 4.80 UN I T M 1 6 - L U B E , C O L L A R 67 8 7 UN I T M 1 6 - L U B E , C O L L A R 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 33.46 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.97 UN I T M 1 6 - I N L E T 77 1 9 UN I T M 1 6 - I N L E T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 22.79 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.03 51 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 67 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 52 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 8 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 5 1 0 5 P O R T S U P P L Y UN I T M - 1 6 - F U E L C A R T R I D G E 77 2 0 UN I T M - 1 6 - F U E L C A R T R I D G E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 83.97 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.47 UN I T 3 0 4 - S U P P L I E S 77 9 5 UN I T 3 0 4 - S U P P L I E S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 28.05 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.50 Total :247.89 10 5 9 8 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 5 0 2 1 P R I N T I N G P L U S 64 5 9 5 W O T S B R O C H U R E W O R K W R I T E O N T H E S O U N D B R O C H U R E W O R K 12 3 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 2,095.46 Sa l e s T a x 12 3 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 186.50 W O T S B R O C H U R E W O R K 64 6 8 7 W R I T E O N T H E S O U N D B R O C H U R E W O R K 12 3 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 176.31 Sa l e s T a x 12 3 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 15.69 Total :2,473.96 10 5 9 8 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 1 8 4 P R O C O M 20 0 8 - 1 2 5 8 PR O F S E R V F I B E R O P T I C P R O J Pr o f S e r v F i b e r O p t i c P r o j f o r J u n e - 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 2 8 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,906.25 Total :1,906.25 10 5 9 8 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 8 9 4 0 P R O T E C T I O N & C O M M U N I C A T I O N I N C B L D 2 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 R e f u n d B l d g P e r m i t # 2 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 Re f u n d B l d g P e r m i t # 2 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 7 . 6 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 140.00 Total :140.00 10 5 9 8 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 6 9 0 0 P U G E T S O U N D E N E R G Y 79 1 8 8 0 7 0 0 4 YO S T P O O L 52 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 68 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 53 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 8 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 04 6 9 0 0 P U G E T S O U N D E N E R G Y YO S T P O O L 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 4,400.46 Total :4,400.46 10 5 9 8 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 6 9 0 0 P U G E T S O U N D E N E R G Y 01 0 1 8 7 4 0 0 6 LI B R A R Y LI B R A R Y 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 93.50 LI F T S T A T I O N # 7 19 1 6 7 6 6 0 0 7 LI F T S T A T I O N # 7 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 60.53 PU B L I C S A F E T Y - P O L I C E , C R T & C O U N C I L 27 5 3 1 6 6 0 0 4 PU B L I C S A F E T Y - P O L I C E , C R T & C O U N C E L 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 289.42 Pu b l i c W o r k s 27 7 6 3 6 5 0 0 5 Pu b l i c W o r k s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 1 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 5.93 Pu b l i c W o r k s 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 22.53 Pu b l i c W o r k s 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 22.53 Pu b l i c W o r k s 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 22.53 Pu b l i c W o r k s 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 22.53 Pu b l i c W o r k s 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 22.55 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 3 29 8 6 6 2 9 0 0 0 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 3 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 82.67 FL E E T 59 0 3 0 8 5 0 0 8 Fl e e t 7 1 1 0 2 1 0 t h S t S W 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 72.12 PU B L I C S A F E T Y - F I R E S T A T I O N 64 3 9 5 6 6 0 0 8 PU B L I C S A F E T Y - F I R E S T A T I O N 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 146.46 53 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 69 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 54 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 5 9 8 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 04 6 9 0 0 P U G E T S O U N D E N E R G Y AN D E R S O N C E N T E R 64 9 0 3 2 7 0 0 1 AN D E R S O N C E N T E R 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 701.94 LI F T S T A T I O N # 8 88 5 1 9 0 8 0 0 7 LI F T S T A T I O N # 8 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 54.94 FI R E S T A T I O N # 2 0 99 1 9 6 6 1 1 0 9 FI R E S T A T I O N # 2 0 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 56.35 Total :1,676.53 10 5 9 8 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 3 4 5 2 R A D I O S H A C K C O R P O R A T I O N 3 7 2 0 8 7 00 0 0 4 6 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 5 CA B L E 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 18.99 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 1.71 Total :20.70 10 5 9 8 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 3 7 0 R A I L R O A D C O N T R O L S L T D 10 1 7 8 2 0 RA I L R O A D Q U I E T Z O N E E V A L U A T I O N Ra i l r o a d q u i e t z o n e e v a l u a t i o n & r e p o r t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,998.39 Total :1,998.39 10 5 9 8 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 6 9 6 R A N K I N S , K A T E RA N K I N S 0 7 2 6 PL A Z A R O O M M O N I T O R PL A Z A R O O M M O N I T O R ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 240.00 Total :240.00 10 5 9 8 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 9 4 R I C H , S C O T T RI C H 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 275.00 Total :275.00 10 5 9 9 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 0 4 8 0 R I N A L D I , M A T T RI N A L D I 0 7 2 4 SE N I O R S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 125.00 54 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 70 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 55 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :125.00 10 5 9 9 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 0 4 8 0 0 7 0 4 8 0 R I N A L D I , M A T T 10 5 9 9 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 2 2 5 4 R I V E R O A K S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S C O R P 7 / 7 - 7 / 2 3 / 0 8 N P U G E T S N D C O N S O R T I U M V E R I Z O N P R O J N P u g e t S n d V e r i z o n F r a n c h i s e P r o j e c t - 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 9 . 7 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 2,422.32 Total :2,422.32 10 5 9 9 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 8 0 2 S A N D I E G O P O L I C E E Q U I P C O S A L E S T A X / 5 8 3 4 4 1 PA Y M E N T O F S A L E S T A X I N V # 5 8 3 4 4 1 SA L E S T A X P A Y M E N T / I N V # 5 8 3 4 4 1 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 4 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 38.82 Total :38.82 10 5 9 9 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 6 1 0 S C H L E I C H E R , B R I A N 7/ 0 8 Tu i t i o n r e i m b u r s e m e n t - S p r i n g 2 0 0 8 Tu i t i o n r e i m b u r s e m e n t - S p r i n g 2 0 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 5 1 6 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 794.40 Total :794.40 10 5 9 9 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 6 1 0 S C H L E I C H E R , B R I A N 51 0 - 2 3 1 3 AL S T R A V E L tr a i n i n g t r a v e l 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 105.30 Total :105.30 10 5 9 9 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 6 6 5 S E A T T L E M A C K S A L E S & S E R V I C E R O 3 8 5 7 9 UN I T 5 5 - R E P A I R L I G H T UN I T 5 5 - R E P A I R L I G H T 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 290.69 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 26.16 Total :316.85 10 5 9 9 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 0 7 6 S E A T T L E P U M P A N D E Q U I P M E N T C O 0 8 - 1 5 1 4 UN I T 3 1 - H O S E , F L O A T S , S E A L S UN I T 3 1 - H O S E , F L O A T S , S E A L S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1,360.51 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 40.29 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 126.07 55 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 71 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 56 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount (C o n t i n u e d ) Total :1,526.87 10 5 9 9 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 7 0 7 6 06 7 0 7 6 S E A T T L E P U M P A N D E Q U I P M E N T C O 10 5 9 9 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 1 1 3 5 S E A V I E W C H E V R O L E T 81 8 7 5 UN I T 1 1 5 - H A N D L E UN I T 1 1 5 - H A N D L E 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 42.90 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.82 Total :46.72 10 5 9 9 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 8 S E L M A N N , D A N S E L M A N N 0 7 2 4 S R . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 175.00 Total :175.00 10 5 9 9 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 2 2 9 9 S E R P E N T I X C O N V E Y O R C O R P 1 2 7 1 5 89 3 7 2 - 1 BE L T P A N / W A S H E R / N U T 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 930.00 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 33.32 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 85.74 Total :1,049.06 10 6 0 0 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 3 7 1 S H I B A T A , K E N SH I B A T A 0 7 2 2 RE F U N D RE T U R N I N G C R E D I T O N A C C O U N T 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 9 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 309.00 Total :309.00 10 6 0 0 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 6 4 4 S I G N O N 53 9 2 IN T E R P R E T I N G S E R V I C E S SI G N L A N G U A G E I N T E R P R E T I N G S E R V I C E S @ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 620.00 SI G N L A N G U A G E I N T E R P R E T I N G 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 81.92 Total :701.92 10 6 0 0 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 8 4 8 9 S I R E N N E T . C O M 00 8 0 6 1 2 - I N UN I T 3 7 9 - L E G 56 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 72 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 57 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 0 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 8 4 8 9 S I R E N N E T . C O M UN I T 3 7 9 - L E G 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 48.30 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.75 UN I T 6 5 1 - A R M 00 8 2 8 2 3 - I N UN I T 6 5 1 - A R M 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 188.10 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 15.95 UN I T 3 1 - S N A P - I N S 80 5 8 0 A - C M UN I T 3 1 - S N A P - I N S G 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 -69.00 Total :197.10 10 6 0 0 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 03 6 9 5 5 S K Y N U R S E R Y 27 1 5 7 5 PL A N T S RE P L A C E M E N T P L A N T S F O R B A S K E T S A T T H E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 67.56 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.08 Total :73.64 10 6 0 0 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 3 6 9 5 5 S K Y N U R S E R Y 27 3 2 3 7 W A T E R - T H R E E W A Y S O I L W A T E R - T H R E E W A Y S O I L 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 45.94 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.13 Total :50.07 10 6 0 0 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 5 8 0 3 S K Y H A W K S S P O R T S A C A D E M Y 2 3 8 8 2 0 3 1 9 MU L T I S P O R T & S O C C E R C A M P S MU L T I S P O R T # 9 3 6 9 ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,410.00 SO C C E R , M U L T I S P O R T 23 8 8 2 0 6 1 0 SO C C E R # 9 3 7 9 ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 4,446.00 57 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 73 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 58 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 0 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 5 8 0 3 S K Y H A W K S S P O R T S A C A D E M Y FL A G F O O T B A L L / B A S E B A L L 23 8 8 2 0 7 2 7 FL A G F O O T B A L L # 9 3 7 5 ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1,882.00 Total :7,738.00 10 6 0 0 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 03 7 3 7 5 S N O C O P U D N O 1 38 5 0 0 1 3 0 7 3 IR R I G A T I O N C O N T R O L IR R I G A T I O N C O N T R O L 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 29.74 UT I L I T Y B I L L I N G 38 9 0 0 1 4 0 8 1 75 0 1 5 T H S T S W ~ 13 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 3 6 . 5 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 90.81 UT I L I T Y B I L L I N G 41 2 0 0 1 4 1 5 6 75 0 1 5 T H S T S W ~ 13 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 3 6 . 5 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 16.43 UT I L I T Y B I L L I N G 41 6 0 0 1 7 3 3 3 41 5 5 T H A V E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 111.57 UT I L I T Y B I L L I N G 50 4 0 0 1 1 6 2 8 75 0 1 5 T H S T S W ~ 13 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 3 6 . 5 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 346.26 Total :594.81 10 6 0 0 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 03 7 3 7 5 S N O C O P U D N O 1 24 4 0 0 2 4 1 2 9 ME A D O W D A L E C L U B H O U S E ME A D O W D A L E C L U B H O U S E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 66.64 AN D E R S O N C U L T U R A L C E N T E R 26 7 0 0 2 2 1 8 1 AN D E R S O N C U L T U R A L C E N T E R 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 2,758.13 SI G N A L L I G H T 37 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 7 SI G N A L L I G H T 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 49.00 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 2 38 5 0 0 1 1 4 4 0 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 2 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 249.82 58 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 74 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 59 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 0 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 03 7 3 7 5 S N O C O P U D N O 1 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 5 40 7 0 0 2 2 0 2 7 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 5 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 28.28 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 1 41 3 0 0 2 6 5 9 6 LI F T S T A T I O N # 1 1 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 30.02 ST R E E T L I G H T 43 2 0 0 1 2 1 7 4 ST R E E T L I G H T 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 3 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 321.43 SI G N A L L I G H T 53 6 0 0 2 3 8 0 7 SI G N A L L I G H T 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 3 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 16.43 LO G C A B I N 55 0 0 0 1 9 3 5 0 LO G C A B I N 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 115.49 Total :3,635.24 10 6 0 0 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 03 7 7 2 3 S N O C O V I S I T O R I N F O C E N T E R 0 8 E d m - 1 SN O C O V I S C E N T J A N - J U N E 2 0 0 8 C O N T R I B U Sn o C o V i s i t o r s C e n t e r J a n - J u n e 2 0 0 8 12 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 7 5 . 4 2 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 10 6 0 0 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 6 6 3 0 S N O H O M I S H C O U N T Y I0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 5 IN V . 5 1 4 4 1 / S O L I D W A S T E C H A R G E S SO L I D W A S T E D U M P F E E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 777.01 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 27.99 Total :805.00 10 6 0 1 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 6 0 9 S N O H O M I S H C O U N T Y C I T I E S 7/ 2 9 / 0 8 Ju l y 2 4 D i n n e r - S n o . C o u n t y C i t i e s Ju l y 2 4 D i n n e r - S n o . C o u n t y C i t i e s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 37.50 Total :37.50 10 6 0 1 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 03 7 8 0 0 S N O H O M I S H H E A L T H D I S T R I C T A R 1 3 9 2 6 5 Co l l i n s - H E P A & B I n j e c t i o n s 59 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 75 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 60 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 1 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 03 7 8 0 0 S N O H O M I S H H E A L T H D I S T R I C T Co l l i n s - H E P A & B I n j e c t i o n s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 81.00 Total :81.00 10 6 0 1 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 0 8 5 2 S P E E R T A P S I N C 15 9 9 2 W A T E R - 8 " D I Q U I K V A L V E I N S T A L L A T I O N W A T E R - 8 " D I Q U I K V A L V E I N S T A L L A T I O N 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 5,075.00 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 451.68 W A T E R - 1 2 " D I I N S E R T A V A L V E 16 0 7 9 W A T E R - 1 2 " D I I N S E R T A V A L V E 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 12,000.00 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 1,068.00 Total :18,594.68 10 6 0 1 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 9 9 9 7 S R I T E C H N O L O G I E S I N C 87 1 0 5 E8 C A . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 2 / 0 8 E8 C A . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 2 / 0 8 11 2 . 2 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 5 . 3 3 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 1,657.50 E3 J B / E 3 G B . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 2 / 0 8 41 2 . 1 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 146.25 E3 J B / E 3 G B . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 2 / 0 8 41 2 . 2 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 146.25 E5 G A . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 2 / 0 8 41 2 . 3 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 130.00 60 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 76 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 61 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 1 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 9 9 9 7 S R I T E C H N O L O G I E S I N C E8 C A . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 9 / 0 8 87 3 1 2 E8 C A . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 9 / 0 8 11 2 . 2 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 5 . 3 3 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 780.00 E3 J B / E 3 G B . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 9 / 0 8 41 2 . 1 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 747.50 E3 J B / E 3 G B . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 9 / 0 8 41 2 . 2 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 747.50 E5 G A . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 9 / 0 8 41 2 . 3 0 0 . 6 3 0 . 5 9 4 . 3 2 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 910.00 EM 0 0 . R o b e r t s t h r u 0 7 / 1 9 / 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 292.50 Total :5,557.50 10 6 0 1 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 3 9 7 7 5 S T A T E A U D I T O R ' S O F F I C E L 7 1 9 6 1 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 1 9 . 9 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 1,641.92 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 4 2 . 9 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 68.41 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 273.65 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 273.65 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 273.65 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 3 . 3 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 68.41 Au d i t F e e s J u n e , 2 0 0 8 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 136.85 Total :2,736.54 10 6 0 1 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 9 4 0 0 S T E L L A R I N D U S T R I A L S U P P L Y I N C 2 7 1 3 5 9 5 W A T E R / S E W E R S U P P L I E S - G L O V E S , S A F E T Y 61 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 77 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 62 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 1 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 9 4 0 0 S T E L L A R I N D U S T R I A L S U P P L Y I N C W A T E R / S E W E R S U P P L I E S - G L O V E S , S A F E T Y 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 116.36 W A T E R / S E W E R S U P P L I E S - G L O V E S , S A F E T Y 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 116.35 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 10.36 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 10.35 Total :253.42 10 6 0 1 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 0 2 5 0 S T E U B E R D I S T R I B U T I N G 16 8 9 6 1 SU P P L I E S FL O W E R P R O G R A M S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 374.75 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 31.85 Total :406.60 10 6 0 1 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 4 0 4 3 0 S T O N E W A Y E L E C T R I C S U P P L Y 1 5 4 6 5 5 5 LI B R A R Y - E L E C T S U P P L I E S LI B R A R Y - E L E C T S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 107.20 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 9.54 PS - E L E C T R I C A L S U P P L I E S 15 4 8 2 9 9 PS - E L E C T R I C A L S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 474.66 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 42.24 PS - E L E C T S U P P L I E S 15 4 8 3 0 0 PS - E L E C T S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 147.86 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 1 . 5 1 9 . 9 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 13.16 Total :794.66 10 6 0 1 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 7 8 3 5 T - M O B I L E 13 5 8 4 0 7 7 2 CE L L P H O N E U S E A G E 62 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 78 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 63 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 1 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 7 8 3 5 T - M O B I L E CA N C E L L A T I O N F E E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 1 8 . 8 8 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 200.00 PA R K M A I N T E N A N C E C E L L P H O N E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 53.01 Total :253.01 10 6 0 1 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 0 9 1 7 T A C O M A S C R E W P R O D U C T S I N C 1 0 6 7 9 4 4 4 UN I T E Q 3 5 P O - P L U G UN I T E Q 3 5 P O - P L U G 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 9.75 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 4.53 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 1.27 UN I T E Q 3 5 P O - S U P P L I E S 10 6 8 0 6 5 1 UN I T E Q 3 5 P O - S U P P L I E S 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 38.96 Fr e i g h t 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 4.53 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 9 4 . 4 8 0 . 6 4 0 . 0 0 3.87 ST R E E T - S O C K E T S E T S , L O N G A R M H E X K E Y S 10 6 9 9 5 1 8 ST R E E T - S O C K E T S E T S , L O N G A R M H E X K E Y S 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 59.13 Fr e i g h t 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 4.81 Sa l e s T a x 11 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.69 Total :132.54 10 6 0 2 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 0 9 1 6 T C S P A N A M E R I C A 44 8 4 1 UN I F O R M S 63 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 79 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 64 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 2 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 04 0 9 1 6 T C S P A N A M E R I C A AL S s w e a t s h i r t s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 567.00 Op e r a t i o n s s w e a t s h i r t s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 567.00 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 6 . 1 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 50.47 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 50.46 Total :1,234.93 10 6 0 2 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 9 3 5 0 T H E D A I L Y H E R A L D C O M P A N Y 1 5 9 9 2 4 5 NE W S P A P E R A D 7/ 2 2 P u b l i c H e a r i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 63.18 NE W S P A P E R A D S 15 9 9 3 0 4 7/ 2 2 P u b l i c H e a r i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 67.86 NE W S P A P E R A D 16 0 0 5 0 7 7/ 2 9 C l o s e d R e c o r d A p p e a l 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 53.28 NE W S P A P E R A D 16 0 0 5 1 0 7/ 2 9 P u b l i c H e a r i n g 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 38.48 Total :222.80 10 6 0 2 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 00 9 3 5 0 T H E D A I L Y H E R A L D C O M P A N Y 1 5 9 8 2 0 7 Le g a l N o t i c e S M 0 8 - 3 1 M e a d o w d a l e M a r i n a Le g a l N o t i c e S M 0 8 - 3 1 M e a d o w d a l e M a r i n a 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 45.88 Le g a l N o t i c e - A P - 0 8 - 2 B r e s k e 15 9 8 7 5 7 Le g a l N o t i c e - A P - 0 8 - 2 B r e s k e 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 23.68 Le g a l N o t i c e - S - 2 0 0 8 - 4 1 S t e i c h e n 15 9 8 8 5 0 Le g a l N o t i c e - S - 2 0 0 8 - 4 1 S t e i c h e n 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 2 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 14.80 Total :84.36 64 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 80 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 65 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 2 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 2 3 6 9 T H E M O O D S W I N G S MO O D S W I N G S 0 8 0 3 PA R K C O N C E R T PA R K C O N C E R T P E R F O R M E R S ~ 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 4 . 2 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 400.00 Total :400.00 10 6 0 2 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 1 8 5 2 T I G E R P U B L I S H I N G C O 20 0 8 - 1 0 2 Ne w s l e t t e r s e r v i c e s - J u l y 2 0 0 8 Ne w s l e t t e r s e r v i c e s - J u l y 2 0 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 480.31 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 5 1 3 . 1 1 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 42.75 Total :523.06 10 6 0 2 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 6 4 9 6 3 T O P F O O D S 40 0 6 0 5 OP S S U P P L I E S st a t i o n s ' c l e a n i n g s u p p l i e s 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 39.21 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 3.49 Total :42.70 10 6 0 2 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 2 8 0 0 T R I - C I T I E S S E C U R I T Y 1 4 7 0 4 UN I T 3 0 4 - C A M L O C K S UN I T 3 0 4 - C A M L O C K S 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 71.60 Sa l e s T a x 51 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 7 . 5 4 8 . 6 8 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 6.37 Total :77.97 10 6 0 2 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 1 1 9 2 U N I T E D P I P E & S U P P L Y 79 3 6 4 6 1 IR R I G A T I O N S U P P L I E S CO U P L I N G S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 168.72 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 15.02 65 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 81 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 66 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 2 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 06 1 1 9 2 U N I T E D P I P E & S U P P L Y IR R I G A T I O N S U P P L I E S 79 3 6 5 9 0 HE A D C O V E R 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 80.50 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.50 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 7.83 IR R I G A T I O N S U P P L I E S 79 3 6 6 2 3 IR R I G A T I O N S U P P L I E S 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 60.60 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 5.39 Total :345.56 10 6 0 2 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 1 1 9 2 U N I T E D P I P E & S U P P L Y 79 1 1 6 2 0 W A T E R Q U A L I T Y - Q U I C K C O N N E C T F O R W A T E R Q U A L I T Y - Q U I C K C O N N E C T F O R 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 1,500.00 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 133.50 W A T E R - S U P P L I E S - 3 / 4 " C T S I N S E R T S 79 2 9 7 4 1 W A T E R - S U P P L I E S - 3 / 4 " C T S I N S E R T S 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 23.40 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 4 . 5 3 4 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 0 2.08 Total :1,658.98 10 6 0 2 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 4 4 3 0 0 U S P O S T A L S E R V I C E 72 5 2 0 0 8 PO S T A G E F O R M E T E R Po s t a g e f o r C i t y M e t e r 25 0 - 0 0 2 0 7 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 8,000.00 Total :8,000.00 10 6 0 3 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 04 4 3 0 0 U S P O S T A L S E R V I C E 10 3 6 BU L K M A I L I N G Pe r m i t 1 0 3 6 B u l k M a i l T r u s t 25 0 - 0 0 2 0 8 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 66 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 82 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 67 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 3 1 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 9 5 9 2 U S A M O B I L I T Y W I R E L E S S R0 2 9 8 8 9 7 G IN V # R 0 2 9 8 8 9 7 G - E D M O N D S P D CE L L P H O N E S E R V I C E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 1 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 84.03 Total :84.03 10 6 0 3 2 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 6 V A S C O N C E L L O S , J O E VA S C O N C E L L O S 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 525.00 Total :525.00 10 6 0 3 3 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 01 1 9 0 0 V E R I Z O N N O R T H W E S T 42 5 - N W 4 - 3 7 2 6 FR A M E R E L A Y F O R F S # 2 0 & S N O C O M FR A M E R E L A Y F O R F S # 2 0 & S N O C O M 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 8 . 6 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 247.00 Total :247.00 10 6 0 3 4 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 8 2 2 7 W C F A ED W A R D S 0 7 3 0 CO N F E R E N C E R E G I S T R A T I O N CO N F E R E N C E R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R W C F A F A L L 13 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 3 6 . 5 0 0 . 4 9 0 . 0 0 285.00 Total :285.00 10 6 0 3 5 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 06 8 1 0 6 W E L C O M E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S 6 2 2 2 OP S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S Mo t o r o l a c h a r g e r / c o n d i t i o n e r 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 379.00 Fr e i g h t 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 9.83 Sa l e s T a x 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 34.60 Total :423.43 10 6 0 3 6 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 1 W H I T E , D A N W H I T E 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 50.00 Total :50.00 10 6 0 3 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 4 9 9 0 5 W H I T N E Y E Q U I P M E N T C O I N C 0 0 2 9 7 0 3 - I N ED M O C I 67 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 83 of 24 7 07 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 Vo u c h e r L i s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s 68 1 : 0 9 : 1 0 P M Page: vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : fr o n t Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e PO # De s c r i p t i o n /Ac c o u n t Amount 10 6 0 3 7 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 (C o n t i n u e d ) 04 9 9 0 5 W H I T N E Y E Q U I P M E N T C O I N C DO C A R T R I D G E 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 1,370.00 Fr e i g h t 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 10.68 Sa l e s T a x 41 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 6 . 5 3 8 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 2 122.88 Total :1,503.56 10 6 0 3 8 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 0 7 0 4 3 2 Z A C H O R & T H O M A S P S I N C 80 0 AP R I L - J U L Y 2 0 0 8 R E T A I N E R Ap r i l - J u l y 0 8 R e t a i n e r $ 6 , 0 0 0 p e r m o n t h 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 3 6 0 . 5 1 5 . 2 3 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 24,000.00 Total :24,000.00 10 6 0 3 9 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 8 07 0 4 8 5 Z Y L S T R A , R O N ZY L S T R A 0 7 2 4 SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E SR . S O F T B A L L U M P I R E 00 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 4 0 . 5 7 5 . 5 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 175.00 Total :175.00 Bank total : 2 3 7 , 4 5 5 . 6 3 19 7 V o u c h e r s f o r b a n k c o d e : fr o n t 237,455.63 Total vouchers : Vo u c h e r s i n t h i s r e p o r t 19 7 68 Page: Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 of 24 7 AM-1694 2.D. Council Acceptance of Capital Project (Natural Gas Line Replacement) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the Natural Gas Line Replacement Project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the Natural Gas Line Replacement Project. Previous Council Action None Narrative On March 25, 2008, a small works contract was signed with Adept Mechanical to replace the corroded natural gas line buried in the parking lot of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The work was substantially complete on May 7, 2008. Project Budget $18,311.43 Contractor (Adept Mechanical) $18,311.43 Total Project Costs $18,311.43 Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/28/2008 11:00 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/28/2008 11:03 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/28/2008 04:43 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho Started On: 07/28/2008 10:20 AM Final Approval Date: 07/28/2008 Packet Page 85 of 247 AM-1702 2.E. Professional Services Contract (Sanders & Associates, Inc.) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Sanders and Associates Inc. (SAI) for the outfall sediment sampling and analysis project. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with SAI for the outfall sediment sampling and analysis project. Previous Council Action None Narrative Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has required the City to perform sediment sampling and analysis in the area of the two outfall pipes that discharge treated water into Puget Sound. The work includes scuba divers obtaining soil samples and performing video inspection of the outfall pipes, soil analysis by outside laboratories, and reporting to the City and DOE. Staff reviewed the consultant roster and selected SAI as the most qualified firm to perform this work. The cost to the City for this work will not exceed $59,808. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: SAI agreement Link: SAI scope of work Link: SAI detailed scope of work Link: SAI fee detail Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:42 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 10:44 AM APRV Packet Page 86 of 247 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 11:54 AM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho Started On: 07/31/2008 10:15 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 87 of 247 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Sanders & Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide services with respect to performing sediment sampling in accordance with the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan and Addenda, as well as inspecting and videotaping the outfall lines and diffusers. 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 Exhibit A, as the same is supplemented and clarified by Attachment 1, both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. 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 10 days notice to Consultant, to inspect, review and, subject to the consent of the Consultant, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, 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. Packet Page 88 of 247 2 3. 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 as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of Fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and eight dollars and twenty-two cents ($59,808.22) for direct labor costs and direct expenses. 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 monthly 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 Plant Manager three (3) days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the amount thereof. 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 (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 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 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 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 (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. Packet Page 89 of 247 3 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. 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. 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 (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. 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 any Exhibit hereto, this Agreement shall control. 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 Consultant 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 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. Packet Page 90 of 247 4 15. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Carol Sanders Sanders & Associates, Inc. 13256 Northup Way, Suite 15 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT: By By Signature Signature Its Its ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Packet Page 91 of 247 5 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 92 of 247 1 Sanders and Associates, Inc. 13256 Northup Way, Suite 15 Bellevue, WA, 98005 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Sanders & Associates, Inc (SAI) scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish sediment sampling in accordance the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (Sanders & Associates, Inc. November, 2005) and Addenda (Sanders & Associates, Inc, May 2008). The Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was prepared using the guidance provided in: Sediment Source Control Standards User Manual, Appendix B: Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix (Ecology 2003). The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has approved the SAP. The City of Edmonds’ NPDES permit No. WA-002405-8 also requires an outfall inspection using a diver (NPDES section S12. Outfall Evaluation). By having a diver collect samples and video tape both outfalls at the same time SAI will save the City substantial costs. Presently, the SAP describes basic means and methods of sampling and analysis, and does not indicate diver inspection. SAI’s goal is to efficiently collect samples and conduct inspection simultaneously while meeting the requirements of both the permit and the Toxic Cleanup Program and Aquatic Lands Cleanup Unit with the Department of Ecology. Sediment Testing and Evaluation The NPDES permit requires a comprehensive and site-specific sediment sampling and analysis plan (SAP). The DOE allows for a tiered approach to testing. This means that the City can perform the sediment chemistry tests and determine if biological testing will be required. This tiered approach is recommended with the following limitations: 1) Adequate samples should be collected for conducting both the sediment chemistry and biological tests in one sampling event. 2) Holding times for biological test will require rapid turn-around and response time. SAI is planning to use the services of certified laboratories from the area, such as Analytical Resources, Inc (sediment chemistry) and Nautilus Environmental (biological testing) to perform the chemistry and biological tests for our sampling. Outfall Evaluation- Video Taping and Diving: The NPDES permit also requires that an outfall inspection occur and be submitted with the application for permit renewal. Combining the inspection Packet Page 93 of 247 2 with the sampling is a cost savings. A diver will collect samples as outlined in the SAP and provide an underwater video (DVD) of the two outfall lines and diffusers. The DVD will be narrated and stationed so that the information can be replicated if necessary. Project Setup SAI and subcontractors (divers and field technicians) will meet with the City to determine moorage, public relations and communication protocol. Given that the sampling will occur in the summer and at a public fishing location, it is important to have key contacts defined prior to sampling. It is anticipated that the sampling and inspection will occur over a two day period. The City and SAI staff and subcontractors will meet prior to mobilization so that all City staff and public are informed. Field Inspection Samples will be collected from eight locations identified in the SAP. Chemical analysis will be conducted on these eight samples. ARI will be the laboratory conducting analysis. Exhibit B identifies the approximate costs for sediment chemistry. ARI is the only regional laboratory certified for testing coprostanol, an additional requirement added by Addenda to the SAP. Analysis will be performed in five days to meet holding times for bioassay testing. If a sample fails Sediment Quality Standards (173-204 WAC) then samples will under go biological testing. Biological testing (described in Attachment 1) is deemed necessary when sediments are determined to have potential biological “effects”. Prior sampling conducted by SAI indicated some sample locations exceeded Sediment Quality Standards. However, given the site conditions, sufficient volume was not available for biological testing. Using diver cores, SAI will have sufficient volume and more precise locations on potential sediment impact areas. Biological testing will be conducted by Nautilus Environmental Inc. Initial Evaluation SAI will prepare a draft document for the City’s review and edits. If constituents of concern (sediment chemistry) require determination of adverse effects (biological testing), the City will be notified prior to determining the next course of action. Sediment chemistry results will predicate the need for biological testing. The City is required to proceed with biological testing given these results. Given the cost of such testing (Exhibit B) it is imperative that the City approves this testing required in the SAP and per the holding times required in the SAP. Packet Page 94 of 247 3 The draft report will be an internal document for the City and SAI’s use. SAI will meet with the City to discuss the results and the course of action required. Reporting SAI will prepare a final document, wherein all activities performed and sampling event results will be explained and commented upon. Our report will include a survey footage video and AutoCAD drawings, necessary for the approval of the Department of Ecology. The report will be approximately thirty pages excluding laboratory data. Three DVDs will be provided of the dive inspection. SAI will meet with the City post inspection and review the report and data collected prior to editing. Packet Page 95 of 247 Sanders & Associates, Inc. 13256 Northup Way, Suite 15 Bellevue, WA, 98005 ATTACHMENT 1 Task 1: Sampling Equipment SAI will pursue all equipment needed for sampling in accordance to the SAP. Some of the instrumentation SAI will use for this task is: • Boat • Scuba Diver Equipment (for 2 Divers) • Diver and Cores • Boat Mileage On Site • Boat Mobilization • Trimble DGPS • Underwater Video System • Other Instrumentation (moorage, materials) Task 2: Sediment Sampling and Outfall inspection (Labor): SAI will collect 8 samples from the selected sampling locations outlined in the analysis plan, which has been previously submitted and approved by the Department of Ecology. Below is a list of the labor that may be used for this task. • Mobilization/Demobilization • Diver • QA/QC • Project Manager • Project Engineer SAI will also coordinate with Research Support Services, our subcontractor, the inspection of the two (2) outfalls, part of the City of Edmonds Treatment Plant. We will provide the City with underwater video survey footage. Task 3: Laboratory Testing SAI will coordinate services to obtain eight (8) lab test results for chemical and if needed, biological parameters that the Dept. of Ecology requires. Sediments will be analyzed for the 47 chemical and chemical groups listed in the Sediment Management Standards, along with additional constituents. If any of the Sediment Quality Standards are exceeded, then biological tests will be performed. Analytical Resources Inc. will be called upon to provide the chemical testing for the 8 samples, which includes: • Grain Size • Total Solids, Total Volatile Solids, Total Organic Carbon, Total Sulfides and Ammonia • Metal (including Hg) • Semi-volatiles, PCBs, Pesticides, and Volatile Compounds • Coprostanol Packet Page 96 of 247 Sanders & Associates, Inc. 13256 Northup Way, Suite 15 Bellevue, WA, 98005 Nautilus Environmental will be the chosen firm to perform the biological testing for the 8 samples if needed. Testing would include: • 2 Acute Chronic Test—Microtox Assay • 1 Acute Larval Development • Microtox 100% Sediment, Porewater Assay Task 4: Reports and Meetings Before, during and after the sampling event, SAI team and subcontractors will meet with the City for general coordination. SAI will prepare a final document, wherein all activities performed and sampling event results will be explained and commented upon. Our report will include a survey footage video and AutoCAD drawings, necessary for approval by the Department of Ecology. Exhibit B outlines the aforementioned tasks that need to be completed and their associated costs. Packet Page 97 of 247 Sanders & Associates, Inc. 13256 Northup Way, Suite 15 Bellevue, WA, 98005 Packet Page 98 of 247 Sanders & Associates, Inc. 13256 Northup Way, Suite 15 Bellevue, WA, 98005 EXHIBIT B Cost per Task for Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Task 1. Sampling Equipment $4000.00 Task 2. Sediment Sampling and Outfall Evaluation $6820.00 Task 3. Laboratories (8 samples) Chemical $10,359.00 Biological $18,900.00 Task 4. Reports, Meeting and Video $14,290.00 TOTAL $54,371.11 10% Contingency $ 5,437.11 TOTAL $59,808.22 Sanders & Associates, Inc.- Billing Rates Personnel Rate (per hr) Project Manager - Carol Sanders 138.00 Project Coordinator – Madrigal Hernandez 85.00 Cad Drafter 85.00 Project Administrator 60.00 Field Technician – Candice Au-Yeung 60.00 Key Subcontractors: Littoral Ecological & Environmental Services Nautilus Environmental Analytical Resources, Inc. Research Resources Services Packet Page 99 of 247 AM-1696 2.F. RFQ for Aquatic Center Feasibility Study Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:Consent Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Authorization to Advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consulting firms or consultant teams to perform an Aquatics Center Feasibility Study. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize staff to advertise for statements of qualification from consulting firms or consultant teams to perform an Aquatics Center Feasibility Study. Previous Council Action None Narrative During the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update Council review process the need for this study was discussed to provide up to date information regarding a wide range of aquatic related questions within the City of Edmonds. Among topics addressed in the study will be: industry trends, cost estimates of various conceptual designs, location analysis, M & O, program and revenue, funding options, community and economic impacts, and assessment of complimentary and competing facilities. Consultant selection would be completed by mid September with a project completion date of mid December. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Aquatic Feasibility Study RFQ Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/28/2008 04:42 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/28/2008 04:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/30/2008 10:10 AM APRV Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 07/28/2008 01:00 PM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2008 Packet Page 100 of 247 City of Edmonds, Washington REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) Aquatic Center Feasibility Study Purpose of Request The City of Edmonds (“City”) is soliciting Statements of Qualifications from consultant firms or consultant teams in connection with performing services for the City. The City’s needs are outlined below. The City of Edmonds is accepting statements of qualifications from a qualified consultant or consultant team to perform an Aquatic Center Feasibility Study. The study will explore and discuss conceptual options for the development of a viable aquatic center in the City of Edmonds. In addition, the study will address current conditions at the existing pool and evaluate possible options for that site. The study is intended to consider both the aquatic needs of the City of Edmonds and those of a potential regional scope. The City expects that the following concerns will be addressed as part of the study: • changes within the industry • estimated preliminary costs of various conceptual designs • location analysis • maintenance and operations costs • program use and potential revenues • funding and development options • community social and economic impacts • assessment of complementary and competing facilities Background / Project Overview The City of Edmonds is located 14 miles north of Seattle on Puget Sound and is home to 40,760 people. The City is 8.9 square miles with five miles of shoreline including five waterfront parks and the Port of Edmonds. The City owns and manages approximately 260 acres of parks and open space. There is an additional 229 acres of County-owned parks and open space within the City. The City of Edmonds single public swimming pool is an outdoor facility open annually from Memorial Day to Labor Day. It was constructed in 1972 and has been well maintained since that time. Two major renovations have taken place with an expanded deck and spa addition and covered viewing areas. Costly maintenance issues, including Deleted: Edmond’s Packet Page 101 of 247 the inability to secure replacement parts for antiquated mechanical systems and the age of the facility, are major concerns. The goal is to provide citizens, City Council and staff with a variety of potential options to address the need for a year-round, covered aquatic facility as identified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. This study will provide conceptual ideas and illustrations to guide the decision making process in regard to the City of Edmonds aquatics future. Meaningful citizen engagement through workshops, focus groups, and other means is an important element of the work program. Assistance will be provided by City staff to facilitate these workshops and programs. Several studies and efforts to cover or replace the existing pool have been conducted in the past, including a concerted effort from 1995 – 2000. The consultant will present updates and findings to the Edmonds Planning Board and Edmonds City Council. The proposed total amount budgeted for the consultant work under this project is $60,000, allocated from the Parks Improvement 125 Fund. Project Manager Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director 425-771-0256 mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us Consultant Selection Criteria Experience in aquatic planning and conceptual design Experience with and approach to public involvement Understanding of project Project approach Cost effective solutions Quality assurance Personnel resources/capacity to perform Past performance Selection Panel A selection panel will be comprised of 5-6 persons made up of citizens, City Staff, and City Park/Planning Board. Submittal Requirements The Statement of Qualifications will be the basis from which the best qualified firms will be selected for interview. The respondent shall list, on the cover sheet of the response, the following information about the prime consultant: Firm name, address, phone number, fax number, and a contact person with email. Deleted: Packet Page 102 of 247 The title of the Submittal shall be: Statement of Qualifications for Aquatic Center Feasibiliy Study. Submit five copies of SOQ to the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, attn: Brian McIntosh, Director, 700 Main St, Edmonds WA 98020. Submittals will be accepted until 4:30 PM on Thursday, August 28, 2008. Submittals shall be limited to no more than 20 pages. Further correspondence or contact with City Staff should be directed via email to Brian McIntosh (mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us). Any questions must be submitted in writing; all interested consultants may obtain a copy of the questions and responses by submitting a written request (email is preferred). We ask that your SOQ be organized in the following format: (a) Project Understanding (b) Project Approach (c) Project Delivery (d) Proposed Schedule (e) Experience (f) Proposed Team Organization (including resources and capacity to perform) (g) Team Member Resumes (h) References Other information and creative ideas your firm wishes to present are welcome. At your discretion, you may insert additional information into the SOQ where you deem appropriate. Project Schedule: • RFQ Submittal Deadline August 28, 2008 • Interviews September 9, 2008 • Official project start date By September 23, 2008 • Project completion date By December 16, 2008 Packet Page 103 of 247 AM-1700 2.G. SCSC Kitchen Equipment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Jim Stevens Time:Consent Department:Public Works Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Authorization to solicit quotes in excess of $50,000 for new South County Senior Center kitchen equipment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Provide authorization to staff to solicit quotes for replacement kitchen equipment for the South County Senior Center. Previous Council Action City Council Resolution #1049, resolved October 28, 2003, authorized the Mayor to make formal application for 2004 Community Development Block Grant funding, with a remodel of the Senior Center kitchen identified as the highest priority project proposed in this application. Narrative The existing kitchen equipment at the Senior Center is no longer serviceable and needs to be replaced. Operational safety is also an ongoing concern. Staff secured funding, earmarked in the 2004 Community Development Block Grants (formerly known as HUD grants), for the remodel of the Senior Center kitchen as its top priority. A construction project will be a separate piece of this remodel. The quotes proposed to be requested here are for fixed equipment estimated to be worth between $60,000 and $80,000 for use in the remodeled kitchen. All equipment purchases are intended to be reimbursed to the City through grants. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 09:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 09:53 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:43 AM APRV Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 07/31/2008 09:49 AM Packet Page 104 of 247 Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 105 of 247 AM-1704 2.H. Community Service Announcement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Submitted For:Council President Plunkett Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Proposed Resolution establishing criteria for use of the "Community Service Announcement" portion of the City Council Agenda. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council President Plunkett requested that the resolution be placed on the Consent Agenda for the City Council's review and approval. Previous Council Action Narrative The following documents are attached: 1. Memorandum from Council President Plunkett dated July 11, 2008. 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Exhibit A to the Resolution (rules established for access to the City's web site). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Memo from Council President Plunkett Link: Proposed Resolution Link: Exhibit A to Resolution Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:24 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 01:36 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:51 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/31/2008 11:56 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 106 of 247 City of Edmonds MEMORANDUM Date: July 11, 2008 To: Councilmembers From: Michael Plunkett, Council President Subject: Chamber of Commerce Public Service Announcements An issue and an idea continue to come up. Several great local organizations ask for time at Council meetings to make public service announcements. Most recently the Chamber has asked to be put first on agendas for about ten announcements over the rest of the year. Complying with this request would be a violation of existing council policy for order on agenda and, in general, would not be fair to other organizations. I was elected Council President to uphold Council policy and to administer it fairly and openly. I may have a solution for your consideration. This kind of issue comes up all the time. I have spend time speaking to some folks about this before. So here is what I’m going to do. I will put on each agenda a five minute Public Service Announcement item at the start of each meeting. This way the opportunity to make a PSA will be equitable for all and avoids just setting aside time for one organization when there many worthy organizations. Hence, to make this an equitable situation for all those who meet the criteria (see Mr. Clifton’s policy for existing criteria for PSA); I am going to allow a five-minute segment at the beginning of the agenda for public service announcements. In the beginning, I would like to do this on a trial basis; and if it presents too many difficulties or the Council is not on board with this, we can rethink it. But I would like to give all the worthy organizations an opportunity. Now I know there maybe some details to work out but why not give it a try and see how it works. Thanks for your consideration. C: Mayor Haakenson Stephen Clifton, Director CS/ED Sandy Chase, City Clerk COUNCIL OFFICE L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0016_1704_Public Service Announcements 7-11-08.doc Packet Page 107 of 247 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/28/08 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR USE OF THE “COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT” PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to provide an opportunity at City Council meetings for community organizations to make public service announcements, and, WHEREAS, City Council meetings are a limited public forum in which an opportunity for general public comment is provided later in the agenda, and WHEREAS, the City currently permits use of government channel 21 and the City’s web site through links for certain limited community organizations, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to make those same policies applicable to its public comment period, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A fifteen-minute opportunity for public service announcements is hereby established at a time to be designated by the Council President on the Council’s regular meeting dates. City Council meetings are a limited public forum and their primary purpose is to conduct public business as set forth in the City Council’s agenda. An opportunity for public comment is provided at a later time in the agenda. The Community Service Announcement period shall be administered under the same rules as have been established for access to the {WSS701761.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 108 of 247 City’s web site and the establishment of links thereon. A copy of that policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. Community organizations, as defined in the attached Exhibit A, may request an opportunity to make a public service announcement by contacting the City Council President or Council resource person. Application to make a public service announcement should be made by noon on Thursday of the week preceding the agenda on which the announcement is sought to be made. The Council resource person or Council President shall be provided with a brief written description of the announcement to be made. The Council President or resource person may request the information set froth on the attached regarding the organization’s mission or purpose, including an explanation of its relevance to the Edmonds community, a contact person and the name, business address and telephone number of the organization. This information need not be provided each time a community organization makes a request, but may be required for first-time requesters. Information regarding qualifying community organizations may be maintained on file by the Council resource person. Section 3. In the event that more than one organization makes application, the Council President may divide the fifteen-minute time between them, establish other time limits or request additional time from the Council. In the event of conflict between two requests, the Council President may assign time on a first-come/first-served basis. Section 4. Nothing herein should be interpreted as expanding the limited public forum or limiting the right of the City Council as necessary to cancel the public comment period for any given meeting. The City Council’s agenda time is limited and other City Council business may take priority. The time at which the public announcements are made may vary from meeting to meeting depending on the urgency of other public business. {WSS701761.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 109 of 247 RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2008. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. {WSS701761.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 110 of 247 CITY of EDMONDS WEB SITE ACCESS AND LINKAGE POLICY The City of Edmonds web site was developed for the limited purpose of providing information regarding the Edmonds community, local government services, local civic events, local news events, local regulations, and other designated materials directly and uniquely relevant to the City of Edmonds and its residents. Nothing in this policy or in the City’s web site itself shall be deemed to create or constitute a public forum. The City of Edmonds does not provide web site hosting for the general public, but does provide Internet links to the web sites of designated government, non-profit, civic and local organizations that have a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds. Any organization or group hosting a web site to which the City of Edmonds web page provides a link shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the content thereof. [Please see the City of Edmonds Web Page Disclaimer LINK] Organizations or groups desiring to place a link on the City of Edmonds web site must apply in writing to the City of Edmonds Community Services Department. The application must contain the following information: The name, business address, and telephone number of the organization The URL or Internet address of the organization’s web site The content of the organization’s web site The organization’s mission or purpose An explanation of the organization’s specific relevance to the Edmonds community The organization’s designated contact person for purposes of communicating with the City of Edmonds The organization’s registered agent for purposes of receiving legal service of process The identity of other web sites that provide an Internet link to the organization’s web site The City of Edmonds Community Services Department will determine whether or not to approve each organization’s application and will notify the applicant of the decision within ten days of receiving an application. In rendering its decision, the Community Services Department shall consider the guidelines enumerated below in light of the stated purpose of the City of Edmonds web site. Generally, Internet links to the following types of web sites may be permissible: Governmental and public educational institutions located within the State of Washington Local organizations having a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or with which the City of Edmonds partners in order to provide services, including but not limited to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Port of Edmonds, and Stevens Hospital Local cultural, artistic, civic or non-profit recreational organizations having either a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or specific and direct relevance to City residents Tourist information {JZL507167.DOC;3/00006.900020/} Packet Page 111 of 247 Information regarding Edmonds community events, such as festivals, art displays and neighborhood fairs Generally, Internet links to the following types of web sites are not permitted: Political candidate sites or sites advocating a position on political issues, including but not limited to ballot propositions For-profit business or commercial sites Individual personal home pages Sites containing religious proselytizing or spiritual instruction to the extent consistent with Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) or other controlling case or statute Sites containing illegal, obscene or pornographic content Nothing herein shall be deemed to abridge or otherwise limit the City’s unrestricted and sole discretion to restrict, limit, alter or remove any material or link posted on the City’s official web site at any time and without notice for any reason, including but not limited to administrative convenience, space availability or appearance of impropriety. The fact that the City has previously authorized the posting of material on its official web site by any organization or group shall in no way be construed to establish any future right by such organization or group to post additional materials or links, or to limit the City’s ability to restrict, limit, alter or remove any such material or link once posted. Any organization whose application for web site linkage has been denied by the City may file a letter of appeal with the Mayor within 30 days of receiving a written denial from the Community Services Department. {JZL507167.DOC;3/00006.900020/} Packet Page 112 of 247 AM-1699 3. Closed Record Appeal: Subdivide Arbor Court Townhomes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Michael Clugston Time:30 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision to deny the request by Steve Smith Development LLC, represented by Jean Morgan of Morgan Design Group, to subdivide Arbor Court, a 1.27 acre parcel developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee-simple townhouse parcels. The site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-1.5) and is located at 23800 – 23824 Edmonds Way. (File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council to consider the appeal and either: 1. Affirm, modify or reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the subdivision; or, 2. Remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner for additional consideration or clarification, with the Council specifiying the items or issues to be considered. Previous Council Action At the July 29, 2008, Council meeting, staff and the applicant presented oral arguments regarding the appeal. Deliberation and action were continued until the August 5 meeting to allow Council time to review the transcripts from the Hearing Examiner's May 15th meeting which were mistakenly left out of the July 29 Council packet. Narrative Addtional information is being appended to the Council packet from the July 29th meeting. The verbatim transcripts from the May 15, 2008 public hearing with the Hearing Examiner are attached as Exhibit 9. Questions from Councilmen Wambolt (Exhibit 10), Bernheim (Exhibit 11), and Orvis (Exhibit 12) are also included. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 9 - Verbatim Transcript Hearing Examiner, May 15, 2008 Link: Exhibit 10 - Question from Councilman Wambolt Link: Exhibit 11 - Questions from Councilman Bernheim Packet Page 113 of 247 Link: Exhibit 12 - Questions from Councilman Orvis Link: City Attorney Memo Dated 07-31-08 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:36 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 01:46 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:51 PM APRV Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 07/31/2008 09:12 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 114 of 247 Packet Page 115 of 247 Packet Page 116 of 247 Packet Page 117 of 247 Packet Page 118 of 247 Packet Page 119 of 247 Packet Page 120 of 247 Packet Page 121 of 247 Packet Page 122 of 247 Packet Page 123 of 247 Packet Page 124 of 247 Packet Page 125 of 247 Packet Page 126 of 247 Packet Page 127 of 247 Packet Page 128 of 247 Packet Page 129 of 247 Packet Page 130 of 247 Packet Page 131 of 247 A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 Web: www.omwlaw.com {WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/} MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2008 TO: Edmonds City Council FROM: Office of the City Attorney, W. Scott Snyder RE: Burden of Proof and Application of Criteria in the Harbor House Appeal (File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4) INTRODUCTION Because this matter comes to the Council on the appeal of the Applicant without significant public opposition, there has been no opportunity to develop an "opposing viewpoint." Our office has previously provided legal advice to the City Council regarding Washington law. Our advice to the City Council is provided as a neutral assessment by your legal counsel of the position of staff, the Appellant and the Hearing Examiner. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the burdens of proof and potential decisions in light of the Hearing Examiner's Decision and to assist the Council in your deliberations. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ON APPEAL On appeal, findings that the Council may make regarding the law or mixed questions of fact and law are subject to de novo review. This standard of review by Superior Court means that the Council's decision receives only limited deference from the courts, which may reverse the Council’s decision if it is found to be “clearly erroneous”. A decision is considered “clearly erroneous” when the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. For that reason we recommend that the Council adhere to established Washington case law. Packet Page 132 of 247 Edmonds City Council July 31, 2008 Page 2 {WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/} With respect to Findings of Fact, the courts are supposed to give substantial deference to your Findings of Fact. In this case, there are few facts in dispute. Therefore, in the event of an appeal from your decision, a court will review this case on a de novo basis. Except as referenced in this memorandum, little deference will be given to the City's decision-making process. HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION The Hearing Examiner's Decision (beginning on page 52 of the Transcript) as modified by the Decision on Reconsideration (beginning at T. 195) contains two primary groups of conclusions. The first set finds that the record does not contain evidence demonstrating consistency with ECDC 20.75.080 and .085. As modified (see page 204), the Hearing Examiner found that the record did not demonstrate compliance with the subdivision ordinance nor were modifications granted to cure that inconsistency, as well as the conclusions that the Latin Street layout requirements have not been met nor were public works and fire code requirements complied with. The second set of conclusions find that there is insufficient evidence to enter findings of consistency with public health, safety, and general welfare (T. 65). REVIEW OF POTENTIAL COUNCIL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Application of the Subdivision Ordinance to Townhouse Development. a. Collateral Estoppel. As our previous memorandum notes, it is our opinion that collateral estoppel does not prevent the Council from making a contrary decision. This is the ground cited in the applicant's appeal (1209). If the code has been misinterpreted, the Council is free within limits to correct that misinterpretation. b. Code Interpretation. The Applicant makes a stronger argument regarding how the code should be interpreted. As the Hearing Examiner notes, administrative stare decisis or the pattern of prior decision-making code interpretation as well as the application of the doctrine that the interpretation of the zoning official should be given substantial weight is applicable only if the City Council finds that the code version is ambiguous. This portion of the Hearing Examiner's reasoning begins at T. 61 and revolves around the interpretation of Footnote No. 4 of ECDC 16.30.030(a). If the Council agrees that the provision is unambiguous, i.e., no authority is provided for townhouse development, you should uphold the Hearing Examiner. The issues of stare decisis (pattern of administrative decision-making) and the deference to be given to interpretation of the zoning officials are not applicable if the code is not ambiguous. c. Ambiguity. In order to find that Footnote No. 4 applies to townhouse development by subdivision, you must find that the provision is ambiguous. In that event, the pattern of prior administrative decision-making and the long-standing interpretation of the zoning official becomes relevant. In that event, it would be well within the Council's discretion to overturn the Hearing Examiner's Decision and affirm past staff interpretation. 2. Burden of Proof. Packet Page 133 of 247 Edmonds City Council July 31, 2008 Page 3 {WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/} a. An important issue raised in the Hearing Examiner's Decision is whether the Applicant met its burden of proof prior to the date the record was closed (T. 199-200). As the Hearing Examiner notes at page 200 of the transcript: "No party would be unduly prejudiced if the record were reopened to admit the newly offered, material evidence." If the City Council feels that any issue has not been adequately addressed, the City Council may remand to the Hearing Examiner to reopen the record. ECDC 20.105.040(E). As the Hearing Examiner notes (T. 200), the newly offered evidence "would not result in plat approval if the Examiner's conclusion regarding the interpretation of the townhouse definition remain unchanged . . . ." 3. Potential decision alternatives: a. If the City Council finds that the code is unambiguous and does not authorize the same variation for a townhouse development as it does for a condominium development, then a motion to "uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner and adopt her Findings of Fact and Conclusions" would be in order. b. If you find that the provisions of ECDC 16.30.030(a), Footnote No. 4, are ambiguous, then you should to determine what interpretation of this provision should be given. In that case, the pattern of administrative decision-making and the deference which should be given to the staff's interpretation are relevant to your decision. Having made that interpretation, you should scrutinize the record to make sure all criteria of the code have been met. Based on that review, four motions would be available to the Council: 1. A motion to "modify the determination of the Hearing Examiner to find that the code was ambiguous, but should be interpreted to require compliance with the full provisions of the ordinance and therefore deny the application." 2. If you find that the code provision is ambiguous, but given the deference to be given to staff interpretations and the prior decisions of the Hearing Examiner, the staff interpretation should be adopted, a motion to "reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision, approve the application, and prepare Findings in accordance with the position of the staff and the Applicant" would be in order. 3. Record Not Complete; Two Options. a. If you find that the staff's interpretation should be maintained and adopted, but feel that the record is insufficient to show compliance with subdivision code requirements, you may make a motion to "reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, adopt the staff's interpretation and remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner to reopen the record and consider . . . .[list those items which you feel have not been adequately addressed in the record]." b. In the alternative, the City Council could make a motion to "modify the Hearing Examiner's decision to adopt the staff's determination but find that the Applicant has failed to Packet Page 134 of 247 Edmonds City Council July 31, 2008 Page 4 {WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/} meet its burden of proof by presenting substantial and competent evidence regarding . . . [list those subdivision criteria which have not been met]." I would be happy to discuss these matters with you on the record of the proceeding. If Councilmembers have other variations on these findings, I would also be happy to discuss them with you on the record of the proceeding. WSS:nkr ENCLOSURE Packet Page 135 of 247 AM-1697 4. Public Hearing: Chapter 16.43 ECDC / Design Standards for the BD1 Zone Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to amend Chapter 16.43 ECDC to incorporate design standards for the BD1 zone. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to implement the Planning Board's recommendation. Previous Council Action As part of its action adopting the new downtown business (BD) zones, the City Council asked the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (EHPC) to investigate how new development could be held to tighter standards in the downtown core area. After a report from the EHPC, on May 22, 2007, the Council forwarded the EHPC's recommendations to the Planning Board for review. The Council held a work session on the Planning Board's recommendations on May 20, 2008. Narrative This is a public hearing on a recommendation from the Planning Board on proposed amendments to the BD1 zone. The initial proposals were developed by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission at the request of the City Council, and then forwarded to the Planning Board by the City Council in May, 2007. The Architectural Design Board completed its review of the proposals in December, 2007, and provided the Planning Board with comments in January, 2008. The Planning Board consulted with both the EHPC and the Architectural Design Board while developing its recommendation. As the Planning Board's memo indicates, the Board is intending to continue working with the EHPC on some of its other recommendations that are not recommended for adoption at this time. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Planning Board Recommendation Memo Link: PB Attach1: Recommended Design Standards Link: PB Attach2: Planning Board Minutes Link: PB Attach3: ADB minutes Link: Packet Page 136 of 247 Link: PB Attach4: Hearing Draft Link: PB Attach5: Council agenda item Link: PB Attach6: City Council Minutes Link: PB Attach7: City Attorney Memo Link: PB Attach8: ACE Comment Letter Link: Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes 5/20/2008 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 09:50 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 09:52 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:43 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/30/2008 03:42 PM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 137 of 247 City of Edmonds Planning Board Date: March 27, 2008 To: The Edmonds City Council From: Cary Guenther, Planning Board Chair Subject: Planning Board Recommendation on Amendments to the BD1 Zone I. Introduction After receiving recommendations from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (EHPC), the City Council forwarded a set of proposals to the Planning Board regarding design review and design standards in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1 zone). Attached is information from the City Council’s discussions with the Historic Preservation Commission, including the actual proposals made by the Commission. During its review, the Planning Board worked with both the EHPC and the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on these proposals, and held a public hearing on February 13, 2008. Minutes of the Planning Board’s meetings are attached, along with relevant minutes from the ADB and other materials reviewed by the Board. II. Recommendations 1. ADOPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS. The Planning Board recommends that the “Design Standards for Building Design” in Attachment 1 be adopted as zoning standards in the BD1 zone. These are consistent with the City’s goals and policies to create retail-friendly design in the BD1 zone, which corresponds to the retail core of downtown Edmonds. Because this area sets the tone and character for the larger downtown area, it is critical that new and remodeled buildings in the BD1 zone provide a minimum standard of design and street character. The design standards recommended at this time should be seen as a first step in achieving this goal; they should be evaluated periodically to assess whether they are achieving the desired goals and whether improvements in the standards can be made. MEMORANDUM Packet Page 138 of 247 2. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THE HISTORIC ISSUES. The other items in the original proposal (e.g. renaming the BD1 zone to include a “historic” reference, providing for a deferred demolition schedule, and changing the design review process so that nearly all exterior building changes would go to the ADB for review) may have some merit, and the Planning Board would like to continue to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to explore whether and how these proposals could be included in the City’s codes. 3. PURSUE FURTHER WORK ON INCENTIVES. In addition to the above recommendations, we believe there is merit to exploring further whether there are meaningful incentives that would serve to encourage good retail-friendly design that will protect the character and quality of downtown Edmonds – not just within the BD1 zone, but within the larger downtown area. The City has a number of initiatives that will enhance downtown in the future – projects such as the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor. We also know that there are a number of historic buildings in our midst, and that these provide valuable contributions to the character of downtown Edmonds. The challenge is to leverage these initiatives with incentives to encourage private development to “do the right thing,” both in retaining historic structures and in developing new projects that are compatible with the overall character of downtown. Incentives could be tied to permitting and fees, flexibility in allowed uses for retained buildings, parking, or other parameters. Attachments 1. Recommended BD1 Design Standards 2. Planning Board Minutes 3. ADB Minutes 4. Public Hearing Notice and Public Hearing Draft of Proposals 5. City Council agenda item, including Historic Commission recommendations. 6. City Council minutes. 7. Memo from City Attorney (dated 5/22/2007). 8. Letter from “ACE Subcommittee on Downtown Core preservation.” Packet Page 139 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 1 Design Standards for Building Design [Note: These standards are to be incorporated into the code requirements for the BD1 zone.] Packet Page 140 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 2 Massing and Articulation Intent: To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. Standards: 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Buildings should convey a distinct base and top. The base can be emphasized by a different material. Packet Page 141 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 3 Orientation to Street Intent: To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. Standards: 1. Buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot. 2. Entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of the following elements: a. Higher bay(s) b. Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. Buildings shall be oriented to the street. Entrances shall be given visually distinct expression. Packet Page 142 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 4 Ground Level Details Intent: To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. Standards: 1. Ground-floor, street-facing façades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements. a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets b. Medallions c. Belt courses d. Plinths for columns e. Bulkhead for storefront window f. Projecting sills g. Tilework h. Transom or clerestory windows i. Planter box j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. 2. Ground floor commercial space is intended to be at grade with the sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC 16.43.030.B. Ground floor details encourage visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. Packet Page 143 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 5 Awnings/Canopies and Signage Intent: To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way-finding for visitors. To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. Standards: 1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. 2. Awnings and canopies shall be open- sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. 5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies should be hung just below a clerestory or “transom” window, if it exists. 6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple- storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Open-sided non-structural awning with front valance. Open-sided structural canopy. Packet Page 144 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 6 Awnings and Signage (continued) 7. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire- resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high- gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under the section ‘Ground Level Details.’ 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. 11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. 12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or on a City-approved historic survey. 13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An historic sign may be used to meet this standard. Awning or Canopy Shapes: Standard Convex Box Marquee Retractable and open-sided awnings allow signage to be visible. Examples of projecting signs using decorative frames and design elements. Packet Page 145 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 7 Transparency at Street Level Intent: To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. Standards: 1. The ground level façades of buildings that are oriented to streets shall have transparent windows with a minimum of 75% transparency between an average of 2 feet and 10 feet above grade. 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. 3. Where transparency is not provided, the façade shall comply with the standards under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. Ground level facades of buildings should have transparent windows between 2 to 10 feet above grade. Windows shall provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, and therefore should not be mirrored or use darkly tinted glass. Packet Page 146 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 8 Treating Blank Walls Intent: To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. Standards: 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under section ‘Transparency’). At least four of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing façade: a. Masonry (except for flat, non- decorative concrete block) b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall c. Belt courses of a different texture and color d. Projecting cornice e. Decorative tilework f. Medallions g. Opaque or translucent glass h. Artwork or wall graphics i. Lighting fixtures j. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Buildings shall not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. Packet Page 147 of 247 Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 9 Building HVAC Equipment Intent: To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other building utility features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. Standards: 1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. If these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g. rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. 2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on adjoining properties. Rooftop equipment should be screened from view. Packet Page 148 of 247 Packet Page 149 of 247 Packet Page 150 of 247 Packet Page 151 of 247 Packet Page 152 of 247 Packet Page 153 of 247 Packet Page 154 of 247 Packet Page 155 of 247 Packet Page 156 of 247 Packet Page 157 of 247 Packet Page 158 of 247 Packet Page 159 of 247 Packet Page 160 of 247 Packet Page 161 of 247 Packet Page 162 of 247 Packet Page 163 of 247 Packet Page 164 of 247 Packet Page 165 of 247 Packet Page 166 of 247 Packet Page 167 of 247 Packet Page 168 of 247 Packet Page 169 of 247 Packet Page 170 of 247 Packet Page 171 of 247 Packet Page 172 of 247 Packet Page 173 of 247 Packet Page 174 of 247 Packet Page 175 of 247 Packet Page 176 of 247 Packet Page 177 of 247 Packet Page 178 of 247 Packet Page 179 of 247 Packet Page 180 of 247 Packet Page 181 of 247 Packet Page 182 of 247 Packet Page 183 of 247 Packet Page 184 of 247 Packet Page 185 of 247 Packet Page 186 of 247 Packet Page 187 of 247 Packet Page 188 of 247 EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Hearing Date/Time: Wednesday, February 13, 2008, beginning at 7pm Hearing Location: City Council Chamber, 250 5th Ave N in Downtown Edmonds Properties Affected: Properties zoned BD1 in Downtown Edmonds, located along Main ST between 3rd and 6th Avenues, and along 5th Avenue from Maple ST to the alley north of Main ST. Summary of the Proposal: Public hearing on proposed design standards and a refined design review process that would apply to properties in the Downtown Retail Core (properties zoned BD1). Details of the proposal can be found on the City Website at: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/pb_issues.htm On January 16, 2007, the Edmonds City Council adopted new "BD - Downtown Business" zones as a new Chapter 16.43 in the Edmonds Community Development Code. The Council also approved a new zoning map for downtown properties. These actions were a follow-up to an update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan which was completed in March, 2005. Currently, the City is evaluating potential updates to one of the downtown zones - the BD1 zone - to consider providing additional detail to the design standards and design review process for this important part of the city's downtown retail core. The current proposal is set for a public hearing before the Edmonds Planning Board on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at the City Council Chamber, 250 5th Ave N, in Downtown Edmonds. The proposal does not change the uses permitted in the zone, nor is there any change in zoning for any of the properties involved. What the proposal would do is add some design standards for new construction within the established BD1 zone and potentially mean that more design changes would have to be reviewed by the city’s Architectural Design Board (ADB). The details of the proposal can be found online at the City of Edmonds website under issues being studied by the Planning Board, located at http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/pb_issues.htm. Packet Page 189 of 247 PROPOSALS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD ON DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DOWNTOWN BD1 ZONE (THE “HERITAGE CENTER OF EDMONDS”) PURPOSE The purpose of establishing the Heritage Center of Edmonds (the area currently zoned BD1) is to preserve and continue the historic architectural character of this area. Establishing Historic Design Standards for new and renovated structures in this area will help promote and support a vibrant retail environment in the center of the downtown core. Approved Historic Design Standards will provide a foundation for all future development in the Heritage Center of Edmonds (BD1) and a mechanism to involve members of the Historic Preservation Commission in the design review process. The Heritage Center of Edmonds will promote economic vitality by increasing property values and encouraging heritage tourism. In support of this purpose, the Commission requests that the City Council forward these recommendations to the Planning Board, and that the Commission be allowed to work with the Planning Board to develop a final set of code amendments for City Council consideration. The Commission’s RECOMMENDATIONS are summarized below, by subject. RENAME THE BD1 ZONE The BD1 zone should be renamed to something more descriptive, to reflect its historic roots. Names such as “Historic Downtown Center” or “Historic Center of Edmonds” or “Heritage Center of Edmonds” have been suggested. For the time being, this area shall be referred to as the “Heritage Center of Edmonds” for reference. DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS Adopt the attached “Design Standards for Building Design” for use as design standards in the Heritage Center of Edmonds. THRESHOLD FOR DESIGN REVIEW Because of the importance of the public streetscape in the Heritage Center of Edmonds, SEPA shall not be the sole standard triggering the ADB’s hearing process. Instead, any project which has the potential to have a significant impact on the pedestrian streetscape shall undergo full ADB review. The threshold for design review should be exterior changes that deviate from exterior design and are visible from adjacent streets or avenues. Changes that modify the existing exterior character would require design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Repair and maintenance projects that EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 1 Packet Page 190 of 247 replace “like for like” would not require design review by the ADB. Also, interior changes that do not affect the exterior appearance of the building shall be exempt. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission should review and prepare a recommendation on projects proposed within the BD1 zone, and have a representative(s) of the EHPC present the recommendations to the ADB during the ADB review meeting. APPLICATIONS FOR ADB REVIEW For projects requiring ADB review within the Heritage Center of Edmonds, applicants will need to provide all of the materials typically required for ADB review, including : • A brief description of the project and the surrounding streetscape (neighboring buildings, setbacks, heights and rooflines). • Blueprints to include plan, elevation and section drawings. Include window design, signs and exterior lighting. • Detailed drawings or 3-dimensional model of new/altered architectural features and trim are required. • A description and samples of building materials including types of windows, roofing and siding. (Applicant must include an actual color chart or color samples.) • Photographs of nearby building facades, rooflines and streetscape will be required. If a historic rehabilitation or alteration, photos from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission would be helpful. DEMOLITION Demolition permits may not be issued for up to sixty days while the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission works with the applicant to explore alternatives to demolition. INCENTIVES Create incentives to preserve existing structures. These might include: the waiving or reducing of permit fees, the expediting of permit approvals, and a relaxing of building standards to allow the ability to go outside the existing building’s envelope to promote preservation of buildings which are on the Edmonds Register Of Historical Places. As alternative to ADB design review, buildings on an historic register or city-approved historic survey (e.g. the recently completed BOLA survey of the downtown area) could opt to deviate from any of the BD1 design standards if it received a “certificate of appropriateness” from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (EHPC). In other words, “historic” buildings would have an alternate design approval process available to them through the EHPC. EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 2 Packet Page 191 of 247 Design Standards for Building Design [Note: These standards would be incorporated into the code requirements for the BD1 zone.] Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 3 Packet Page 192 of 247 Massing and Articulation Buildings should convey a distinct base and top. Intent: To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. Standards: 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. The base can be emphasized by a different material. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 4 Packet Page 193 of 247 Buildings shall be oriented to the street. Orientation to Street Intent: To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. Standards: 1. Buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot. 2. Entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by two or more of the following elements: Entrances shall be given visually distinct expression. a. Higher bay(s) b. Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 5 Packet Page 194 of 247 Ground Level Details Intent: To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. Standards: 1. Ground-floor, street-facing façades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements. a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets b. Medallions c. Belt courses d. Plinths for columns e. Bulkhead for storefront window Ground floor details encourage visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. f. Projecting sills g. Tilework h. Transom or clerestory windows i. Planter box j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. 2. Ground floor commercial space shall be at grade with the sidewalk. Sunken entrances are prohibited. 3. Ground floor residential units shall be separated from the sidewalk either by setbacks or by elevation (e.g. raised above street grade) in order to afford privacy to residents. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 6 Packet Page 195 of 247 Awnings/Canopies and Signage Intent: To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. Open-sided non-structural awning with front valance. To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way-finding for visitors. To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. Standards: 1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. Open-sided structural canopy. 2. Awnings and canopies shall be open- sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. 5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies should be hung just below a clerestory or “transom” window, if it exists. 6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple- storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 7 Packet Page 196 of 247 Retractable and open-sided awnings allow signage to be visible. Awnings and Signage (continued) 7. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire- resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high- gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Awning or Canopy Shapes: Standard Convex Box Marquee 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under the section ‘Ground Level Details.’ 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Examples of projecting signs using decorative frames and design elements. 11. Signage in the “Arts Center Corridor” defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. 12. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. 13. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places 14. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An historic sign may be used to meet this standard. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 8 Packet Page 197 of 247 Transparency at Street Level Intent: To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. Ground level facades of buildings should have transparent windows between 2 to 10 feet above grade. Standards: 1. The ground level façades of buildings that are oriented to streets shall have transparent windows with a minimum of 75% transparency between an average of 2 feet and 10 feet above grade. 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. 3. Where transparency is not provided, the façade shall comply with the standards under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. Windows shall provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, and therefore should not be 4. All-residential buildings do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all-residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the standards under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 9 Packet Page 198 of 247 Treating Blank Walls Intent: To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. Standards: 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under section ‘Transparency’). At least four of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing façade: a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block) Buildings shall not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall c. Belt courses of a different texture and color d. Projecting cornice e. Decorative tilework f. Medallions g. Opaque or translucent glass h. Artwork or wall graphics i. Lighting fixtures j. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 10 Packet Page 199 of 247 Treating Blank Walls (continued) 2. For buildings having residential units on the ground floor, landscaping — including hanging baskets or planter boxes — and other street-level façade enhancements shall be required to integrate the building with the streetscape. This requirement is considered to satisfy one of the four elements required in (1) above. Building Rooftop Equipment Intent: To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other rooftop features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. Rooftop equipment should be screened from view. Standards: 1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. Building design shall use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g. rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 11 Packet Page 200 of 247 AM-994 Report and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission on downtown design standards. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:05/22/2007 Submitted By:Rob Chave Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Report and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission on downtown design standards. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Provide direction to the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission. Previous Council Action The Historic Preservation Commission reported to the City Council on February 27, 2007. Narrative This discussion is a follow-up to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission's report to the City Council on February 27, 2007. Since that meeting, the EHPC has worked to develop a set of recommendations and design guidelines that could be implemented in the downtown BD1 zone (recommended to be named the "Heritage Center of Edmonds"). The Commission is asking the Council to forward its recommendations to the Planning Board, and allow the EHPC to work with the Planning Board in developing a final set of code amendments for Council consideration and adoption; this would require public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council levels. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: EHPC Recommendation Link: Exhibit 2: City Council minutes Form Routing/Status Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 05/15/2007 02:57 PM Packet Page 201 of 247 RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DOWNTOWN BD1 ZONE (THE “HERITAGE CENTER OF EDMONDS”) PURPOSE The purpose of establishing the Heritage Center of Edmonds (the area currently zoned BD1) is to preserve and continue the historic architectural character of this area. Establishing Historic Design Standards for new and renovated structures in this area will help promote and support a vibrant retail environment in the center of the downtown core. Approved Historic Design Standards will provide a foundation for all future development in the Heritage Center of Edmonds (BD1) and a mechanism to involve members of the Historic Preservation Commission in the design review process. The Heritage Center of Edmonds will promote economic vitality by increasing property values and encouraging heritage tourism. In support of this purpose, the Commission requests that the City Council forward these recommendations to the Planning Board, and that the Commission be allowed to work with the Planning Board to develop a final set of code amendments for City Council consideration. The Commission’s RECOMMENDATIONS are summarized below, by subject. RENAME THE BD1 ZONE The BD1 zone be renamed the “Heritage Center of Edmonds.” DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS City Council to direct the EHPC and the Planning Board to work together in an iterative process to further develop design standards for the Heritage Center of Edmonds. As a starting point, the attached “Design Guidelines for Building Design” should be considered for use as design standards in the Heritage Center of Edmonds. THRESHOLD FOR DESIGN REVIEW Because of the importance of the public streetscape in the Heritage Center of Edmonds, SEPA shall not be the sole standard triggering the ADB’s hearing process. Instead, any project which has the potential to have a significant impact on the pedestrian streetscape shall undergo full ADB review. Threshold details should be worked out by the Planning Board in consultation with the EHPC. EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 1 Packet Page 202 of 247 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission shall have two of its members serve as voting members of the ADB for applications within the Heritage Center of Edmonds (BD1). APPLICATIONS FOR ADB REVIEW For projects requiring ADB review within the Heritage Center of Edmonds: • The applicant shall provide a brief description of the project and the surrounding streetscape (neighboring buildings, setbacks, heights and rooflines). • The applicant shall provide blueprints to include plan, elevation and section drawings. Include window design, signs and exterior lighting. • Detailed drawings or 3-dimensional model of new/altered architectural features and trim are required. • Applicant shall provide a description and samples of building materials including types of windows, roofing and siding. (Applicant must include an actual color chart or color samples.) • Photographs of nearby building facades, rooflines and streetscape will be required. If a historic rehabilitation or alteration, photos from Historic Preservation Commission would be helpful. DEMOLITION Demolition permits may not be issued for up to sixty days while the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission works with the applicant to explore alternatives to demolition. INCENTIVES Create incentives to preserve existing structures. These might include: the waiving or reducing of permit fees, the expediting of permit approvals, and a relaxing of building standards to allow the ability to go outside the existing building’s envelope to promote preservation of buildings which are on the Edmonds Register Of Historical Places. EHPC PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS Historic Preservation Commission requests the City Council to direct the Planning Board to incorporate the Historic Preservation Commission in the process of developing these concepts with Planning Board. EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 2 Packet Page 203 of 247 Design Guidelines for Building Design Packet Page 204 of 247 Massing and Articulation Buildings should convey a distinct base and top. Intent: To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. Guidelines: 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. The base can be emphasized by a different material. Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 2 Packet Page 205 of 247 Orientation to Street Buildings shall be oriented to the street. Intent: To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. Guidelines: 1. Buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot. 2. Entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by two or more of the following elements: Entrances shall be given visually distinct expression. a. Higher bay(s) b. Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) c. Forecourt Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 3 Packet Page 206 of 247 Ground Level Details Intent: To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. Guidelines: 1. Ground-floor, street-facing façades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements. a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets b. Medallions c. Belt courses d. Plinths for columns Ground floor details encourage visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. e. Kickplate for storefront window f. Projecting sills g. Tilework h. Transom or clerestory windows i. Planter box j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. k. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements (see section on ‘awnings and signage’). 2. Ground floor commercial space shall be at grade with the sidewalk. Sunken entrances are prohibited. 3. Ground floor residential units should be separated from the sidewalk either by setbacks or by elevation (e.g. raised above street grade) in order to afford privacy to residents. Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 4 Packet Page 207 of 247 Awnings and Signage Intent: To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. Open-sided non-structural awning with front valance. To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way-finding for visitors. To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. Guidelines: 1. Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. Awnings may be structural (permanently attached to and part of the building) or non-structural (attached to the building using a metal or other framework). Open-sided structural awning. 2. Awnings shall be open-sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning shapes are not permitted. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. 5. Awnings shall be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings should be hung just below a clerestory or “transom” window, if it exists. 6. Awnings on a multiple-storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 5 Packet Page 208 of 247 Awnings and Signage (continued) Retractable and open-sided awnings allow signage to be visible. 7. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire- resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high-gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Awning Shapes: Standard Convex Box Marquee 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under the section ‘Ground Level Details.’ Examples of projecting signs using decorative frames and design elements. 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. 11. Signage in the “Arts Center Corridor” defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. 12. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. 13. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 6 Packet Page 209 of 247 Transparency at Street Level Intent: To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. Ground level facades of buildings should have transparent windows between 2 to 10 feet above grade. Guidelines: 1. The ground level façades of buildings that are oriented to streets shall have transparent windows between an average of 2 feet and 10 feet above grade, according to the following: a. Retail Core: minimum of 75% transparency b. Other Areas: minimum of 30% transparency 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Windows shall provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, and therefore should not be mirrored or use darkly tinted glass. 3. Where transparency is not provided, the façade shall comply with the guidelines under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. 4. All-residential buildings do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all- residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the guidelines under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 7 Packet Page 210 of 247 Treating Blank Walls Intent: To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. Guidelines: 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see guidelines under section ‘Transparency’). At least four of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing façade: a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block) Buildings shall not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall c. Belt courses of a different texture and color d. Projecting cornice e. Projecting metal canopy f. Decorative tilework g. Trellis containing planting h. Medallions i. Opaque or translucent glass j. Artwork or wall graphics k. Vertical articulation l. Lighting fixtures m. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 8 Packet Page 211 of 247 Treating Blank Walls (continued) 2. For buildings having residential units on the ground floor, landscaping — including hanging baskets or planter boxes — and other street-level façade enhancements shall be required to integrate the building with the streetscape. This requirement is considered to satisfy one of the four elements required in (1) above. Building Rooftop Equipment Intent: To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other rooftop features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. Rooftop equipment should be screened from view. Guidelines: 1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features should be designed to fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features should be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. Building design should use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g. rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 9 Packet Page 212 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2007 Page 4 4. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS. (Councilmember Plunkett joined the Council via telephone for this item.) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met with the Council in February 2007 where additions to the downtown design were discussed, particularly for the BD1 zone, the retail corridor. After further work, the HPC has presented an outline of their ideas to the Council. Many of the concepts are not yet detailed but the HPC is attempting to indicate their intent. He contrasted this with the design guidelines the HPC developed based on Mark Hinshaw’s work with the Council in 2005. The HPC’s intent is to work with the Planning Board to develop potential amendments to development standards, codes, etc. that would be presented to the Council. He noted the amendments would require public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council. Tonight’s presentation was intended to inform the Council of the direction in which they were proceeding. He referred to City Attorney Scott Snyder’s memo that indicated the Architectural Design Board (ADB) should be included in the discussion. He anticipated the ADB would be involved in developing the amendments. Mr. Chave reviewed the HPC’s report: • Purpose section - add a purpose section to describe the intent. • Rename the BD1 zone - Heritage Center of Edmonds. He explained the interim name captured three concepts, 1) Edmonds, 2) the area as the center and identity of Edmonds, and 3) the heritage of the BD1. • Develop Design Standards - words and pictures describing characteristics in detail. He noted these were labeled guidelines but the HPC wants them adopted as standards that every building/project in the BD1 would be required to meet. • Threshold for Design Review - The HPC feels the traditional standard that requires an ADB hearing, exceeding the SEPA threshold, was too high as there could be significant impacts on historical buildings via renovations that did not meet SEPA. He noted the standard must be specific and could not be vague or unpredictable. Another concern is not capturing too many projects due to time delays caused by ADB review. He noted the goal was to balance the process to ensure the designs were what the City wanted to achieve without unduly burdening the process. • Design Review Process - The HPC recommends having two HPC members on the ADB when projects specifically located in the Heritage District/BD1 are reviewed. The HPC feels their expertise in historic buildings would be helpful to the ADB. • Applications for ADB Review - This section contains the features the HPC feels are important and should be considered in the review. He noted most of these items were consistent with the changes in the design review process with the exception of color. He stated review of color was usually done via historic districts as color was often identified with a particular point in time. Historic districts typically adopt a pallet of colors used during a particular historic period. The challenge for downtown Edmonds would be to determine that historic pallet because multiple pallets for multiple points in time would make regulation difficult. • Demolition - The HPC recommends a waiting period before a building could be demolished. He noted there would be no power to prevent the demolition but the intent was to provide time for the HPC to work with the owner or prospective purchaser regarding adaptive reuse opportunities, identifying a different buyer, etc. He noted this technique had been used in historical districts in other communities and was often successful. He clarified the HPC was not advocating a waiting period for all demolition, only significant demolition. Historic Preservation Commission / Downtown Design Standards Packet Page 213 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2007 Page 5 • Incentives - The HPC was interested in developing incentives for preserving structures and providing a break for property owners trying to do the right thing via more flexible building codes, reduced permit fees, streamlined processing, etc. • EHPC Participation in the Process - The HPC wants to work with the Planning Board and ADB in an effort to develop language that could be adopted as code amendments. Councilmember Orvis referred to the incentives section and the language that buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places be allowed to go outside the existing building’s envelope. He anticipated the only way this could occur would be to increase the building’s height. He asked whether this would be addressed by the non-conforming regulations that the Planning Board was currently reviewing. Mr. Chave answered that was largely true but the HPC was concerned with providing enough flexibility for unusual circumstances that would maintain the character of a building and enhance its viability. Mr. Snyder advised the Planning Board would be discussing the non-conforming use provisions in the context of adaptive reuse at their next meeting. He provided examples such as limitations on the amount of glass due to the new energy codes. The intent was to review building code requirements that were not health safety related that could be altered in order to make the retention of an existing building more economically attractive/viable - to provide incentives to retain a building rather than demolish it. Councilmember Wambolt did not want this to be a way to increase heights. Mr. Chave assured that was not the intent and that would not be expected from the HPC. Mr. Snyder commented assuming the public liked Edmonds the way it was, the intent was to encourage property owners to retain those buildings. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of forwarding the HPC’s recommendations to the Planning Board. He noted although there were a number of interesting old buildings downtown that should be retained, there were no grand, architecturally significant buildings as compared to Fairhaven or Port Townsend for example. He recalled discussions in the past few years that highlighted the importance of maintaining a vital downtown retail core and was satisfied the HPC’s proposal met that intent. He was not opposed to the name “Heritage Center” but did not want the concept of maintaining a vital downtown retail core to be overlooked. He referred to old buildings that had been architecturally enhanced and improved, commenting he viewed the design guidelines as a method of improving the downtown core. Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Snyder’s memo, pointing out there were few truly historic buildings downtown but there were many buildings that added a feeling, character and charm to downtown that because it had been developed over time, could not be recreated artificially. She spoke in favor of developing incentives that encouraged the retention and restoration of existing buildings, remarking without incentives, it may not be economically feasible to retain an existing building, making it more attractive for a developer to demolish it. She suggested expanding the definition of what the HPC was trying to preserve. She found heritage rather than historic appropriate for the downtown core. Councilmember Dawson was intrigued by having an HPC member serve temporarily on the ADB when reviewing buildings in the downtown area and asked whether that was done in other areas. Mr. Chave answered he was not aware of any other cities that had a difference in membership on the ADB depending on the location of the project. It was more common to have a separate board for each district. Mr. Snyder pointed out the definition of the ADB membership included architects, landscape engineers, etc.; therefore, it was consistent to have members with different expertise. Mr. Chave commented an alternative may be to change the requirement for the ADB to include a member with historic expertise. Councilmember Orvis proposed a scenario of a 35-foot tall historic building that had no elevator; the property owner wanted to restore it and add an elevator which would require the addition of a penthouse. Packet Page 214 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2007 Page 6 Under the non-conforming provisions that would not be allowed because the building would not be allowed to go higher than five feet for an elevator. Mr. Chave noted the intent was to make retaining the building viable. Mr. Snyder clarified life and safety requirements could not be waived nor accessibility requirements. Council President Olson asked whether the ADB would be involved before the proposal was presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave envisioned an initial presentation/discussion with the Planning Board and then a meeting with representatives from both groups. He noted the entire Board members did not necessarily need to be present; they could designate a few members from each to meet. Council President Olson asked whether the Planning Board would hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave answered yes as amendments to the development code required a public hearing. The Council would also hold a public hearing. Councilmember Marin remarked Councilmember Orvis’ scenario regarding the addition of an elevator was a remote possibility. He supported Councilmember Dawson’s comments regarding providing incentives to preserve buildings. He recommended establishing sufficient flexibility so that a property owner would feel they had a chance when asking for a deviation while making sure they were carefully worded so that the result was not an increase in building heights downtown. Mayor Haakenson advised Councilmember Plunkett was having difficulty hearing the Council via telephone and was satisfied with the HPC’s outline proceeding to the Planning Board. It was the consensus of the Council for the HPC to proceed to the Planning Board. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the court’s consideration of the Old Woodway Elementary School demolition, case #07-2-03222-1 was continued to May 25 at 9:00 a.m. The judge has indicated he plans to make a final decision at that time. Next, Mr. Rutledge urged Council to discuss term limits for the Mayor prior to January 1, noting the legislature planned to consider term limits during the next session. Mr. Rutledge then commented on past population increases, pointing out the population in 1963 was 19,273, it was 29,720 in 1989 and was forecast to be 37,000 by 2010 and 40,000 by 2015. He concluded growth had been greater than expected due in part to annexations. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, displayed a bag of incandescent light bulbs that as a result of Mayor Haakenson’s proclamation he replaced with compact florescent bulbs that use one fourth the electricity. He noted florescent bulbs paid for themselves within 9-18 months and the bulbs last ten years. He displayed a chart of his household energy use that he tracked using his energy bills that illustrated during the last year the daily kilowatt use. He summarized his household’s daily energy use was 12 kilowatt hours per day or ½ kilowatt per hour which was the equivalent of leaving five 100 watt light bulbs on 24 hours per day which he noted was very low. He urged the public to look at their electric meters and try to make them stop. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Council discussion regarding Wi-Fi and his conversation with Administrative Services Director Dan Clements regarding Edmonds’ ability to capture that system. He asked what the City would do with the system once it was in place, suggesting the City move forward cautiously. He urged Council to read and discuss the article in today’s Everett Herald. Next, he expressed concern with Bob Gregg’s offer to settle his lawsuit in exchange for something he wanted from the City. He recalled when Mr. Gregg was seeking approval for the Old Milltown project the second time, he stated he would cancel the lawsuit if he got what he wanted, which he apparently had not done. He acknowledged there likely had been discussion in Executive Session about the lawsuit and now there Old Woodway Elementary Term Limits Population Increases Incandescent Light Bulbs Wi-Fi Old Milltown/ Gregg Lawsuit Packet Page 215 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 27, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview an Arts Commission candidate, 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 Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Deanna Dawson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Sims, Traffic Engineer Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #94366 THROUGH #94503 FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $517,224.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44519 THROUGH #44565 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,144.76. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DARROL HAUG (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). 3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Greg Banasek and described his background. Approve 2/20/07 Minutes Approve Claim Checks Claim for Damages Arts Commission Appointment Packet Page 216 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Banasek thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Arts Commission. Mayor Haakenson thanked him for volunteering to serve. 4. 2007 LIMITED OBLIGATION BOND SALE. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements introduced the City’s Financial Advisor Allen Dashen, A. Dashen & Associates. Mr. Dashen displayed a graph of interest rate trends for the past year and since 1987, commenting interest rates had not been this low since the pre-President Nixon days. He reviewed a list of purposes for the $5,230,000 bond sale, noting only a small amount was General Fund moneys with most paid by utilities and other sources. Mr. Dashen explained the City applied for a rating on the City’s bonds from Moody’s Investors Service who confirmed the City’s A1 rating on Limited Tax Bonds and confirmed the AA3 rating for voted bonds. He noted this placed the City’s rate in the top tier of cities in Washington State. He relayed comments made by Moody’s including strong tax base appreciation in affluent community just north of Seattle; City’s financial operations are well managed, benefiting from a combination of spending practices and healthy revenue growth; and favorable comments about fund balances. Mr. Dashen explained the bonds were structured to be “bank qualified” which results in a lower interest rate to the City, approximately 4% lower. The bonds mature over 20 years and were sold through a competitive bid process with firms nationwide bidding on the City’s bonds. The City received 11 bids; PNC Capital Markets was the winning bidder. He displayed a list of bidders, noting 2-3 were within .01% of each other. He reviewed the source and uses of the funds, advising the net from the sale was $5,205,734. He recommended approval of the sale resolution. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1142. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE BID OF PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC FOR $5,230,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 2007, OF THE CITY; FIXING THE INTEREST RATES AND MATURITY SCHEDULE ON THOSE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. 5. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. Historic Preservation Commissioners Steven Waite, Rob Van Tassell, Norma Bruns, Christine Deiner- Karr, and Barbara Kindness introduced themselves. (Commissioners Brian Hall and Deborah Binder were absent.) Commissioner Kindness advised the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meets the second Tuesday of each month in the Fourtner Room of City Hall. She advised the meetings were open to the public and they encourage attendance and participation from interested citizens. Councilmember Plunkett is the Council liaison on the Commission and staff assistance is provided by Rob Chave and Diane Cunningham. Commissioner Kindness invited the Chair of each of the Commission’s four subcommittees to report on their activities. Commissioner Van Tassell reported the Planning Committee’s recent efforts focused on 2007 Limited Obligation Bond Sale Historic Preservation Commission Packet Page 217 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 3 the downtown core, which they called the heritage neighborhood area, and providing guidance for design with regard to historic preservation. Their efforts resulted in a draft document that had been circulated to the Council’s Community Services/Development Services committee and the public. The next step would be to share the draft with the Planning Board and the City Attorney before presenting it to the Council for codification. The Planning Committee also developed the Commission’s Strategic Plan. Commissioner Kindness advised Commissioner Waite, Chair of the Incentives Committee, also developed the walking tour. Commissioner Waite explained one of the challenges for the Incentives Committee was convincing building owners to retain their structures as they had the right to demolish their structure. He noted buildings on the Historic Register were community assets and part of a collection of structures and sites that created Edmonds’ image. Incentives for structures on the Historic Register could include an expedited permit process or a reduction in permit fees. The Committee has also been reviewing the International Existing Building Code which has been adopted in other cities. Commissioner Waite described the walking tour attended by Councilmembers, ADB and Planning Board Members, staff and the public to look at existing buildings in the City and point out architectural characteristics that define the City. He offered to conduct another tour in the spring. He advised there were buildings in the community that represent each decade from 1890. Commissioner Deiner-Karr, Chair of the Registration Committee, referred to a list of applications for registration that have been submitted. She explained five private property applications were submitted in 2006; one of the properties, the August Johnson House, which has been reviewed and approved by the HPC and the Planning Board, would be presented to the Council for approval in the near future. In addition, ten properties that are already on the State Historical Register have submitted applications as part of the expedited process for registering properties on the State and National Registers. The Commission hopes to have these properties through the registration process by the end of the first quarter in 2007. Once these properties were approved, she advised plaques would be installed on the properties. Commissioner Kindness advised 83 properties in the downtown core met the criteria for historic preservation. Once these initial properties were approved, the Commission planned to encourage other property owners to apply for designation. Commissioner Bruns reported the primary purpose of the Community Outreach and Education Committee was to educate the public about the existence of the HPC as well as its mission and purpose. Deborah Binder, a member of the committee, raised over $4,000 to produce the walking tour brochure that highlights 27 historic and architectural sites in the downtown core. The brochure has been well received and is available at local Snohomish County tourist information offices. Work has begun on a companion brochure that will help Edmonds residents understand why and how to register their properties. This brochure is funded by a grant from the Washington State Historic Preservation Office. Commissioner Bruns advised the committee organized a day at the Edmonds Summer Market where they connected with residents and distributed brochures. They plan to do this again in 2007. The committee also wrote several articles in the local newspaper about the HPC’s work. Commissioner Bruns advised she is the representative from the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society. She suggested a joint meeting to address the difference between the museum’s activities and the HPC’s activities. Councilmember Moore asked the difference between the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society and the HPC. Commissioner Bruns explained the Historic Society operates the museum and may put up plaques. She summarized the Historic Society’s focus was sites versus individual residences. She relayed the Historic Society planned to fund a plaque for Holmes Corner. Commissioner Waite commented the Historic Society was a repository of information, items and photographs versus the HPC Packet Page 218 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 4 which was a City Commission charged with placing buildings and sites on the Edmonds Historic Register. He assured a property added to the Edmonds Historic Register could be easily removed from the register; however, being on the register could provide certain benefits via local government. For Councilmember Moore, Commissioner Waite described benefits of being on the Edmonds Historic Register which include freezing the value of any improvements for ten years. There are also tax credits available from being on the National Register. He explained being on the Edmonds Historic Register was an honorarium that illustrated the property owners’ interest in historic preservation and may increase the structure’s value. Councilmember Moore asked whether the 83 structures that met the Commission’s criteria were all in the downtown core. Commissioner Kindness advised they were. Commissioner Waite noted these included commercial buildings as well. Commissioner Kindness advised the advisory board identified over 1000 properties that were over 50 years old. The survey only detailed the downtown area and identified 83 properties. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised the 83 properties also included structures less than 50 years old that were architecturally unique. She noted there were also properties for which an application had been submitted that were not on the list but research found they had historically unique character. Councilmember Moore asked whether the owners of the 83 properties had been notified their property was identified on the survey. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised some had been contacted; a notification strategy was being considered. Councilmember Plunkett recognized Historic Preservation Commissioners for their specific efforts and thanked the Council for providing the funds for the survey of downtown properties and funds for plaques. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Design Standards for possible Heritage Neighborhood provided by the Historic Preservation Commission, advising these were design standards, not guidelines as the intent was to codify the standards for the BD1 zone so that new construction or renovation was required to meet historic standards. He noted the design standards were the result of the work of Mark Hinshaw as well as Rob Chave. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment in the Planning report that the next step in the process was to share the draft with the Planning Board, expressing concern with the possibility of forwarding the draft to the Planning Board before the Council approved the concept. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of the presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee was to obtain input from the Council. He urged the Council to provide additional feedback. Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council approve the concept before the draft was forwarded to the Planning Board. Commissioner Waite envisioned workshops with the Planning Board as well as input from the public. Councilmember Marin recalled the draft was presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and after further review, he was prepared to provide feedback. He was satisfied with forwarding the Design Guidelines for Building Design (pages 5-14) to the Planning Board immediately. Recognizing the need for incentives to encourage property owners to register their properties, he suggested the next priority for the Commission be to finalize a recommendation on incentives, present it to the Community Services/Development Services Committee, then to the Council and then to the Planning Board. He was uncomfortable with the first four pages of the draft code language. Due to the shift of the ADB review to the beginning of the process, he was not comfortable with having two Historic Preservation Commissioners be voting members on the ADB but did not object to two Commissioners serving in an advisory role on the ADB. Packet Page 219 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 5 With regard to the language requiring HPC review of demolition applications, Councilmember Marin noted this review was too late in the process. He preferred property owners be encouraged to preserve their buildings via incentives for registry. He was satisfied with the language regarding dimensions. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to speak to design guidelines versus design standards. Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Commission’s feeling was that these items were important enough that all buildings in the downtown core should respond to them and therefore were more appropriate as standards in the code. He agreed with the suggestion for Historic Preservation Commissioners to advise the ADB, noting the logistics would need to be worked out. Mr. Chave advised the demolition standards required further review by the City Attorney which could be accomplished during the Planning Board’s review. He noted the draft was primarily a HPC product and had not had a detailed review by staff. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave advised the entire document could be forwarded to the Planning Board for review or forward only pages 5-14 and after further refinement, forward pages 1-4. Councilmember Wambolt was comfortable with forwarding the design standards developed by Mr. Hinshaw and refined by Mr. Chave to the Planning Board, suggesting the document prepared by ACE accompany the design standards. Council President Olson suggested as ACE was not a City organization, the information prepared by ACE could be provided to the Planning Board for their deliberations. Councilmember Wambolt agreed as long as the Planning Board reviewed the information. Councilmember Plunkett was reluctant for the Council to forward the ACE document as well as the first four pages of the discussion document to avoid the appearance that the Council was endorsing it in concept. He noted ACE or any other individual or group could submit information to the Planning Board. He supported forwarding the Historic Design Standards to the Planning Board. Councilmember Marin agreed the ACE material should not accompany the design standards and suggested ACE provide the material to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore asked what happened if the Council did not act on the design standards tonight. Commissioner Van Tassell answered forwarding one without the other would be out of context. He preferred the documents be forwarded to the Planning Board together as one document. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the provision to relocate a historic building. Commissioner Van Tassell answered the August Johnson House was an example of an opportunity for a house to be moved to an appropriate location and remain on the registry. Councilmember Orvis asked if the building could be moved outside the Heritage Neighborhood. Commissioner Van Tassell answered yes, which would allow construction of a new building on the site. Councilmember Orvis asked whether dimensional waivers would be addressed by grandfathering. Commissioner Van Tassell answered a house that was out of compliance may be required to be brought into compliance when improvements were made. Commissioner Waite advised the City Attorney was drafting verbiage regarding non-compliance. He advised this provision would allow improvements to a structure without penalty. Councilmember Orvis agreed there appeared to be issues on the first four pages that needed to be addressed. He preferred the members representing the HPC on the ADB be voting members. He recommended withholding the dimensional section to ensure historic issues were mitigated. He preferred the Council address these issues before forwarding them to the Planning Board but was comfortable forwarding the design standards section to the Planning Board. Packet Page 220 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett observed the design standards on pages 5-14 were code and pages 1-4 were policy. The Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards while the Council discussed the policy issues further. He preferred the Council discuss the policy issues further before forwarding them to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore noted the usual process was for the Planning Board to do this preliminary work and gather public input. She preferred the entire document be forwarded to the Planning Board at once. Councilmember Wambolt understood from the HPC that the first four pages were a work in progress and the Commission needed to answer the questions posed in the document before the Council could deliberate on it. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of tonight’s meeting was not to discuss the document but rather to present the HPC's work. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the design guidelines developed by the ADB were more general in nature and addressed many areas in the City; the HPC's design standards were tailored to a specific district. He recalled the intent was as design standards for individual neighborhoods/districts were developed, the ADB’s review would occur at the beginning of the process. The new design review process that would be presented to the Council next month included an up-front design review and identification of which areas it would apply to. The draft identified the Hwy. 99 CG zones as well as downtown. That could also include these design standards for a portion of downtown. Councilmember Moore asked if the HPC was comfortable with the entire document. Commissioner Van Tassell stated there were still many questions to be answered in the draft discussion document. Councilmember Marin suggested adding “BD1” and “preserve and mimic historic architectural design elements and provide a mechanism to participate in the review of proposed projects” to the first paragraph of the Purpose section. He explained the intent was to encourage the preservation of buildings with historical architectural significance and if the owner was not interested in preserving the building, require that they mimic the architectural features of a good downtown. Whether that isolated a period of 1890 to 1930 was not as important because the elements identified in design standards that made a good downtown in 1930 also made a good downtown retail core today and in the future. With the addition, he supported forwarding the purpose section to the Planning Board to provide context for the design standards. Council President Olson asked when the Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board would begin their review when the Council referred it. Council President Olson was concerned with slowing the process. Mr. Chave asked whether the Council wanted the HPC to do further refinement and return it to the Council or forward it to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore commented the intent was always for the Arts Corridor to be different from the downtown zones. She suggested consideration be given to how the design standards would apply to the Arts Corridor, acknowledging it may require coordination with the Arts Commission. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE PURPOSE PREAMBLE AS AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN. Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion as the HPC requested more time to work on the document. Councilmember Plunkett commented the portion the HPC wanted to work on was the discussion document; the Commission and Mr. Chave were comfortable with forwarding the historic design standards to the Planning Board. Packet Page 221 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 7 Commissioners agreed with forwarding the design standards to the Planning Board with revised purpose statement, noting the remainder of the draft discussion document was still under construction. Mayor Haakenson was concerned the Planning Board would review the design standards and then later receive the discussion/policy portion of the document. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Planning Board could begin their review of the design standards, noting there were still policy issues to be resolved. He was concerned with forwarding the policy issues to the Planning Board before the Council had reached a consensus on those concepts. Councilmember Moore preferred to complete both documents before forwarding them to the Planning Board. The Planning Board had many other items they were working on. Mayor Haakenson advised the Planning Board had recently prioritized their schedule for the next five months. Commissioner Kindness advised the subcommittee could complete the first four pages at their next meeting. Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was it had taken three months to get to this point and was concerned there would be further delay. He was frustrated with the pace and with the number of unanswered questions on the first four pages. If the policy portion could be returned to the Council within a month, he was comfortable with forwarding the entire document to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Orvis observed there were two different documents, design standards and implementation, and did not think they necessarily needed to be forwarded to the Planning Board at the same time. Councilmember Moore and Council President Olson supported allowing the HPC additional time to complete their work and forward both parts to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Marin was anxious to move forward but was willing to allow the HPC more time. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett clarified his expectation was the HPC’s review would be completed in 30 days and if not, he wanted the design standards to be forwarded to the Planning Board. Councilmembers discussed whether to forward the document to the Planning Board or return it to the City Council to resolve the policy issues and agreed the HPC would return to the full Council with the intent of reviewing and forwarding the document to the Planning Board that night. 6. PRESENTATION OF HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY STUDY REPORT. THE HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE WILL ALSO BRIEF COUNCIL ON POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER STUDY. Councilmember Marin advised the intent of the Hwy. 99 Taskforce’s work was to provide synergy and momentum to attract projects to the Hwy. 99 corridor that would enhance the neighborhood and the City in general. Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained there were 35,000 vehicle trips per day in the Hwy. 99 corridor, predicted to increase to 50,000 vehicle trips per day in the next 20 years. He advised it was a challenging corridor for pedestrians and was extensively used by transit. Mr. Sims introduced Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, who reviewed the project development process which included review of existing conditions, identification of deficiencies, technical workshops, development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and final recommendations. He reviewed project Hwy 99 Traffic Circulation and Safety Study Packet Page 222 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2007 Page 4 4. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS. (Councilmember Plunkett joined the Council via telephone for this item.) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met with the Council in February 2007 where additions to the downtown design were discussed, particularly for the BD1 zone, the retail corridor. After further work, the HPC has presented an outline of their ideas to the Council. Many of the concepts are not yet detailed but the HPC is attempting to indicate their intent. He contrasted this with the design guidelines the HPC developed based on Mark Hinshaw’s work with the Council in 2005. The HPC’s intent is to work with the Planning Board to develop potential amendments to development standards, codes, etc. that would be presented to the Council. He noted the amendments would require public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council. Tonight’s presentation was intended to inform the Council of the direction in which they were proceeding. He referred to City Attorney Scott Snyder’s memo that indicated the Architectural Design Board (ADB) should be included in the discussion. He anticipated the ADB would be involved in developing the amendments. Mr. Chave reviewed the HPC’s report: • Purpose section - add a purpose section to describe the intent. • Rename the BD1 zone - Heritage Center of Edmonds. He explained the interim name captured three concepts, 1) Edmonds, 2) the area as the center and identity of Edmonds, and 3) the heritage of the BD1. • Develop Design Standards - words and pictures describing characteristics in detail. He noted these were labeled guidelines but the HPC wants them adopted as standards that every building/project in the BD1 would be required to meet. • Threshold for Design Review - The HPC feels the traditional standard that requires an ADB hearing, exceeding the SEPA threshold, was too high as there could be significant impacts on historical buildings via renovations that did not meet SEPA. He noted the standard must be specific and could not be vague or unpredictable. Another concern is not capturing too many projects due to time delays caused by ADB review. He noted the goal was to balance the process to ensure the designs were what the City wanted to achieve without unduly burdening the process. • Design Review Process - The HPC recommends having two HPC members on the ADB when projects specifically located in the Heritage District/BD1 are reviewed. The HPC feels their expertise in historic buildings would be helpful to the ADB. • Applications for ADB Review - This section contains the features the HPC feels are important and should be considered in the review. He noted most of these items were consistent with the changes in the design review process with the exception of color. He stated review of color was usually done via historic districts as color was often identified with a particular point in time. Historic districts typically adopt a pallet of colors used during a particular historic period. The challenge for downtown Edmonds would be to determine that historic pallet because multiple pallets for multiple points in time would make regulation difficult. • Demolition - The HPC recommends a waiting period before a building could be demolished. He noted there would be no power to prevent the demolition but the intent was to provide time for the HPC to work with the owner or prospective purchaser regarding adaptive reuse opportunities, identifying a different buyer, etc. He noted this technique had been used in historical districts in other communities and was often successful. He clarified the HPC was not advocating a waiting period for all demolition, only significant demolition. Historic Preservation Commission / Downtown Design Standards Packet Page 223 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2007 Page 5 • Incentives - The HPC was interested in developing incentives for preserving structures and providing a break for property owners trying to do the right thing via more flexible building codes, reduced permit fees, streamlined processing, etc. • EHPC Participation in the Process - The HPC wants to work with the Planning Board and ADB in an effort to develop language that could be adopted as code amendments. Councilmember Orvis referred to the incentives section and the language that buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places be allowed to go outside the existing building’s envelope. He anticipated the only way this could occur would be to increase the building’s height. He asked whether this would be addressed by the non-conforming regulations that the Planning Board was currently reviewing. Mr. Chave answered that was largely true but the HPC was concerned with providing enough flexibility for unusual circumstances that would maintain the character of a building and enhance its viability. Mr. Snyder advised the Planning Board would be discussing the non-conforming use provisions in the context of adaptive reuse at their next meeting. He provided examples such as limitations on the amount of glass due to the new energy codes. The intent was to review building code requirements that were not health safety related that could be altered in order to make the retention of an existing building more economically attractive/viable - to provide incentives to retain a building rather than demolish it. Councilmember Wambolt did not want this to be a way to increase heights. Mr. Chave assured that was not the intent and that would not be expected from the HPC. Mr. Snyder commented assuming the public liked Edmonds the way it was, the intent was to encourage property owners to retain those buildings. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of forwarding the HPC’s recommendations to the Planning Board. He noted although there were a number of interesting old buildings downtown that should be retained, there were no grand, architecturally significant buildings as compared to Fairhaven or Port Townsend for example. He recalled discussions in the past few years that highlighted the importance of maintaining a vital downtown retail core and was satisfied the HPC’s proposal met that intent. He was not opposed to the name “Heritage Center” but did not want the concept of maintaining a vital downtown retail core to be overlooked. He referred to old buildings that had been architecturally enhanced and improved, commenting he viewed the design guidelines as a method of improving the downtown core. Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Snyder’s memo, pointing out there were few truly historic buildings downtown but there were many buildings that added a feeling, character and charm to downtown that because it had been developed over time, could not be recreated artificially. She spoke in favor of developing incentives that encouraged the retention and restoration of existing buildings, remarking without incentives, it may not be economically feasible to retain an existing building, making it more attractive for a developer to demolish it. She suggested expanding the definition of what the HPC was trying to preserve. She found heritage rather than historic appropriate for the downtown core. Councilmember Dawson was intrigued by having an HPC member serve temporarily on the ADB when reviewing buildings in the downtown area and asked whether that was done in other areas. Mr. Chave answered he was not aware of any other cities that had a difference in membership on the ADB depending on the location of the project. It was more common to have a separate board for each district. Mr. Snyder pointed out the definition of the ADB membership included architects, landscape engineers, etc.; therefore, it was consistent to have members with different expertise. Mr. Chave commented an alternative may be to change the requirement for the ADB to include a member with historic expertise. Councilmember Orvis proposed a scenario of a 35-foot tall historic building that had no elevator; the property owner wanted to restore it and add an elevator which would require the addition of a penthouse. Packet Page 224 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2007 Page 6 Under the non-conforming provisions that would not be allowed because the building would not be allowed to go higher than five feet for an elevator. Mr. Chave noted the intent was to make retaining the building viable. Mr. Snyder clarified life and safety requirements could not be waived nor accessibility requirements. Council President Olson asked whether the ADB would be involved before the proposal was presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave envisioned an initial presentation/discussion with the Planning Board and then a meeting with representatives from both groups. He noted the entire Board members did not necessarily need to be present; they could designate a few members from each to meet. Council President Olson asked whether the Planning Board would hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave answered yes as amendments to the development code required a public hearing. The Council would also hold a public hearing. Councilmember Marin remarked Councilmember Orvis’ scenario regarding the addition of an elevator was a remote possibility. He supported Councilmember Dawson’s comments regarding providing incentives to preserve buildings. He recommended establishing sufficient flexibility so that a property owner would feel they had a chance when asking for a deviation while making sure they were carefully worded so that the result was not an increase in building heights downtown. Mayor Haakenson advised Councilmember Plunkett was having difficulty hearing the Council via telephone and was satisfied with the HPC’s outline proceeding to the Planning Board. It was the consensus of the Council for the HPC to proceed to the Planning Board. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the court’s consideration of the Old Woodway Elementary School demolition, case #07-2-03222-1 was continued to May 25 at 9:00 a.m. The judge has indicated he plans to make a final decision at that time. Next, Mr. Rutledge urged Council to discuss term limits for the Mayor prior to January 1, noting the legislature planned to consider term limits during the next session. Mr. Rutledge then commented on past population increases, pointing out the population in 1963 was 19,273, it was 29,720 in 1989 and was forecast to be 37,000 by 2010 and 40,000 by 2015. He concluded growth had been greater than expected due in part to annexations. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, displayed a bag of incandescent light bulbs that as a result of Mayor Haakenson’s proclamation he replaced with compact florescent bulbs that use one fourth the electricity. He noted florescent bulbs paid for themselves within 9-18 months and the bulbs last ten years. He displayed a chart of his household energy use that he tracked using his energy bills that illustrated during the last year the daily kilowatt use. He summarized his household’s daily energy use was 12 kilowatt hours per day or ½ kilowatt per hour which was the equivalent of leaving five 100 watt light bulbs on 24 hours per day which he noted was very low. He urged the public to look at their electric meters and try to make them stop. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Council discussion regarding Wi-Fi and his conversation with Administrative Services Director Dan Clements regarding Edmonds’ ability to capture that system. He asked what the City would do with the system once it was in place, suggesting the City move forward cautiously. He urged Council to read and discuss the article in today’s Everett Herald. Next, he expressed concern with Bob Gregg’s offer to settle his lawsuit in exchange for something he wanted from the City. He recalled when Mr. Gregg was seeking approval for the Old Milltown project the second time, he stated he would cancel the lawsuit if he got what he wanted, which he apparently had not done. He acknowledged there likely had been discussion in Executive Session about the lawsuit and now there Old Woodway Elementary Term Limits Population Increases Incandescent Light Bulbs Wi-Fi Old Milltown/ Gregg Lawsuit Packet Page 225 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 27, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview an Arts Commission candidate, 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 Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Deanna Dawson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Sims, Traffic Engineer Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #94366 THROUGH #94503 FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $517,224.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44519 THROUGH #44565 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,144.76. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DARROL HAUG (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). 3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Greg Banasek and described his background. Approve 2/20/07 Minutes Approve Claim Checks Claim for Damages Arts Commission Appointment Packet Page 226 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Banasek thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Arts Commission. Mayor Haakenson thanked him for volunteering to serve. 4. 2007 LIMITED OBLIGATION BOND SALE. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements introduced the City’s Financial Advisor Allen Dashen, A. Dashen & Associates. Mr. Dashen displayed a graph of interest rate trends for the past year and since 1987, commenting interest rates had not been this low since the pre-President Nixon days. He reviewed a list of purposes for the $5,230,000 bond sale, noting only a small amount was General Fund moneys with most paid by utilities and other sources. Mr. Dashen explained the City applied for a rating on the City’s bonds from Moody’s Investors Service who confirmed the City’s A1 rating on Limited Tax Bonds and confirmed the AA3 rating for voted bonds. He noted this placed the City’s rate in the top tier of cities in Washington State. He relayed comments made by Moody’s including strong tax base appreciation in affluent community just north of Seattle; City’s financial operations are well managed, benefiting from a combination of spending practices and healthy revenue growth; and favorable comments about fund balances. Mr. Dashen explained the bonds were structured to be “bank qualified” which results in a lower interest rate to the City, approximately 4% lower. The bonds mature over 20 years and were sold through a competitive bid process with firms nationwide bidding on the City’s bonds. The City received 11 bids; PNC Capital Markets was the winning bidder. He displayed a list of bidders, noting 2-3 were within .01% of each other. He reviewed the source and uses of the funds, advising the net from the sale was $5,205,734. He recommended approval of the sale resolution. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1142. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE BID OF PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC FOR $5,230,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 2007, OF THE CITY; FIXING THE INTEREST RATES AND MATURITY SCHEDULE ON THOSE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. 5. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. Historic Preservation Commissioners Steven Waite, Rob Van Tassell, Norma Bruns, Christine Deiner- Karr, and Barbara Kindness introduced themselves. (Commissioners Brian Hall and Deborah Binder were absent.) Commissioner Kindness advised the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meets the second Tuesday of each month in the Fourtner Room of City Hall. She advised the meetings were open to the public and they encourage attendance and participation from interested citizens. Councilmember Plunkett is the Council liaison on the Commission and staff assistance is provided by Rob Chave and Diane Cunningham. Commissioner Kindness invited the Chair of each of the Commission’s four subcommittees to report on their activities. Commissioner Van Tassell reported the Planning Committee’s recent efforts focused on 2007 Limited Obligation Bond Sale Historic Preservation Commission Packet Page 227 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 3 the downtown core, which they called the heritage neighborhood area, and providing guidance for design with regard to historic preservation. Their efforts resulted in a draft document that had been circulated to the Council’s Community Services/Development Services committee and the public. The next step would be to share the draft with the Planning Board and the City Attorney before presenting it to the Council for codification. The Planning Committee also developed the Commission’s Strategic Plan. Commissioner Kindness advised Commissioner Waite, Chair of the Incentives Committee, also developed the walking tour. Commissioner Waite explained one of the challenges for the Incentives Committee was convincing building owners to retain their structures as they had the right to demolish their structure. He noted buildings on the Historic Register were community assets and part of a collection of structures and sites that created Edmonds’ image. Incentives for structures on the Historic Register could include an expedited permit process or a reduction in permit fees. The Committee has also been reviewing the International Existing Building Code which has been adopted in other cities. Commissioner Waite described the walking tour attended by Councilmembers, ADB and Planning Board Members, staff and the public to look at existing buildings in the City and point out architectural characteristics that define the City. He offered to conduct another tour in the spring. He advised there were buildings in the community that represent each decade from 1890. Commissioner Deiner-Karr, Chair of the Registration Committee, referred to a list of applications for registration that have been submitted. She explained five private property applications were submitted in 2006; one of the properties, the August Johnson House, which has been reviewed and approved by the HPC and the Planning Board, would be presented to the Council for approval in the near future. In addition, ten properties that are already on the State Historical Register have submitted applications as part of the expedited process for registering properties on the State and National Registers. The Commission hopes to have these properties through the registration process by the end of the first quarter in 2007. Once these properties were approved, she advised plaques would be installed on the properties. Commissioner Kindness advised 83 properties in the downtown core met the criteria for historic preservation. Once these initial properties were approved, the Commission planned to encourage other property owners to apply for designation. Commissioner Bruns reported the primary purpose of the Community Outreach and Education Committee was to educate the public about the existence of the HPC as well as its mission and purpose. Deborah Binder, a member of the committee, raised over $4,000 to produce the walking tour brochure that highlights 27 historic and architectural sites in the downtown core. The brochure has been well received and is available at local Snohomish County tourist information offices. Work has begun on a companion brochure that will help Edmonds residents understand why and how to register their properties. This brochure is funded by a grant from the Washington State Historic Preservation Office. Commissioner Bruns advised the committee organized a day at the Edmonds Summer Market where they connected with residents and distributed brochures. They plan to do this again in 2007. The committee also wrote several articles in the local newspaper about the HPC’s work. Commissioner Bruns advised she is the representative from the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society. She suggested a joint meeting to address the difference between the museum’s activities and the HPC’s activities. Councilmember Moore asked the difference between the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society and the HPC. Commissioner Bruns explained the Historic Society operates the museum and may put up plaques. She summarized the Historic Society’s focus was sites versus individual residences. She relayed the Historic Society planned to fund a plaque for Holmes Corner. Commissioner Waite commented the Historic Society was a repository of information, items and photographs versus the HPC Packet Page 228 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 4 which was a City Commission charged with placing buildings and sites on the Edmonds Historic Register. He assured a property added to the Edmonds Historic Register could be easily removed from the register; however, being on the register could provide certain benefits via local government. For Councilmember Moore, Commissioner Waite described benefits of being on the Edmonds Historic Register which include freezing the value of any improvements for ten years. There are also tax credits available from being on the National Register. He explained being on the Edmonds Historic Register was an honorarium that illustrated the property owners’ interest in historic preservation and may increase the structure’s value. Councilmember Moore asked whether the 83 structures that met the Commission’s criteria were all in the downtown core. Commissioner Kindness advised they were. Commissioner Waite noted these included commercial buildings as well. Commissioner Kindness advised the advisory board identified over 1000 properties that were over 50 years old. The survey only detailed the downtown area and identified 83 properties. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised the 83 properties also included structures less than 50 years old that were architecturally unique. She noted there were also properties for which an application had been submitted that were not on the list but research found they had historically unique character. Councilmember Moore asked whether the owners of the 83 properties had been notified their property was identified on the survey. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised some had been contacted; a notification strategy was being considered. Councilmember Plunkett recognized Historic Preservation Commissioners for their specific efforts and thanked the Council for providing the funds for the survey of downtown properties and funds for plaques. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Design Standards for possible Heritage Neighborhood provided by the Historic Preservation Commission, advising these were design standards, not guidelines as the intent was to codify the standards for the BD1 zone so that new construction or renovation was required to meet historic standards. He noted the design standards were the result of the work of Mark Hinshaw as well as Rob Chave. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment in the Planning report that the next step in the process was to share the draft with the Planning Board, expressing concern with the possibility of forwarding the draft to the Planning Board before the Council approved the concept. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of the presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee was to obtain input from the Council. He urged the Council to provide additional feedback. Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council approve the concept before the draft was forwarded to the Planning Board. Commissioner Waite envisioned workshops with the Planning Board as well as input from the public. Councilmember Marin recalled the draft was presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and after further review, he was prepared to provide feedback. He was satisfied with forwarding the Design Guidelines for Building Design (pages 5-14) to the Planning Board immediately. Recognizing the need for incentives to encourage property owners to register their properties, he suggested the next priority for the Commission be to finalize a recommendation on incentives, present it to the Community Services/Development Services Committee, then to the Council and then to the Planning Board. He was uncomfortable with the first four pages of the draft code language. Due to the shift of the ADB review to the beginning of the process, he was not comfortable with having two Historic Preservation Commissioners be voting members on the ADB but did not object to two Commissioners serving in an advisory role on the ADB. Packet Page 229 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 5 With regard to the language requiring HPC review of demolition applications, Councilmember Marin noted this review was too late in the process. He preferred property owners be encouraged to preserve their buildings via incentives for registry. He was satisfied with the language regarding dimensions. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to speak to design guidelines versus design standards. Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Commission’s feeling was that these items were important enough that all buildings in the downtown core should respond to them and therefore were more appropriate as standards in the code. He agreed with the suggestion for Historic Preservation Commissioners to advise the ADB, noting the logistics would need to be worked out. Mr. Chave advised the demolition standards required further review by the City Attorney which could be accomplished during the Planning Board’s review. He noted the draft was primarily a HPC product and had not had a detailed review by staff. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave advised the entire document could be forwarded to the Planning Board for review or forward only pages 5-14 and after further refinement, forward pages 1-4. Councilmember Wambolt was comfortable with forwarding the design standards developed by Mr. Hinshaw and refined by Mr. Chave to the Planning Board, suggesting the document prepared by ACE accompany the design standards. Council President Olson suggested as ACE was not a City organization, the information prepared by ACE could be provided to the Planning Board for their deliberations. Councilmember Wambolt agreed as long as the Planning Board reviewed the information. Councilmember Plunkett was reluctant for the Council to forward the ACE document as well as the first four pages of the discussion document to avoid the appearance that the Council was endorsing it in concept. He noted ACE or any other individual or group could submit information to the Planning Board. He supported forwarding the Historic Design Standards to the Planning Board. Councilmember Marin agreed the ACE material should not accompany the design standards and suggested ACE provide the material to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore asked what happened if the Council did not act on the design standards tonight. Commissioner Van Tassell answered forwarding one without the other would be out of context. He preferred the documents be forwarded to the Planning Board together as one document. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the provision to relocate a historic building. Commissioner Van Tassell answered the August Johnson House was an example of an opportunity for a house to be moved to an appropriate location and remain on the registry. Councilmember Orvis asked if the building could be moved outside the Heritage Neighborhood. Commissioner Van Tassell answered yes, which would allow construction of a new building on the site. Councilmember Orvis asked whether dimensional waivers would be addressed by grandfathering. Commissioner Van Tassell answered a house that was out of compliance may be required to be brought into compliance when improvements were made. Commissioner Waite advised the City Attorney was drafting verbiage regarding non-compliance. He advised this provision would allow improvements to a structure without penalty. Councilmember Orvis agreed there appeared to be issues on the first four pages that needed to be addressed. He preferred the members representing the HPC on the ADB be voting members. He recommended withholding the dimensional section to ensure historic issues were mitigated. He preferred the Council address these issues before forwarding them to the Planning Board but was comfortable forwarding the design standards section to the Planning Board. Packet Page 230 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett observed the design standards on pages 5-14 were code and pages 1-4 were policy. The Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards while the Council discussed the policy issues further. He preferred the Council discuss the policy issues further before forwarding them to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore noted the usual process was for the Planning Board to do this preliminary work and gather public input. She preferred the entire document be forwarded to the Planning Board at once. Councilmember Wambolt understood from the HPC that the first four pages were a work in progress and the Commission needed to answer the questions posed in the document before the Council could deliberate on it. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of tonight’s meeting was not to discuss the document but rather to present the HPC's work. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the design guidelines developed by the ADB were more general in nature and addressed many areas in the City; the HPC's design standards were tailored to a specific district. He recalled the intent was as design standards for individual neighborhoods/districts were developed, the ADB’s review would occur at the beginning of the process. The new design review process that would be presented to the Council next month included an up-front design review and identification of which areas it would apply to. The draft identified the Hwy. 99 CG zones as well as downtown. That could also include these design standards for a portion of downtown. Councilmember Moore asked if the HPC was comfortable with the entire document. Commissioner Van Tassell stated there were still many questions to be answered in the draft discussion document. Councilmember Marin suggested adding “BD1” and “preserve and mimic historic architectural design elements and provide a mechanism to participate in the review of proposed projects” to the first paragraph of the Purpose section. He explained the intent was to encourage the preservation of buildings with historical architectural significance and if the owner was not interested in preserving the building, require that they mimic the architectural features of a good downtown. Whether that isolated a period of 1890 to 1930 was not as important because the elements identified in design standards that made a good downtown in 1930 also made a good downtown retail core today and in the future. With the addition, he supported forwarding the purpose section to the Planning Board to provide context for the design standards. Council President Olson asked when the Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board would begin their review when the Council referred it. Council President Olson was concerned with slowing the process. Mr. Chave asked whether the Council wanted the HPC to do further refinement and return it to the Council or forward it to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore commented the intent was always for the Arts Corridor to be different from the downtown zones. She suggested consideration be given to how the design standards would apply to the Arts Corridor, acknowledging it may require coordination with the Arts Commission. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE PURPOSE PREAMBLE AS AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN. Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion as the HPC requested more time to work on the document. Councilmember Plunkett commented the portion the HPC wanted to work on was the discussion document; the Commission and Mr. Chave were comfortable with forwarding the historic design standards to the Planning Board. Packet Page 231 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 7 Commissioners agreed with forwarding the design standards to the Planning Board with revised purpose statement, noting the remainder of the draft discussion document was still under construction. Mayor Haakenson was concerned the Planning Board would review the design standards and then later receive the discussion/policy portion of the document. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Planning Board could begin their review of the design standards, noting there were still policy issues to be resolved. He was concerned with forwarding the policy issues to the Planning Board before the Council had reached a consensus on those concepts. Councilmember Moore preferred to complete both documents before forwarding them to the Planning Board. The Planning Board had many other items they were working on. Mayor Haakenson advised the Planning Board had recently prioritized their schedule for the next five months. Commissioner Kindness advised the subcommittee could complete the first four pages at their next meeting. Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was it had taken three months to get to this point and was concerned there would be further delay. He was frustrated with the pace and with the number of unanswered questions on the first four pages. If the policy portion could be returned to the Council within a month, he was comfortable with forwarding the entire document to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Orvis observed there were two different documents, design standards and implementation, and did not think they necessarily needed to be forwarded to the Planning Board at the same time. Councilmember Moore and Council President Olson supported allowing the HPC additional time to complete their work and forward both parts to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Marin was anxious to move forward but was willing to allow the HPC more time. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett clarified his expectation was the HPC’s review would be completed in 30 days and if not, he wanted the design standards to be forwarded to the Planning Board. Councilmembers discussed whether to forward the document to the Planning Board or return it to the City Council to resolve the policy issues and agreed the HPC would return to the full Council with the intent of reviewing and forwarding the document to the Planning Board that night. 6. PRESENTATION OF HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY STUDY REPORT. THE HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE WILL ALSO BRIEF COUNCIL ON POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER STUDY. Councilmember Marin advised the intent of the Hwy. 99 Taskforce’s work was to provide synergy and momentum to attract projects to the Hwy. 99 corridor that would enhance the neighborhood and the City in general. Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained there were 35,000 vehicle trips per day in the Hwy. 99 corridor, predicted to increase to 50,000 vehicle trips per day in the next 20 years. He advised it was a challenging corridor for pedestrians and was extensively used by transit. Mr. Sims introduced Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, who reviewed the project development process which included review of existing conditions, identification of deficiencies, technical workshops, development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and final recommendations. He reviewed project Hwy 99 Traffic Circulation and Safety Study Packet Page 232 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 12 Council President Dawson proposed the step-back rules in the BD1 be consistent with the step back rules in the other areas so that the building did not have the appearance of additional height. Her concern was that there was the ability in the BD1 to have buildings that are and appear to be taller than the rest of downtown, something she found surprising in the fountain square area. She referred to staff’s note in the packet that as an alternative to a 28-foot height limit in the BD1 zone 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, requiring a step-back for any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet above average grade. Although she was still uncomfortable with a 30-foot building height, she found this an acceptable compromise. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADD THE BD1 ZONE TO THE STEP-BACK RULES IN 16.43.030.C.3. Councilmember Marin advised he would support the amendment but did not believe it would ever be used as that area was fairly level. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out 16.43.030.C.2 had to be changed as the existing wording, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height, was misleading because the ground floor in the BD1 was required to be 15 feet. Mr. Chave explained the reason it was worded that way was the base height was 25 feet. Mr. Snyder pointed out that wording was necessary to prevent an existing building that was remodeled less than 50% of its value from increasing the building height without increasing the first floor height. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE BC ZONE. Citing the Council’s recent quasi judicial review of a building that many people had feelings about and the Council’s inability to overturn the ADB’s recommendation based on historical character because the City’s standards relied on the term “sensitive” which was a general term and difficult to enforce, Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council begin a process that involved the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) to develop historical standards for buildings in the BD1 zone. Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Orvis’ concept would need to be separate from the current moratorium. Councilmember Orvis was concerned with lifting the moratorium on the BD1, expressing interest in a moratorium on development in the BD1 until a historical review process could be developed to ensure new buildings in BD1 zone had a historical flavor via either maintaining the existing historical building or redeveloped to look like a historical building. Mayor Haakenson suggested the proper process would be to lift the current moratorium and adopt a new moratorium on the BD1 zone for historical purposes. Mr. Snyder suggested if the motion passed, another motion could be made directing him to draft another moratorium on the BD1 zone. He pointed out that would be a broader moratorium; the one proposed to be lifted was only on development over 25 feet. Mayor Haakenson asked how long the City could continue to have a moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered it had been a long time, a duration he was not comfortable with. He suggested lifting the current moratorium and as Councilmember Orvis described, Packet Page 233 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 13 establish a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits for new construction and demolition permits in the downtown area. Council President Dawson asked when the current moratorium ended. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it had been extended recently and expired May 17. Mayor Haakenson explained Councilmember Marin’s motion was to repeal the current moratorium; Councilmember Orvis’ suggestion was for a different moratorium with a different legislative rationale. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis explained his hope was that the Council would direct the HPC to develop ordinances to hold buildings in the BD1 to tighter historical standards than currently existed; the moratorium would protect the buildings in the BD1 zone until the ordinances could be adopted. He hoped this could be done in a timely manner so that the moratorium would be short lived. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DEVELOP ORDINANCES THAT HOLD BUILDINGS TO TIGHTER HISTORICAL STANDARDS. Councilmember Moore commented she did not understand what the tighter historical standards would be and again, this suggestion needed public input. She pointed out a moratorium was a very serious thing and she did not believe anyone would file an application for a building in the BD1 because of the restrictions the Council placed on that zone. She emphasized the term “historic” needed to be defined before a moratorium was adopted as historic was something more than nostalgic. Council President Dawson clarified the motion was for the HPC to begin working on historic standards and did not include a moratorium. She supported the concept of historic preservation downtown to ensure the buildings the community believed were historic were preserved. She expressed her support for the motion. Mayor Haakenson assumed whatever the HPC developed would be forwarded to the Planning Board for their consideration. Council President Dawson agreed it would have to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore commented she misunderstood the motion to include a moratorium. Councilmember Orvis commented that would be his next motion. Councilmember Plunkett agreed specific language needed to be developed so that the community was satisfied that new construction and remodeled structures met historic standards that reflected the character and the will of the community. That could be achieved via the HPC developing language for input by the Council and review and hearings by the Planning Board. He expressed his support for the motion. Councilmember Marin commented the work of the HPC to date made it optional for the property owner to have their building declared historic and providing the owner with options. He was hesitant to support the motion as worded in the fear it would lock owners in and tell them what they could/could not do with their building. Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the motion was not to establish an historic district such as Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle. He agreed the only process for historic structures today was voluntary; the motion addressed specific design guidelines so that new construction or a remodel would meet the intent of sensitive to historic character. Packet Page 234 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 14 Councilmember Moore commented the Council still had not passed design guidelines although they had been a Council priority for some time. She questioned how a process to develop historic design guidelines would be dovetailed with the design guidelines that were already in process. Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful they would dovetail, that would be a good objective. The HPC’s objective would be to move as fast as possible. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board was holding a hearing tomorrow night. Councilmember Moore envisioned those design guidelines would come to the Council before the HPC could begin their work and if the HPC developed historic design guidelines, the process would need to begin again. Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would support the motion due to his belief the issue of historic buildings needed to be reviewed because most citizens had a different ideas of what it meant – they believed historic buildings were protected and that the owner could not demolish a building designated as historic. Councilmember Orvis agreed it would be preferable if the processes dovetailed. If a conflict arose between the design guidelines, his preference would be to side with the historic standards due to the importance of preserving the historic nature of downtown. He pointed out the importance of the City’s historical character to economic development. Councilmember Moore agreed with better defining historic standards. She pointed out the downtown had been developed over decades and only a few buildings could be identified as having a historic look. She would support the motion so that the HPC could hear from the public what they believed was historic and why. Councilmember Olson recommended this effort be fast-tracked and incorporated into the design guidelines currently being processed. Mr. Snyder pointed out the motion did not refer to a specific zone. Councilmember Orvis advised his intent was to limit it to the BD1 zone. Mr. Snyder inquired whether his intent was only architectural features. Councilmember Orvis clarified his intent was an open-ended process for the HPC to determine how the history of downtown could be preserved. Councilmember Marin questioned what date would be frozen as “historic.” He pointed out in Pioneer Square, there were a sufficient number of buildings constructed in that era that satisfied an architectural style and it was appropriate to freeze that time. Conversely, Edmonds’ downtown has evolved over a long period of time. He objected to freezing buildings that were no longer viable. Mayor Haakenson clarified the motion was for the HPC to study historic buildings and what historic buildings mean and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave commented if the Council charged the HPC with analyzing options for preserving downtown, there were many different options. He suggested the HPC decide on an approach and present it to the Council before forwarding it to the Planning Board to develop ordinances. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD PROCEED WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE BD1 ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 235 of 247 A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com {WSS662105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2007 TO: Rob Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Recommendation of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission -- BD-1 Zone This memo suggests items for follow up in the upcoming process. ADB The recommendation involves authorizing the Historic Preservation Commission members to engage in a process with the Planning Board to create design guidelines for the BD-1 or “Heritage Center” zone. Why isn’t the Architectural Design Board involved? Given that the ADB has developed the majority of design guidelines throughout the City, their assistance, particularly to ensure consistency, seems appropriate. Legislative Findings The purpose clause in the recommendation refers to the “historic architectural character” of the area. My understanding is that there are a limited number of truly historic structures in the area. Given the potential for legal challenge to an ordinance of this type, it would be helpful to me if the legislative record identified the particular structures or characteristics of the area, as well as its “street scape.” Similarly, a careful and detailed description and definition of the “surrounding street scapes” is necessary. Of particular interest to me in the process will be the identification of which structures have a historic character or other architectural feature which should be integrated in the design of new remodeled buildings. One example is the unutilized or underutilized lots on 5th east of Dayton. Is it the intent of the Commission that these underutilized properties be considered when evaluating the street scape? Packet Page 236 of 247 Rob Chave, Planning Manager May 22, 2007 Page 2 {WSS662105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} The findings also indicate that the Center will “promote an economic vitality by increasing property values and encouraging heritage for tourism.” If this statement is supported by data, it should be included in the record. If not, let’s see what can be developed. Developing a legislative record would be very helpful in defending the ordinance in the event of challenge. ADB Applications The ADB application section refers to an “actual color chart.” As you may be aware, the Architectural Design Board moved away from color charts some time ago. The difficulty, of course, is determining what colors are appropriate or in developing criteria, to review color. Either portions of a color chart should be designated as appropriate and others inappropriate, or a detailed standard developed. What must be avoided is a vague general standard, such as colors which are “consistent with the surroundings.” Such a standard would be too open-ended for lawful application. Incentives The issue of incentives is currently being brought to the Planning Board through the concept of adaptive reuse. One of the principles of adaptive reuse is the loosening of building code requirements to encourage continuation of use of existing structures. I suggest that the two efforts be coordinated. WSS:gjz Packet Page 237 of 247 ACE Subcommittee on Downtown Core preservation: I. Section 17.40 (Non-conforming Building Regulations), Edmonds Municipal Code: ACE endorses the proposed re-write of this section to the extent that it encourages historic re-use or preserves the look, feel and charm of an existing neighborhood. II. Section 10.05 (Architectural Design Board), Edmonds Municipal Code: ACE endorses the creation of a new, separate Architectural Design Board (ADB) consisting of 7 members. This new Downtown ADB (the “DADB”) will review proposed development in only the “Downtown Core” area comprised of the BD-1, the BD-5 and the Downtown Master Plan Area (i.e., old Safeway & Harbor Square areas)1. (NOTE: Below in Part III we are attaching district specific items we believe should be included in a new district-based Design Guidelines document and be applied to this “Downtown Core” area.) ACE proposes that for the new, separate Downtown Core ADB (the “DADB”): • all members shall be appointed by the City Council except one member appointed by the Mayor. (ACE feels the current Planning & Development staff provide adequate representation of the Mayor’s views in all design review processes.) ACE further endorses that for all/both/any ADB, the following must be true: • members shall comprise: one design professional, one builder, one landscape professional or master gardener, one member of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Committee, one historic preservation professional or same-minded citizen and two lay members who have experience in any of the above categories. • all members must reside in the city of Edmonds. • the Council will replace or reaffirm each member every two years, and any member may be removed from his/her position by the City Council and following a public hearing. • the DADB meetings (if not also the ADB meetings) should be televised to ensure transparency to the community and accountability in the design review process in this historically and culturally significant part of our city. 1 This area ultimately may grow to include zones BD2, BD3 and BD4. Packet Page 238 of 247 III. Proposed items for inclusion together with existing wording in proposed Design Guidelines document to create a district-based Design Guidelines which govern the BD-1 zone, the BD-5 zone and the Downtown Master Plan Area – the “Downtown Core”: {include a helpful graphic like this one which points to the correct district-based Design Guideline manual & process} WHICH CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROCESSES? Locate your site on the area Map … Is it in the Downtown Core (BD1, BD5 or Downtown Master Plan Area)? Is it in the CG or CG2 Zone? Is it in another BD Zone or in a Residential neighborhood? Go to Downtown Core Design Guidelines Go to CG/ CG2 Design Guidelines (not addressed here) Go to General Design Guidelines Packet Page 239 of 247 DOWNTOWN CORE DESIGN GUIDELINES OVERVIEW: The streetscape of these three zones is predominated by a late 19th & early 20th century central arterial (Main Street) that is lined with businesses which leads uphill from the waterfront, formerly an industrial area. These late 1800s – 1930s era buildings typically feature a store on the ground floor and, if 2 story, steps which lead to professional offices or apartments. Those early facades were and still are generally in 3-parts and characterized by a central (or offset) recessed entry flanked by large display windows that rested on bulkheads. The compact streetscapes and these welcoming, often recessed store entrances of Edmonds contribute directly to our downtown’s reputation as a walking community that invites neighborliness. Pedestrians and shoppers are sheltered by horizontal simple awnings which are one of our trademarks. The DADB and city Planning Staff, through the following district-based Downtown Core Design Guidelines, aim to ensure that the compact streetscapes and the safe & friendly nature of Edmonds are complemented by the protection of our historical, cultural and natural resources. These characteristics taken together comprise the Edmonds downtown “vernacular” architecture. GUIDELINES (to supplement the proposed Design Guidelines document and to be then applied to the “Downtown Core” area): Walk or drive slowly by your building or site on the most commonly used route. Analyze the visual impact your planned development (or redevelopment) will have on the buildings, the site, landscape, streetscape and on our city at large. 1. The Downtown Core Architectural Design Board (“DADB”) and Planning Staff shall offer property owners technical and professional guidance in adapting and changing both residential and commercial structures to meet the demands of modern life while simultaneously preserving their significant original qualities - - pertaining to either the rehabilitation of an existing building or to an undeveloped site’s original significant qualities. Packet Page 240 of 247 2. To encourage and guard our lively streets environment and to maintain pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, all streetscape designs shall bring together the following elements: cohesiveness in design, compactness, social interaction and be compatible with the rhythm, flow and pattern of neighboring building facades, setbacks and orientation. 3. The DADB and Planning Staff will pay particular attention to re- development plans for a building or site with identifiable historic value or features. 4. New construction is welcomed and adds to the diversity of the downtown core and, therefore, to the city at large. Moreover, these downtown core design guidelines are not meant to encourage period-specific or a “theme” approach to new construction. However, even within the current diversity in our downtown area there are patterns, textures and rhythms which exist, and new construction design must be found by the DADB and Planning Staff to be compatible with and add value to the immediate neighborhood. 5. All design proposals that contain large, unbroken horizontal or vertical facades shall be denied approval by the DADB. Instead, design proposals shall break up expanses into smaller pieces that relate to the rhythms and scale of the 1890s-1930s, the “vernacular” architecture of our downtown core. 6. Any rehabilitation, alteration or new construction must be compatible with the character-defining features (singly and in combination) that distinguish the surrounding neighborhood and streetscapes, the “vernacular” downtown Edmonds architecture. 7. All distinguishing, original qualities or character of an historic building, structure, site or its environ shall not be destroyed or obscured. Packet Page 241 of 247 8. Proposed new roofs or changes to existing roofs shall be compatible in form, scale, materials and orientation with the surrounding rooflines. 9. The DADB and Planning Staff shall strive to present affordable and achievable methods for the rehabilitation & alteration of existing structures as well as for new construction in order to preserve the rhythms, texture and patterns found in the “vernacular” downtown architecture. 10. (The city should offer financial assistance in the form of permit fee waivers, tax incentives, etc. to encourage property owners to maintain and reuse current downtown core buildings with historic or significant features.) 11. Signage is an important design element that affects both the visual character of the area as well as the viability of its businesses. Signs should not interrupt or overlap architectural features such as cornices, columns or trim, and should be oriented to pedestrians in size and shape. Wood is the preferred material for signs on historic structures. All signage color and materials shall be compatible with surrounding buildings and streetscapes. 12. Satellite dishes, fuel tanks, generators, heating & air conditioning units, electrical boxes and other such devices must be unobtrusively situated so they will not be visible from the public thoroughfare and shall be screened where feasible. 13. Parking areas shall be made visually unobtrusive and shall be located to the rear of buildings if feasible or else visually screened from public walkways. Packet Page 242 of 247 DOWNTOWN CORE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Brief description of new project and surrounding streetscape (neighboring buildings, setbacks, heights & rooflines) 2. Site plan to include location of existing buildings, location of additions or new buildings, the location of utilities and links to bike paths, the Arts Corridor, planned pedestrian thoroughfares and the intermodal connections near the waterfront. 3. Blueprints to include plan, elevation and section drawings. Include window design, signs and exterior lighting 4. Detailed drawings or 3-dimensional model of new or altered architectural features and trim 5. Description and samples of building materials including types of windows, roofing and siding. (You must include an actual color chart or color samples.) 6. Photographs of nearby building facades, rooflines and streetscape (all 3). If an historic rehabilitation or alteration, photos from the Historic Preservation Commission will be very helpful. DOWNTOWN CORE DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST: (please insert here revised criteria based on above guidelines) Packet Page 243 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2008 Page 17 COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO ADD A PURPLE STAR ON THE RECOMMENDED PLAN FACILITIES MAP REPRESENTING A PROPOSED COMMUNITY REGIONAL PARK WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER. Councilmember Bernheim clarified his intent was not to purchase the entire Antique Mall property, but to include in the Park Plan the potential for a community regional park of any size within that area, either a bench, stage, tourist kiosk, etc. Mr. McIntosh advised the revised Plan Facilities map contained a circle entitled Possible Public Amenity in Downtown Water Activity Center. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. 9. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BD1 ZONE Mayor Haakenson advised this item was for information only and was scheduled for a public hearing on July 15. Planning Manager Rob Chave agreed this was an opportunity for the Council to ask questions prior to the public hearing. He explained the Planning Board considered the items the Council referred and worked with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Architectural Design Board (ADB) who agreed the design standards should be forwarded to the Council and the Planning Board would continue discussions with the HPC on other concepts such as a waiting period on demolition, modifications to design review in the BD1 zone, etc. Council President Plunkett inquired regarding the SEPA threshold in the BD1, recalling there was interesting in lowering that threshold. Mr. Chave answered that had not been done; the Planning Board wanted to have further discussion regarding that issue. The ADB was interested in revising the design review standards for what was reviewed by the ADB but were unable to determine what the standard should be. Council President Plunkett expressed interest in lowering the SEPA threshold and recalled the Council had discussed the SEPA threshold being too high in the BD1. He noted the HPC considered the BD1 a special area and wanted it renamed the Heritage Center to ensure developers were aware it was heritage sensitive. Mr. Chave advised the public hearing would be on the design standards as proposed; Council should provide further direction regarding any other changes. Mr. Chave did not view the name change as significant although it may be helpful to advertise that a name change was being considered for the BD1 zone. He noted it would be very important to advertise any change in design review thresholds as that was a major change. He clarified the Planning Board wanted to work with the HPC to determine the standards and suggested waiting for a recommendation from the Planning Board on that specific issue. He agreed to communicate to the Planning Board that the Council wanted them to pursue lowering the threshold in the BD1 and renaming the BD1zone the Heritage Center. Councilmember Orvis commented the proposed design standards contained numbers that would be included in the code versus guidelines. Mr. Chave agreed this specific language would be incorporated into the design standards for the BD1 zone. Packet Page 244 of 247 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2008 Page 18 Councilmember Orvis asked how the recommendation for 75% transparency was determined. Mr. Chave answered it was a generally accepted urban design standard for downtown retail and had been cited by Mr. Hinshaw in his presentations. Councilmember Wilson asked how form-based zoning related to the proposed design standards. Mr. Chave answered form-based zoning was a new planning conceptualization that incorporated design standards and design guidelines in codes. The problem with traditional codes was they identified what could not be done but did not necessarily identify the desired result. Form-based codes were more directive and identified what the City wanted developers to achieve with their design. He advised the City’s code was a hybrid. As staff continued its work on zoning classifications there would be more form-based codes particularly in areas where the intent was to protect or enhance the current visual character or areas that were expecting a great deal of change to occur such as on Hwy. 99. 10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 13, 2008 Community Services/Development Services Committee Council President Plunkett reported the Committee was provided a report on City Park maintenance facility pre-design study that considered various alternatives for replacing the park maintenance building in City Park. The recommended alternative would create a one story building on the existing site with a total project cost of $2.7-$3.5 million and would require relocation of the park and facilities maintenance to the old Public Works buildings for one year. Staff also provided the Committee a report on the South County Senior Center building; the biggest challenges facing the building area seismic and structural deficiencies that could cost up to $4 million. Staff will continue to work with the Center’s Board of Directors to develop a long term capital plan for the Center. The Committee discussed the potential Meadowdale annexation; 48 households have expressed interest in annexing. The next steps are for staff to look into utility issues and to draft a joint resolution for consider by the Edmonds and Lynnwood City Councils. The final item was an update on the code rewrite which included discussion of expanding the use of a technique known as form-based zoning in the Title 16 rewrite. Staff will work with the Planning Board to refine the concept and make a presentation to the Council in the future. . Finance Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee was provided a report on the Verizon franchise negotiations contract increase which will be included in the next budget amendment. Next, the Committee reviewed the first quarter budget report which revealed REET revenues were below projections and sales tax receipts have held their own through April. Staff provided the Committee a report on surplus assets which was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. The Committee received an update on the 2009-2010 utility rate study. The final item the Committee discussed was a policy regarding contracting with former employees and staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Dawson reported staff provided the Committee a report on acquisition of property next to Fire Station 16. A previous Council negotiated a right of first refusal; the property was now available. The Fire Department administration and union provided information regarding the need for this property for future use for administration and training facilities. An Executive Session was scheduled on May 27 to establish a purchase price. She noted the property acquisition was not presented to the Council this week pending the outcome of the EMS levy vote. The Committee also reviewed the Police Department’s multiyear plan. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Packet Page 245 of 247 AM-1673 6. Downtown Master Plan Area - Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square & Skippers Properties Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:08/05/2008 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Plunkett Time:60 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Continued discussion and potential action regarding the Downtown Master Plan Area - Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square and Skippers properties. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action During the February 1 and 2, 2008 City Council retreat, Council members discussed their concerns, visions, and interests regarding the Downtown Master Plan area as identified within the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. This area is also known as the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square, Antique Mall and Skipper properties (includes all properties immediately between Main Street and the north edge of Edmonds Marsh, and SR 104 and BNSF rail lines). The City Council also expressed support for the City holding at least two public meetings to discuss the potential redevelopment of subject area. During the first public meeting which took place on March 25, 2008, City staff presented information on the existing redevelopment framework as established by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. This information was/is intended to provide a knowledge base for future discussions. Following presentations by City staff, Mark Hinshaw, with LMN Architects, presented, in part, findings from a book he recently authored on the national and regional phenomenon of people choosing to move into and near downtowns. He also spoke about the redevelopment possibilities and constraints of subject area. The next group of presentations were given by property owners of the Antique Mall and Skipper’s properties and their representatives, in addition to a Port of Edmonds Commissioner. At the conclusion of the presentations, City Council members asked questions of staff and property owners. During the April 1, 2008 Council Meeting, a Public Hearing was held regarding the Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square, and Skippers Properties. A motion was made by Councilmember Wilson, seconded by Councilmember Olson to explore by May 6, 2008 the cost and process for a Packet Page 246 of 247 bond related to acquisition and development of an array of options for purchasing some part of the three parcels, explore options for a M & O levy, consider any potential lost revenue from public vs. private facilities and engage stakeholders to ensure they were willing partners. This motion was tabled subject to the Council President working with staff to bring it back in concert with other items including discussing at the Community Services/Development Services Committee and returning it to a future agenda at the Council President's discretion. Narrative Council President Plunkett has placed this item on the agenda for Council deliberation and potential action on the following: 1) City-driven master plan. The Council can direct staff to bring back action items on upcoming Council agendas to implement a city-driven master plan. 2) Property owners'-driven master plan: no future council action until applications(s) are submitted. 3) Council proceeds with potential purchase of some or all of the Downtown Waterfront Activities Center properties. Staff to bring back steps for a plan of action with respect to appraisal, due diligence, public use plans/consultant, attorney consultants to start the path to purchase. What to appraise, when to do so in relation to environment due diligence and the hiring of public use consultants and attorneys to be considered and potential decided upon. 4) Other: Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/30/2008 10:09 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/30/2008 10:36 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:43 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 07/14/2008 09:17 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008 Packet Page 247 of 247