The URL can be used to link to this page

2009.02.24 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ February 24, 2009 6:00 p.m. - Interview newly appointed Planning Board members. 6:30 p.m. - Interview newly appointed Sister City Commissioners. 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-2115 Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of February 6 & 7, 2009. C. AM-2116 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2009. D. AM-2117 Approval of claim checks #109980 through #110080 for February 19, 2009 in the amount of $988,676.64. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #47847 through #47883 for the period February 1 through February 15, 2009 for $821,491.36. E. AM-2111 Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 Water System Improvements Project. F. AM-2118 Amend the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for the Olympic View Drive Improvements Project and approve the award of Phase 2 of the project. G. AM-2120 Approval for Mayor to sign letter of support regarding Lake Ballinger Forum capital request. 3. AM-2108 (5 Minutes) Confirmation and introduction of newly appointed Sister City Commissioners. 4. AM-2112 (5 Minutes) Confirmation and introduction of newly appointed Planning Board members. 5. AM-2084 (10 Minutes) Community Transit update on Swift Bus Rapid Transit. 6. AM-2121 (15 Minutes) Update on the Community Technology Advisory Committee. 7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 8. AM-2122 Discussion on Sound Transit Edmonds Station. Packet Page 1 of 217 8. AM-2122 (30 Minutes) Discussion on Sound Transit Edmonds Station. 9. AM-2109 (20 Minutes) Update of Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater Management Program. 10. AM-2110 (45 Minutes) Work session on recommended amendments to Chapter 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to establishing permit types, process requirements, notice requirements, consistency with SEPA, open record hearing procedures, closed record appeals, and development agreements. 11. (15 Minutes)Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. 12. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 13. (15 Minutes)Council Comments Adjourn Packet Page 2 of 217 AM-2115 2.B. Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of February 6 & 7, 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: City Council Retreat Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 12:16 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 12:33 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 02:03 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/19/2009 09:13 AM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 3 of 217 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 6-7, 2009 The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 9:02 a.m. on Friday, February 6, 2009 in the Brackett Room, Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Friday, February 6 Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Saturday February 7 Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember PUBLIC PRESENT Friday, February 6 Roger Hertrich, Citizen Bob Rinehart, Citizen & PFD Boardmember Chris Fyall, Enterprise Editor Saturday, February 7 Chris Fyall, Enterprise Editor STAFF PRESENT Friday February 6 Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Don Anderson, Police Sergeant Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Assistant Scott Snyder, City Attorney Linda Carl, Senior Executive Assistant Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Saturday February 7 Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009 THE VIEW FROM HERE Welcome & Council President’s Comments Council President Wilson thanked the Council for their input on the agenda. He explained the year ahead offered a great deal of opportunity and a number of challenges. His hope for the retreat was to develop a specific list of deliverables that could be accomplished this year and to that end, the retreat will focus on Packet Page 4 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 2 three areas: revenue, expenses and environmental policy. The overarching question for 2009 was what kind of city Councilmembers wanted Edmonds to be. The Council must either develop a plan for new tax dollars in coordination with a review of spending priorities and strategies or eliminate City services. He emphasized the need in this retreat to reach consensus on a levy package of a size, shape and scope upon which all Councilmembers and Mayor Haakenson could agree and publicly promote. Council President Wilson distributed the following questions to Council: 1. If there is one thing you think is absolutely critical to address in 2009, what would that be? 2. What gets you out of bed in the morning to do this job? This is hard work. Why are you here? 3. If we could accomplish anything this year without regard to resources, what are the 1-2 things that would be on your list? Mayor’s Comments Mayor Haakenson responded from staff’s perspective the critical need in 2009 is passage of a levy. He thanked the Council for the deliverables provided at last year’s retreat: the EMS levy and the Transportation Benefit District (TBD). He explained the original 2009-2010 budget included creation of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) as a solution to the immediate budget problems and no budget cuts were presented at that time. The Council asked for and received budget cuts rather than creating a RFA; over $1 million in budget cuts were identified and proposed. The adopted budget included a ballot measure in November 2009 as a solution to the City’s budget problems, some vacant staff positions remain unfilled and minor budget cuts were made. The task for the Council at this retreat is to move ahead with a plan for the November ballot measure which will solve the City’s immediate problems. During last fall’s budget process, he proposed $1.2 million in cuts to keep the ending cash balance at an acceptable level and he requested staff reduce 2009-2010 revenues due to declining economy. He recently asked staff to cut sales tax projections by an additional 10%, which will worsen the City’s budget situation. If the Council were to decide not to go to the voters or if the levy failed, he planned to propose nearly $2 million in budget cuts effective immediately. These would include cuts discussed during the budget process plus more and he acknowledged they would be painful cuts. He explained he had continued the non-represented employees wage freeze through 2009, asked staff to limit spending, and scheduled meetings with unions to update them on the City’s financial situation, ask for their support of the levy and discuss current contracts. The Council has agreed to create a levy and take it to the voters this year. He acknowledged it would not be an easy process and the time to prepare is short. It will require all Councilmembers to convince their constituencies of the need for the levy; the success of the levy and the future of the City government depends on the Council’s commitment. He assured staff was committed to assisting the Council. Policy Priorities and Discussion: Response to Questionnaire Councilmembers responses to the first question included: levy passage, strengthening the City’s financial position, implementing a sustainability action plan, awareness of budget realities, developing an alternate plan should the levy fail, increasing revenue, preservation of historic structures which has a connection with economic development, and sustainable long term budget. Responses to the second question included good government is transparent, honest, and makes its case to citizens; keep brain active; opportunities; prove Council can get things done; opportunity to raise environmental consciousness; chance to make a difference in city she loves; importance of serving; serving the public by making sure citizens are properly represented on Council; land use issues; family history of public service; opportunity to participate and be involved in public service; enjoy job and staff; and responsibility to citizens. Packet Page 5 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 3 Responses to the third question included sidewalks on every street, design fiber optic cable so future development has an opportunity to connect, create center for green jobs particularly at Antique Mall area, consider zoning to encourage the development community to look more favorably at developing areas of the city that are long overdue for development and make those areas more conducive to development, more police officers to slow traffic in City, sustainability, make Edmonds a walkable city with sidewalks, increase staff such as a fulltime Economic Development Director, ensure all departments continue to be led by best and brightest, recognize quality of life opportunity in the City apart from economic growth or development, increase quality of life by expanding what we have, develop Antique Mall area as an environmental showcase of community activity, complete the fiber optic project to attract new business to Edmonds, preserve historic structures, implement Historic Preservation Commission’s ideas, implement TBD, solve Health Board issues, sustainable long term budget, preserve and protect the charm and character of downtown which equals good economic development, and provide levels of service citizens expect which is to be fully staffed. Staff’s responses to the questions included stabilizing the City’s finances not necessarily via a RFA or levy, adequately fund City government operations, City not keeping up with peers, difficult to sustain operations with shoestring staff, improve staff morale, develop long term strategic plan to address issues and implement Comprehensive Plan to avoid being reactionary, financial stability, give employees strokes when you see them on the street, financial stability because without that we cannot provide services citizens want/need, prevent decline in existing amenities, financial stability and adequate staff levels, ensure staff feels valued and appreciated, service levels need to continue to increase to avoid falling behind, support infrastructure financially, provide staff the tools to do the job, and educate the public about the City’s dire financial situation. Council President Wilson summarized the dominant theme was financial stability which will be the theme for the work ahead. State of City Operations City Clerk's Office City Clerk Sandy Chase explained the City Clerk’s office currently has four staff members (Deputy City Clerk, Senior Office Assistant, Accounting Assistant, and City Clerk), 8 years ago the office had 6 staff members but when the Records Coordinator retired in 2001 and the Administrative Assistant/Business License Clerk retired in 2008, the budget did not allow the positions to be filled. She reviewed the City Clerk’s office extensive job responsibilities. She explained records management was an extremely important part of the City Clerk’s Office responsibilities. She commented on the City’s two record archive centers and described tracking, researching and annual destruction of records in accordance with retention schedules; and use of Agenda Quick software which has facilitated searches. She described the City’s current records management software program, acquired in 1993, that has worked well but is limited and the current available technology far exceeds the capabilities of the program the City is using today. To better serve public and staff, the City needs an electronic document management system. She described the electronic document management system instituted by the City of Burien. She explained the City also needs a way to manage electronic records such as email. Information Services began capturing emails in 2005 and retains them electronically; they have a method of searching but it is very time consuming and there is a great deal of potential liability with regard to electronic records. She explained responding to public records is a priority and the City needs a way to track and access records in a timely manner via a document management system. A brief discussion followed regarding staff time saved with Agenda Quick, time that would be saved by all departments via a document management system by allowing research online, ability for the public to Packet Page 6 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 4 conduct their own searches, the decision package request for a document management system, and the interdepartmental nature of this request. Finance Department Finance Director Kathleen Junglov reviewed the Finance Department’s responsibilities, 2008 special projects, 2009 special projects, their technology needs utilizing current systems with assistance of IT staff, staffing last year compared to this year, and how staff reductions have impacted workload. She concluded the Finance Department currently has a very competent staff but transition takes time and they are working through the process. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a third-party payroll system, restructuring positions in Finance, and the difficulty finding applicants with municipal finance experience. Human Resources Human Resources Director Debi Humann provided a history of Human Resources staffing; in 1999 there were 2 full time employees and 1 employee split 80/20 between Human Resources and Mayor, that was reduced to 2.5 FTE and then to 2 FTE in 2004. She reviewed programs Human Resources oversees including the Disability Board, family medical leave and L & I claims. She reviewed a recruitment analysis and a staffing survey of comparable cites that found Edmonds’ ratio was 1:130 compared to an average for other cities of 1:53. Ms. Humann reviewed the job responsibilities of the Human Resources Director, Human Resources Analyst and part-time clerical positions and described functions they are not able to do with the current staffing. Discussion followed regarding how the percentage of Edmonds staff utilizing family medical leave compared with other cities/businesses, impact the City’s aging workforce has on L&I claims, a suggestion to make the job description for the part-time Human Resources clerical position more compelling, functions Human Resources staff could accomplish with the addition of a part-time clerical position, technology that could reduce paperwork, enhancing the City’s website to assist with recruitment, individual training conducted on issues as they arise versus all-city training, and Human Resources’ responsibility for risk management. Councilmember Wilson summarized the intent of these reports was to ease into the retreat, to illustrate how staff does more with less and to let staff know that the Council was aware they were working hard. He suggested when considering the levy, Councilmembers do so through the prism of staff doing more with less and that the liabilities/pitfalls of that condition are increasing. 2009-2010 Budget Review Ms. Junglov distributed an executive summary of the 2009-2010 adopted budget. She recalled at the August 2008 retreat, the Council looked at the forecast and between August and December, the preliminary budget included $400,000 in cuts by eliminating positions, negotiating more cuts and also new revenues from increased stormwater utility tax, cable utility tax, business license fees, Development Services fees, EMS Transport Fees and the TBD. The forecast was a $1.3 million surplus at the end of 2010. REVENUE CHALLENGES Economic Development History of Economic Development in Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton reviewed milestones in economic development and studies conducted since 1998, summarizing it was not that the City lacked interest in Packet Page 7 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 5 economic development but there had not been a focused effort on economic development matters or agreement regarding what economic development meant to the community as a whole. In his view, economic development was not just recruiting new businesses, but good public safety, diversified housing stock, the recreation system, a healthy business climate, etc. The Council and staff discussed items in past studies that have been implemented, vision for economic development provided via adoption of the Economic Development Comprehensive Plan element, using the goals in Economic Development element as a guide for implementation, points of conflict in past studies/efforts, progress that has been made on economic development and anticipation that more progress could be made. Discussion on Strategies for Economic Growth Mr. Clifton referenced the handout he provided regarding current economic development activities. He reviewed strategies, programs, projects and opportunities with regard to economic development. He requested an opportunity to discuss Edmonds Crossing and the Edmonds Station with the Council later in the retreat. Discussion on Highway 99 Development Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained there are numerous small, irregular parcels on Highway 99 that would need to be assembled to accommodate large scale development. He described the efforts of the Highway 99 Taskforce, the plan they developed and items from the plan that have been implemented. Other efforts with regard to Highway 99 include amendments to design review regulations, design guidelines and design review process; Community Transit’s implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the corridor with stations at 216th and 238th and plans for a green mixed use development on the southeast corner of 220th/Highway 99 that would contain commercial and office space as well as 240 units of residential. He relayed a property owner off 236th has expressed interest in creating a CG3 zone as a transition between Highway 99 zoning and residential area with live/work, mixed use, etc. He emphasized the need to change development regulations regarding parking for parcels on Highway 99 such as establishing flat rates for parking due to BRT in the corridor. Discussion followed regarding reasons there has not been development proposed in the highrise nodes on Highway 99, development that could occur on parcels in the highrise node, limited scope of development on Highway 99 until people see it as a good place to live, importance of the development at 220th to the future of Highway 99, issues associated with that development, importance of developers on Highway 99 viewing Edmonds as easy to work with, heights allowed in the CG zone, modifying parking requirements for development on Highway 99, and past unsuccessful efforts to annex unincorporated Snohomish County in the Highway 99 area. Suggestions included establishing a team with representatives from the Planning Board, Building and Public Works Departments to work on the project at 220th/Highway 99; developing strategies for encouraging green development on parcels on Highway 99; and raising the Fire Department’s ladder truck to 75-feet in the CG zone to determine whether there are any views. 2009 Levy: Part 1 2009-2010 Budget Review / Current Forecast Ms. Junglov distributed an executive summary of the current budget forecast updated with year-end results. She advised there was an additional $365,000 carried over into 2009 from additional revenues and under-expenditures. Total revenues exceeded expectations by $110,000 from all revenue sources except sales tax. The total under-expenditure is $1 million or 3%, primarily from labor savings. She cautioned there may be a request to re-appropriate the under-expenditure in the fiber optics project. Packet Page 8 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 6 She highlighted the reduced sales tax forecast for 2009 and 2010. In the 2009-2010 budget it was believed recovery would occur in late 2009, recovery is now not expected until 2010. Further reductions in sales tax forecasts resulted an ending cash balance in 2010 of $51,000. 2009 Levy - Part 1 Report from the Revenue Work Group Context: Levies on the 2008 Ballot Funding Needs: Optimal vs. “Hold the Line” Council President Wilson explained the Revenue Work Group has met 4-5 times to talk through issues. He commented the passage of most levies in November 2008 illustrates the willingness of people to invest in their community. He referred to the set of decision packages in the Council retreat package that were used to determine the amount of a levy. Ms. Junglov distributed an executive summary that was the result of conversations with the Revenue Work Group that contain the 2009 budget and outlook, 2010 budget and outlook and 2011-2020 outlook with a levy of $4.5 million to fund essential service levels. Departments’ operating requests totaling $2 million are included in the forecast, capital requests are not. He explained a $4.5 million levy beginning in 2010 would fund what the City is doing now as well as maintain the recommended ending fund balance through 2016. Each Department Director reviewed their decision packages and discussion followed regarding the proposed decision packages, efficiencies that can be realized with technology, mandatory $100,000 expenditure for hydrant upgrade that must be paid from the General Fund, levy amount of $2.5 million without decision packages and $4.5 million with operating decision packages, immediate cuts that would be necessary if the levy failed, departments’ prioritization of their decision packages, and revenue generated from the EMS levy, EMS transport fees, and Fire Department contracts. Council President Wilson reviewed the capital requests – purchase of the Van Meter property adjacent to the fire station, construction of a new fire administration/training building and construction of a new parks maintenance facility for a total of $7.5 million. He explained the capital and operations must be two separate levies. A brief discussion followed regarding lower voter approval rate required for a 6-year bond versus a 20-year bond for the capital projects. Mayor Haakenson anticipated the City’s revenue situation would be worse by November. He reviewed cuts that were proposed but not implemented in the 2009-2010 budget process that totaled $1 million. Due to the additional $600,000-$700,000 reduction in sales tax revenue projections, he anticipated $2 million in immediate cuts would be necessary if the levy failed. He emphasized the only place to make cut was staff which would require cutting programs. Council President Wilson anticipated having draft budget ordinances prepared in September that would identify cuts that would be made if the levy failed. Recommended Scope, Size and Shape of 2009 Levy Council President Wilson reviewed the estimated annual impact on an average resident: $269/year or $22.40/month for a $4.5 million operations levy. Discussion and Initial Affirmation of 2009 Levy Discussion followed regarding determining an acceptable amount to ask voters to support; the need to educate voters that the funds are necessary for the City’s long term financial stability; convincing voters the need is real and necessary; the City’s tax rate; concern the levy would have a substantial impact on lower income residents; belief Edmonds residents would support $20 to sustain the basic elements of the City; this same situation reoccurring in a few years if a levy of less than $4.5 million was passed; the need Packet Page 9 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 7 to gather public input regarding the levy; decline in the City’s bond rating with an ending cash balance of less than 10%; the need to increase the ending fund balance to ensure a stable financial position in the future; and importance of reaching Council consensus on the levy amount. Council President Wilson distributed and reviewed a 2009 levy timeline. Discussion continued regarding reasons for an August or November ballot. It was the consensus of the Council to place the levy on the November ballot. Council President Wilson described the Citizen Advisory Committee that would be comprised of anyone who wanted to participate. He planned to announce formation of the Committee next week and hold 3-4 meetings. Mayor Haakenson reminded that six Councilmembers chose to put a levy on the ballot in 2009 and it was important that all Councilmembers advocate for the levy in order for it to be successful. Council President Wilson summarized the Council would involve the public in four ways, a stakeholder committee, public hearings, open houses, and a PAC committee to organize a campaign. 2009 Levy: Part 2 Discussion and Initial Affirmation of 2009 Levy (continued) The Council agreed to present options of a $4.5 million operations levy and $4.5 million operations levy plus a capital levy to the citizen group. The Council agreed they would select a preferred option by June. Timeline for Action - Council Approval Needed The Council agreed with the proposed timeline for a November ballot. EXPENSE CHALLENGES “Smarter, better, faster?” Council President Wilson referred to 2007 revenue options distributed last year. Review Possible Expense Cuts Councilmembers discussed the need to be sensitive to public opinions that government needed to reduce expenses to keep track with the economy; reality of the City’s financial difficulties; concern the City was not considering mandatory time off without pay or pay cuts; current low staff ratios; and the difficulty comparing government to private businesses. Possible Efficiencies Gained Through Technology Mayor Haakenson commented he had addressed this earlier. Ending Fund Balance Policy Discussion Council President Wilson referred to information from the Government Finance Officers Association regarding general accounting practices and an email from the City’s bond consultant regarding impact on bond rating if the ending fund balance falls below 10%. Discussion followed regarding the use of the ending fund balance to fund expenditures in the budget and the need to increase the ending fund balance to build up the City’s reserves. Packet Page 10 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 8 In order to respond to citizen questions regarding the ending fund balance, Ms. Junglov suggested the City establish a policy regarding a one month reserve or 10% ending fund balance through a certain year. She offered to provide Everett’s official fund balance policy, recalling they made a commitment to a certain level and described what they would do if the ending fund balance were over and under the policy amount. It was agreed to move forward with the 2009-2020 forecast that includes the levy of $4.5 million funding essential service levels as a policy. Employees: Future Labor Negotiations Legal Considerations - Public Bargaining City Attorney Scott Snyder explained he represents a number of cities and conducts several labor negotiations each year. He recognized the difficulty of Councilmembers coming into the labor negotiations mid-stream. He further explained it was an unfair labor practice to go backward. He described public employer obligations, explaining the Council had limited ability to make political/legislative decisions regarding police and fire personnel’s wages as State statute required they be paid a salary comparable to west coast departments. He commented on impacts to the City’s revenue situation due to reductions in federal funds, recent initiatives and political choices. He commented on the City’s expenses related to employees, most of who are unionized. He commented on the arbitration process and costs, the City’s minimal staffing, difficulty laying off staff unless the Council was willing to eliminate programs, and unfair labor practices to reassign union work to outside the bargaining unit, to a supervisor or to volunteers. Discussion followed regarding the decision to use Mr. Snyder in union negotiations this year, whether to hire an outside negotiator to assist the City in labor negotiations; Council direction when entering negotiations last year to follow the L5 or 50% salary range; cost of an outside negotiator; a suggestion to base wages on available resources; hiring a labor consultant if the Council wanted to change the way it negotiates; the need to pay employees at the 50% level to retain staff and to attract qualified applicants; obligation to negotiate in good faith; expense of turnovers; the importance of educating new Councilmembers regarding collective bargaining; employee morale issues due to the City’s financial situation; wage compression issues and difficulty filling upper level positions from within; and the amount of work Edmonds employees are expected to perform. Mayor Haakenson urged the Council to develop a non-represented employee pay policy this year. Reflections on the Recent Contract Round Benefit Considerations Ms. Humann explained Mayor Haakenson, Council President Wilson, Councilmember Wambolt and she met recently to discuss the City’s approach to health insurance. She explained in 2011/2012 AWC plans to pull both health insurance plans; the City must identify realistic replacements prior to the next round of negotiations that expire in 2010. She recommended forming a committee of union representatives and citizens with a background in health insurance in order to develop viable options to present in negotiations. Concluding Remarks The first day of the retreat concluded at 4:45 p.m. Packet Page 11 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 9 SATURDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2009 The second day of the retreat was called to order at 9:00 a.m. POLICY GOALS FOR 2009 Determination and Term of Council President Councilmember Bernheim suggested it may be more efficient and collegial to rotate the role of Council President to the senior member who had not been Council President previously rather than behind-the scenes politicking to be Council President. Rotating the Council Presidency would allow everyone to participate in the administration of the Council, is predictable, shares the burden, avoids coalition building for that position, depoliticizes the position, is cohesive, institutionalizes practices, spreads the opportunity, creates experience, and eliminates backroom politicking. Discussion followed regarding some Councilmembers not having the time to be Council President; an honor to serve as Council President rather than a burden; the role of the Council President to mold the Council into a cohesive group; electing a Council President who can be a leader rather than because they are the senior member of the Council; importance of the Council President putting the necessary effort into that role; a suggestion to select the Council President in December to facilitate the transition; concern the method utilized this year was corrosive and creates minorities/majorities; the practice of rotating to the senior Councilmember has worked well in the past; the process that occurred this year; establishing a line of succession where a tie is broken by Council position number; Councilmembers in the past lobbying to be Council President by offering committee assignments; a suggestion to consider after elections this fall whether the Council President should be a 2-year term; ability for all Councilmembers to serve as Council President; duties of the Council President; pros and cons of rotating the Council Presidency; Council Presidency is a responsibility that should be shared among all members; and the importance of the Council President serving as Mayor Pro Tem in the Mayor’s absence. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED THAT THE POLICY OF ELECTING THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT CONTINUE TO BE THAT FOUR VOTES DETERMINES THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND NO ROTATION POLICY. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT SECONDED THE MOTION. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3); COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND BERNHEIM OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT BE DETERMINED AT THE FIRST MEETING UPON THE NEWLY SEATED FULL COUNCIL IN JANUARY AND FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion followed regarding pros and cons of a 2-year term and determining the Council President in January in order to include newly elected Councilmembers. MOTION FAILED, 1-6, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON VOTING YES. Framework for Saturday Conservation Agenda for 2009 Council President Wilson suggested the Council determine a list of 4-6 action items that could be accomplished with little fiscal impact and present them to the public. He suggested Councilmembers then identify any other policy priorities. Packet Page 12 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 10 Review of Previous Action Mayor’s Agreement on Climate Change Council Resolution on Policy and Principles Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the five resolutions the Council passed regarding this subject: #1129 supporting the Kyoto Protocol, #1130 joining ICLEI, #1168 establishing the City of Edmonds Sustainable Building Policy, #1169 joining Cascade Agenda as a member city, and #1170 committing the City to a set of principles, policies and goals for future action. He noted the State was also doing a great deal of work planning, setting standards and goals and more mandates could be expected from the State regarding climate change. He noted the draft Sustainability element of the Comprehensive Plan has been forwarded to the Planning Board. Discussion of Possible Initiatives Councilmember Peterson explained sustainability was more than just environment, it is the entire community. He introduced the concept of “Sustainability Star,” an opportunity to brand the concept of sustainability for citizens, businesses and the region. He commented on the need to show progress in government; and when asking the voters for money demonstrate the City will do something worthwhile with those funds. Sustainability is economics as well as environmental issues, public health, etc. To be economically sustainable is to be environmentally sustainable. He reviewed sustainability in broad terms and a list of short term action items (within 1 year), laying the groundwork for future actions/opportunities, mid-term goals (1-5 years out), and long term goals (5 year and on). Councilmembers discussed the proposed short term action items and suggested the following additional actions: setting thermostats at 68 degrees; posting anti-idling signs; identifying creative ways to reward owners of certain types of cars; recognizing businesses as “Sustainability Allstars;” encouraging the use of 2x6s in construction to facilitate additional insulation; considering a TDR unrelated to density; considering revisions to parking standards on Highway 99; branding/marketing the City as an eco- municipality/greenest town on Puget Sound; staff providing a report on the City’s annual utility use in an effort to reduce energy use; the City purchasing some green energy; and requiring additional indoor utility meters as part of building code to make it easier for consumers to see/control utility use. Mr. Miller pointed out the City achieved a 15% energy reduction last year via programmable thermostats, retrofitting all traffic signals to LED, etc. C. Prioritization Councilmembers identified the following priorities: • Pass the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan • Become an “Agenda City” with Cascade Land Conservancy • Develop a comprehensive recycling plan for the City of Edmonds • Market the City as a green City as a form of business recruitment • Eliminate bottled water in City buildings and consider a ban on plastic bags • Consider building codes as they pertain to heat, insulation and energy efficiency Policy Priorities and Discussion Questionnaire Responses “Parking Lot” Issues from Friday Councilmember Bernheim offered to provide data to the Council showing that 10-15% of police work was spent on enforcing small time marijuana and pipe paraphernalia. Packet Page 13 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 11 Discussion on Campaign Finance Reform Councilmember Bernheim distributed a comparison of amounts spent on Council campaigns in the past three elections, concluding the average total campaign expenditure had increased markedly. He cited campaign contributions that candidates received from individual contributions and organizations within and outside Edmonds. He proposed the Council adopt a resolution or individual candidates voluntarily agree to abide by cost controls in an effort to return the influence in elections to the voters. Discussion followed regarding doubt that candidates were negatively influenced by contributions at the Council election level; improving opportunities for communication/forums such as Channel 21; importance of doorbelling in a Council election; availability of campaign contribution information on the PDC website; a suggestion that candidates voluntarily reject contributions from large organizations; difficulty enforcing voluntary restrictions on campaign amounts; and the need for politicians to be honest and to be perceived as honest. It was agreed to add a discussion regarding a televised voter’s guide to a future agenda. Councilmember Bernheim announced his wife was hosting a community meeting regarding the economic stimulus plan at his office tonight from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. He also planned to ask people how they felt about the levy. Edmonds Crossing Mr. Clifton described the 15 year effort to fund/construct Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards and a recent letter written to Washington State Ferries (WSF) in response to their draft long range plan for 2008-2030. The Plan includes two options; under Option A, WSF continues to operate as it does today with a $3.5 billion deficit through 2030; Plan B includes significant cuts in ferry operations and capital and a $1.5 billion deficit in 2030. Both options refer to allocating $26 million for Edmonds terminal improvements which clearly indicates the State has no plans to contribute any funds beyond that amount toward the Edmonds multimodal project, which impacts Sound Transit’s proposed Edmonds Station. The Edmonds Station between Dayton and Main has been defined as an interim station until the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project at Pt. Edwards is constructed. He assured the Edmonds Crossing project was not being abandoned but due to WSF’s long range plans and financial constraints, it seemed logical to request Sound Transit include criteria in the developer agreement to define the Sound Transit Edmonds Station between Dayton and Main as a permanent station. When Edmonds Crossing becomes a reality in the future, all the components of the Edmonds Station other than the platform could be relocated. He envisioned creating a new type of Edmonds Crossing multimodal area between Dayton and Main. He distributed a drawing of the permanent Sound Transit Edmonds Station approved by the City Council in 2002 which includes a Community Transit bus station located between the rail line and the Skippers site. If defined as a permanent station, Sound Transit has funds for construction. Sound Transit is close to issuing permits and is seeking confirmation regarding the design of the Edmonds Station. With Sound Transit funds and funds in the State budget, an improved multimodal area could be constructed that could serve as a catalyst for development. Mayor Haakenson pointed out a reservation system is key to removing ferry traffic from SR 104. WSF has expressed willingness to have Edmonds be the next reservation test case. Discussion followed regarding funds in the State budget; availability of grants in the future; the Council’s policy regarding Edmonds Crossing and opposition to a second slip at the downtown terminal; importance of defining this Packet Page 14 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 6-7, 2009 Page 12 area geographically as Edmonds Crossing multimodal to enable the City to spend grant funds appropriated to date; development options with a multimodal transportation hub downtown; requesting Sound Transit to build what was proposed in Phase 1 long range plan without defining it as interim or permanent; the future of the lower Unocal yard; and interest in discussing this at a regular Council meeting. It was agreed to schedule this topic on a future Council agenda. 6. Summary and Concluding Remarks Council President Wilson summarized this had been a very successful retreat and thanked Councilmembers and staff for their participation. The retreat was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. Packet Page 15 of 217 AM-2116 2.C. Approval of Draft 02-17-09 City Council Meeting Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 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 February 17, 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 02-17-09 Draft City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 12:16 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 12:33 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 02:03 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/19/2009 09:15 AM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 16 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 17, 2009 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview a newly appointed Arts Commissioner, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Grace Guenther, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Haakenson advised Item 10 had been removed from the agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Wilson requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #109680 THROUGH #109832 FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT $433,651.34, AND #109833 THROUGH #109979 FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $349,040.66. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #47804 THROUGH #47846 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2009 FOR $855,341.02. D. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT. Packet Page 17 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 2 E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR ON-CALL SURVEYING SERVICES. G. APPROVAL OF 2009 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR LOW FARE. H. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. I. INTERFUND LOANS ESTABLISHED. J. PURCHASING POLICY UPDATE. K. RESOLUTION NO. 1192 AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. L. ORDINANCE NO. 3726 AMENDING CITY ADOPTED BUILDING CODES ECDC 19.00.005 RELATING TO REQUIRED PROGRESS INSPECTION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL. M. ORDINANCE NO. 3727 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - ANTICIPATORY OFFENSES. ITEM F: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN AND PERMITTING SUPPORT FOR THE TALBOT ROAD/PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. At Council President Wilson’s request, Mr. English reviewed the scope of work. He explained the first task was a drainage basin analysis that would identify peak runoff from the basin and define flow rates. The second task is to identify potential solutions to address the problem using the data gathered in task one. The consultant will provide several options which staff will review to determine an appropriate alternative. Council President Wilson emphasized this type of analysis, conducted by the consultant at a cost of $65,000, could no longer be conducted in-house due to reduced staff. He compared this consultant contract with the Lake Ballinger Watershed’s $200,000 contract and asked why a contract for lower Perrinville Creek cost 1/3 the Lake Ballinger contract. It was his understanding a watershed study was done of the Perrinville Creek area in the past 5-10 years. Public Works Director Noel Miller responded the City had the in-house capability but other projects such as Lake Ballinger consumed the Stormwater Engineer’s time and required a consultant contract for other projects such as this. He explained this was a sub-basin to the main Perrinville Basin, drainage off Talbot Road and Fredrick Place that adjoin Perrinville Creek slightly upstream where Perrinville Creek goes out to Puget Sound and has not been studied previously. It was identified in the current drainage basin study as a project for the overall Perrinville Creek in the 1990s. Council President Wilson again questioned the cost as compared to the Lake Ballinger contract. Mr. Miller responded this contract would result in a design engineered project that could be put out for bid compared to the preliminary overview of issues in the Lake Ballinger study. He anticipated significant consultant fees for projects in Lake Ballinger. Council President Wilson asked whether additional in- house staff time would be available if this project were delayed a year. Mr. Miller answered WCIA has paid claims for flooding of private property; therefore, it should not be delayed. Packet Page 18 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 3 City Attorney Scott Snyder commented 10 years ago this work could have been done by Public Works staff; the requirement for additional consultant work was the result of the Endangered Species Act and attention the federal government is giving to stormwater drainage. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONFIRMATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED ARTS COMMISSIONER. Council President Wilson recalled last year the Council agreed to interview the Mayor’s appointments one week and confirm the appointment the following week; a review of the minutes revealed the intent was to follow that process for Planning Board and Architectural Design Board Members. If Councilmembers preferred, confirmation could be deferred to next week. Council President Wilson introduced Samantha Saether, the Mayor’s appointment to the Arts Commission. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF SAMANTHA SAETHER TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Saether thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve and she looked forward to being involved. 4. UPDATE ON THE SERVICE AND HISTORY OF SOUND DISPOSAL. Evelyn Nicholson, owner of Sound Disposal, explained her business is an independent, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulated, family-operated business serving the downtown Edmonds area. She and her husband, Don, purchased the business from Ethel and Dick Sly in June 1977. Don previously worked for Apex, now Allied Waste, for over 23 years prior to purchasing Sound Disposal. Dick Sly operated two trucks in Edmonds as they did until the advent of recycling in 1989. They now have three routes, five full time employees and one part-time employee. Her two sons and daughter have worked for the business for many years. They offer garbage, co-mingled recycle and yardwaste. Recycling is taken to Seattle, yardwaste to a composting facility in Woodinville and garbage to the Snohomish County Solid Waste facility in Mountlake Terrace. In response to Snohomish County plans to raise their rates from $89/ton to $105/ton, an 18% increase, they applied to the WUTC for an adjustment in their rates of approximately 9.9% beginning March 1. The outcome of their request will not be known until WUTC completes an audit. If approved, their one can rate will increase approximately $0.35-.040/week and the 1½ yard commercial container will increase approximately $1.65-$20.00/week. They are regulated by Snohomish County and the City and their tariff contains rules for themselves and their customers. Council President Wilson highlighted the fact that Sound Disposal was a local business that had been operating in the City for a number of years and whose owners also lived locally. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was a happy Sound Disposal customer. He inquired whether consideration would be given in the future to a lower rate for super small pickups to encourage citizens to further reduce waste. Ms. Nicholson responded they would consider his suggestion. Councilmember Peterson recalled when he first moved to Edmonds, one of his first interactions was with one of the sons working for Sound Disposal, an Edmonds moment with a very nice person. Packet Page 19 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 4 Councilmember Plunkett expressed his affection for the Nicholson family, noting in his 12 years on the Council he had never received a call from a citizen complaining about Sound Disposal’s service. He thanked them for the excellent service they have provided over the years. Councilmember Wambolt commented Lynnwood Disposal also requested an increase for the same reasons. He pointed out residents did not have a choice regarding garbage providers; they were required to use the provider serving their area. Lynnwood Disposal’s rates are considerably lower than Sound Disposal; for example Lynnwood Disposal’s 1-yard container is $58.52/month and Sound Disposal’s charge for the same container is $84.94/month. Ms. Nicholson responded she would need to research this. Councilmember Wambolt relayed that WUTC’s analysis determined Sound Disposal’s costs are higher because they use two men per truck versus most every other disposal company that use only one. Ms. Nicholson commented their employees not only haul garbage but did other duties for the company. Councilmember Wambolt suggested Sound Disposal compare their rates to other garbage providers. Ms. Nicholson responded they were regulated by the State. Councilmember Plunkett commented because Sound Disposal is regulated by the State, the State would inform them if their prices were not appropriate. He asked whether two men on a truck were more efficient and more careful. Ms. Nicholson agreed, noting two men per truck completed the routes more quickly and reduced the need for additional trucks. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out WUTC analyzes only the company’s costs, not whether they were in line with their competition. Mayor Haakenson commented he had never received a complaint about Sound Disposal but did receive complaints about the other garbage provider in the City during the snow storm. He recalled Sound Disposal worked weekends following the snow storm in an effort to catch up. He concluded Sound Disposal provided great service to their service area. 5. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL RETREAT. Council President Wilson reported the City Council held its annual retreat on February 6 & 7 in City Hall. The 12-hour retreat produced a clear work plan for 2009. He noted in some years the Council retreats have not been as productive and as a citizen he watched with a degree of frustration when the Council appeared to focus on issues with little relevance to opportunities and challenges facing the City. That will not be the case in 2009. During the retreat Councilmembers were asked to identify the biggest opportunities and challenges in the year ahead. Putting the City on a stable financial footing was paramount among Councilmembers’ concerns. The retreat included extensive discussion regarding the levy that will be on the November ballot. The Council developed a timeline for action for the November levy; the Council plans to create the most extensive, most engaging and most thorough vetting process ever implemented. It will include a Citizen Review Committee open to nearly all citizens, public hearings before the Council, and public open houses. Upon approval of the timeline, more details will be provided regarding the Citizen Review Committee to invite citizen participation. The Council also spent a considerable amount of time during the retreat on the history of economic development in the City including studies that had been conducted in the past and items from the studies that had and had not been implemented. There was general agreement among the Council, staff and the Mayor that there was no longer time to study how to develop the City economically and that the City cannot grow its way out of the current budget crisis fast enough. The City will continue to work on economic development and he plans to invite local business with unique Edmonds stories to share their stories with the Council and the community; Ms. Nicholson was the first of those stories. Packet Page 20 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 5 Council President Wilson invited other businesses with an Edmonds story to share them with the Council by contacting the Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman via email Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us. He planned to select 10-15 businesses to highlight during the year. Although the City could not grow it’s way out of its financial challenges, they could make an effort to retain existing businesses. He emphasized the more Edmonds residents purchased from Edmonds residents, the lower their Edmonds taxes would be. This effort will serve as the community service portion of the agenda and where appropriate other community service organizations would be scheduled to make presentations. The Council will also seek to keep expenses in line in as creative and thoughtful ways as possible. To set an example to the citizens of Edmonds, the Council proposes to postpone the Mayor’s July 1, 2009 pay increase. Although the policy of paying the Mayor at the 50th percentile of comparable cities was appropriate, it was not possible this year. He advised revised budget estimates result in an ending cash balance of $52,000, an amount that should be $3-$5 million. The Council’s second highest priority was innovation associated with sustainability. To that end, he requested Councilmember Peterson develop a process for a 2009 sustainability agenda which the Council reviewed at the retreat, low cost items the Council could implement to move the City forward. He planned to ask for the Council’s approval of a resolution amending Ordinance 3685 with regard to the Mayor’s salary increase, and a resolution affirming the Levy Timeline and Sustainability Agenda. He revised the levy timeline by removing reference to an outside levy committee. Councilmember Peterson commented on the importance of sustainability to economic development and to address the City’s financial situation. He highlighted what the City has already done such as reducing their utility usage by 15%. He reviewed the Sustainability Agenda developed at the retreat that outlines specific steps the Council commits to accomplishing in the 2009 calendar year: 1. Pass the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Develop a comprehensive recycling plan for the City of Edmonds, both as a corporate actor and throughout the community. 3. Development of a green “branded” identity of Edmonds, and the marketing of Edmonds as a green destination. 4. Look at building codes as pertains to heat, insulation and energy efficiency. 5. Consider banning the use of plastic bags in Edmonds. 6. Become an “Agenda City” with Cascade Land Conservancy. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1193, AFFIRMING THE TIMELINE FOR THE 2009 LEVY ACTION AND THE SUSTAINABILITY AGENDA FOR 2009. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to reviewing expenses, Councilmember Wambolt explained the Council and staff have been considering how expenses can be reduced; 50% of the City’s expenses are related to salaries. He recalled Councilmember Bernheim and he opposed the non-represented employees’ COLA increase of 5.8-6.2%, not because the employees did not deserve the increase, but because it was not appropriate in the current economic climate. The Council ultimately approved the non-represented employee COLA increases by a 5-2 vote. At the retreat he suggested requiring employees take days off without pay or accept a temporary reduction in their salary; however, this was not supported by a majority of the Council. Councilmember Wambolt recalled although he instigated the pay increase for Mayor Haakenson in 2008 and the upcoming increase in July 2009, he now supported delaying the Mayor’s increase due to the Packet Page 21 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 6 worsening economy. He remarked during the Governor’s race the State deficit was estimated to be $3.2 billion, by her election the deficit had increased to $5 billion and is now over $8 billion due to the worsening economy. The City’s primary source of sales tax revenue is from car dealerships on Highway 99, which has significantly declined in the current economy. He concluded although the Council, Mayor and staff were looking at ways to reduce expenses, there were few opportunities available. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1194 DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3685, TO POSTPONE THE RAISE TO THE POSITION OF MAYOR EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009, TO JANUARY 1, 2011. Council President Wilson referred to the wording in the resolution that the City Council adopted Ordinance 3685 in order to bring the mayor’s salary in line with established city policy to pay employees at the L‐5 standard, otherwise understood as the 50th percentile of wages of comparable cities, and that that policy continued to be the policy of the City of Edmonds. He advised the Mayor’s current salary was $113,000. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the legal issue that arose during previous discussions regarding the Mayor’s salary. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded once the Mayor’s salary was approved and implemented by the Council, it could not be reduced during the term of office but the effective date of future increases could delayed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson invited interested citizens to apply to participate on the Citizen Review Committee related to the levy in November. Applicants need to be residents of the City and able to attend meetings on Monday March 23, March 30, April 6 and April 13 from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. Applications will be accepted until March 4-5. Interested citizens were invited to contact Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman via email at Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us. He anticipated the Committee would be comprised of nearly everyone who applied. Councilmember Plunkett asked to be informed of everyone who applied. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT SB 5143, REGARDING EMS LEVIES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. Council President Wilson explained SB 5143 would allow jurisdictions an annual increase of up to 6% on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levies once approved by voters (not retroactively) in an effort to more securely maintain funding for EMS. This would prevent cities from repeatedly putting EMS levies before the voters; each election costs the City approximately $60,000. He clarified this would not apply to the EMS levy passed recently, only to EMS levies passed in the future. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1195. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the text of the Senate Bill was not included in the Council packet. He asked whether support for the up to 6% increase would be part of the EMS levy approved by voters. Council President Wilson was uncertain, assuming it would be the way it had been done prior to I-747. Packet Page 22 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 7 Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for funding necessary public services but was uncomfortable with pre-approving an increase particularly in difficult economic times. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this would not impact the current EMS levy, only future voter-approved EMS levies. Councilmember Plunkett was unable to support the motion without an opportunity to review SB 5143 or HB 1318. Council President Wilson responded the first cutoff for legislative bills is this week and there was some question whether the bills would get out of committee. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out if the bill was passed by the Legislature it would give cities the opportunity to raise the EMS levy by up to 6%, a vote would be required in the future. Councilmember Bernheim questioned who would determine the percentage of increase, whether it would be the City or the voters. He was supportive of the voters indicating they wanted their taxes to keep pace with inflation but was less enthusiastic with providing the City the opportunity to determine the amount of the increase. Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for SB 5143, commenting the voters would ultimately decide if they approved the language the next time the EMS levy was on the ballot. Council President Wilson clarified the only change was allowing an increase in the EMS levy from 1% to 6%. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out the EMS levy, voted debt and the City’s tax rate could not exceed the City’s overall tax limit. Councilmember Orvis preferred the bill allow a 1% per year increase rather than up to 6%, recalling when Councils were allowed a 6% increase in property taxes, the annual increase was predominately 6% and led to the voters’ approval of the 1% cap. He noted the Edmonds voters approved only one of Tim Eyman’s anti-tax measures, the 2% cap on property taxes. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, OLSON, AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, BERNHEIM AND ORVIS OPPOSED. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ACCESSORY BUILDING REGULATIONS DEALING WITH THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CLARIFYING WHEN THEY ARE ATTACHED; THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council held a public hearing on January 20, 2009 and continued the hearing to allow the City Attorney and him to make revisions to the ordinance. He provided new language that would be added to the definition of an accessory building, “Any building attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection and otherwise separated by connection and otherwise separated by more than 10 feet from the main building more than 10 feet from the main building shall be considered to be an accessory building.” He provided new language that would be inserted into the accessory building regulations, “For the purposes of this section, in order for an accessory building to be considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof and must be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a unified and consistently designed building.” He provided language to be added to 16.20.050 Site development standards - Accessory buildings, “Garages or other accessory buildings attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection to the main building which results in a separation exceeding ten feet in length may not exceed the 15-foot height limit. The separation shall be determined by the minimum distance between the outside walls of the main building and accessory building, exclusive of the connecting structure.” He also provided a new Packet Page 23 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 8 definition of hallway, “Hallway, as used in ECDC 16.020.050, 21.05.010 and 21.40.030(c) means a wholly enclosed building which primary purpose is the connection of one building or portion thereof to another. A building or portion thereof which connects one building to another and whose width is 60 percent or less of its length shall be presumed to be a hallway.” He concluded the ordinance now addressed all the issues raised at the January 20 public hearing. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, suggested using common sense with regard to connecting buildings with a breezeway, hallway or other connector and assumed most people would think buildings connected in that manner were unattached and that the connector was constructed to provide weather protection for travel between the two buildings. He suggested it was more reasonable to determine whether buildings were attached or unattached by the shared linear distance of the common wall relative to the narrowest wall of the main structure. The current definition weakens the definition of an attached accessory building beyond what was likely intended whereas defining an attached accessory building by linear distance shared by a common wall strengthened the definition. Height requirements of an accessory building could be considered relative to the distance between the primary building and the adjacent properties rather than creating an exception based on a connector. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Senderoff that buildings must be attached by a common wall to be considered one structure. He disagreed with the proposed language, suggesting the City return to the requirement of a common wall to define attached structures. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3728. Council President Wilson explained the problem the ordinance was attempting to address was someone constructing a garage up to 25 feet connected to the residence via a hallway when they should only be allowed a 15-foot accessory structure. The proposed definitions have been reviewed by the Community Services/Development Services Committee, Planning Board and City Council and are ready for final approval. Councilmember Plunkett agreed in concept with Mr. Senderoff, commenting he did not want the enemy of good to be perfect; to him perfect would be that structures have common foundations and adjoining walls and that the hallway concept not be accepted. However, unless a sufficient number of Councilmembers were opposed to the proposed language, he would support it because it was better than the existing language which clearly allowed someone to build an accessory structure over 15 feet. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REVISIONS TO ECDC 17.60 - PROPERTY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THINGS SUCH AS NOISE, LIGHTING, PARTICULATE MATTER, OPEN STORAGE, AND THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Mayor Haakenson explained he received several calls today indicating a gentleman had been in their neighborhood who informed them the new ordinance would not allow boat trailers to be parked in yards. Development Services Director Duane Bowman responded he would address boat trailers during his presentation. Packet Page 24 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 9 Mr. Bowman explained this matter arose 3-4 years ago as a result of the code rewrite and working with the Code Enforcement Officer to address the most commonly filed complaints by the public with regard to property performance standards and nuisance standards. The Council adopted revised nuisances last year and this is the last remaining issue in the original provision. Originally nuisances were in the same code section as property performance standards and the City Attorney recommended they be separated. This matter has been reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. The Council held a public hearing in November 2008, and a follow-up work session was held on January 27, 2009 to address comments regarding the Planning Board’s recommendation. At that time staff recommended the Council hold a public hearing to consider proposed changes discussed by the Council on January 27. The packet includes the Planning Board’s original recommendation and the exhibit illustrating changes made to the property performance standards based on Council direction. Mr. Bowman reviewed revisions to Section 17.60.030 regarding lighting, “External lights shall be shielded, trained or directed in a manner which minimizes glare onto adjacent property or passing traffic. Arc welding, acetylene torch cutting or similar processes shall be performed so as not to be seen from any point beyond the outside of the property. Any lighting on a sports field or court shall be turned off by an automatically timed mechanism no later than 10:15 p.m. Field or court lighting fixtures shall minimize scattering of light beyond the field or court being illuminated.” He identified language removed from the code regarding particulate matter and language that was added, “Emissions shall comply with the requirements of the state Department of Ecology (DOE) as set forth in Chapter 173-400 WAC. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained state law preempts the City from adopting any other standard; the City can have no standard or comply with the requirements of DOE. Mr. Bowman highlighted changes to the language regarding open storage, vehicles in residential zones (no more than five motor vehicles shall be parked on a residential lot and each motor vehicle must be currently licensed and operable). He reviewed exemptions to the limit of five motor vehicles including if more than five licensed drivers reside at the same address, if vehicles are parked inside a lawfully permitted and constructed building or screened behind a 6-foot high solid fence or vegetative barrier, temporary parking not to exceed 72 hours, apartments or other complex with approved building and parking plan, permitted construction areas or motorcycles/mopeds. With regard to recreational vehicles, the code allows no more than two recreational vehicles to be parked outside an approved enclosed structure anywhere on the property. Screening by a minimum 6-foot high solid fence or vegetative barrier from the adjacent property is required. If the recreational vehicle cannot be stored as described in 17.60.040D or only in one side yard or the rear yard due to site constraints, the vehicle shall be parked off-site during extended times when not in use. He read the definition of recreational vehicle for purposes of the chapter, “Recreational vehicle means a vehicular-type unit primarily designed for recreational camping or travel use that has its own motive power or is mounted on or towed by another vehicle. The units include travel trailers, fifth-wheel trailers, folding camping trailers, truck campers, and motor homes.” He noted boats were not included in this definition. Mr. Snyder relayed that definition was used by the Department of Licensing to license recreational vehicles; boat trailers were a different licensing category. Mayor Haakenson clarified neither boats or boat trailers were not included in this definition. Mr. Bowman explained recreational vehicles could be parked in the front yard in the driveway or improved parking surface adjacent or in the side yard or rear yard on an improved parking surface. With regard to open storage, Mr. Bowman displayed photographs of a code enforcement case where a resident collected a large number of bicycles in his back yard that he donated overseas. He pointed out if Packet Page 25 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 10 the yard were screened by a minimum 6-foot high solid fence or vegetative barrier, the open storage of bicycles would be allowed. He displayed a photograph taken from an elevated parking lot from which the backyard full of bicycles was visible. He also identified the neighboring residence from which the bicycles were visible. He suggested the Council reconsider the nuisance regulations that allow screening via a 6-foot fence. He cautioned a junkyard could be defacto allowed if it were screened with a fence. Mr. Bowman recalled in previous discussions the Council questioned the definition of improved parking. In addition Councilmember Bernheim questioned whether the City wanted to encourage additional impervious surfaces by requiring a paved surface. He noted the requirement for an improved parking surface did not preclude pervious asphalt/concrete or grasscrete as a parking surface for vehicles. The Council could also decide to allow vehicles to be parked on the lawn. For the purposes of this chapter, improved parking surface means any parking surface that has been altered from a natural state with an approved construction material for the purpose of parking or storing vehicles, such as pavers, concrete, asphalt or gravel. He relayed the Planning Board’s recommended provision to prohibiting habitation uses and exceptions to this provision, “No vehicle, recreation vehicle, or trailer shall be used for habitation within the boundaries of the City. Exceptions: a recreational vehicle that is originally designed and used as temporary living quarters, may be occupied on private residential property for a period not to exceed 14 days in any calendar year when the owner or user of the vehicle is a nonresident of the City visiting a resident. Any same recreational vehicle stored on the site after the 14 day temporary period shall be licensed to the site address with the State of Washington.” Mr. Bowman reviewed staff’s response to the questions submitted by Councilmember Bernheim: • A presumption clause in Section 17.60.010 that a resident was not complying with the code. Staff’s response: this is standard language that shifts the testing burden to the property owner in instances of noise, electrical interference and vibration measurements area required as the City does not have the equipment or training to conduct those measurements. Councilmember Plunkett observed the standard language placed the burden on the property owner to prove his innocence. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed it shifted the expense of testing to the property owner. He relayed an example of a complaint that staff determined was correct and issued an enforcement order. The City still must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence; if the City can make a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the property owner to provide expert testimony. Mr. Snyder concluded if the Council adopted technical standards, the choice was to fund an enforcement mechanism or require the property owner to show they were in compliance after the City presented prima facie evidence. He suggested if the Council wanted to eliminate this provision, they also eliminate any standards with regard to lumens, decibels, electrical interference, particulate matter and vibration or any other scientific measure. Mr. Bowman explained this arose primarily with regarding to noise issues; lighting complaints were typically resolved quickly. Mayor Haakenson asked the number of complaints the City received per year regarding lighting and noise. Mr. Bowman answered there were approximately 10-15 lighting complaints; nearly all were resolved without proof of compliance. Noise was a more difficult issue. • Change the minimum 6-foot fence in 17.60.030(H) to a minimum 5-foot fence. Staff’s response: a permit is required for fences over 3 feet in height that are also within 10 feet of any street right-of- way or access easement or within 30 feet of a corner. The ordinance requires a minimum 6-foot fence; a taller fence requires a structural analysis by an engineer. Council President Wilson inquired whether this could be problematic for a property owner with a fence slightly lower than 6-feet. Mr. Bowman advised the Council could select a range from 5-6 feet. Packet Page 26 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 11 Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the minimum 6-foot fence in these standards to screen storage and the 6-foot maximum height of fences in the zoning code would require a fence to be exactly 6 feet in height. Mr. Bowman answered the Council could select a height between 5-6 feet in height. He pointed out a 30-foot sight-distance triangle must be maintained on a corner lot. • Change two recreational vehicles to three. Staff’s response: the regulations only allow two to be stored outside an enclosed building, others can be stored in an enclosed building. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was up to the Council how many RVs they wanted to allow on a property. Mr. Bowman agreed, reiterating these revisions were in response to complaints from Edmonds residents. • Vehicle storage may be temporary rather than permanent and requiring a paved surface may not be appropriate and residents should be allowed to park on lawns. Staff’s response: this is a policy issue for the Council. Councilmember Orvis commented a resident could park an RV on gravel. Mr. Bowman advised a gravel parking surface in the front yard required a 20-foot asphalt between the right-of-way and the gravel to keep gravel out of the roadway. Councilmember Plunkett questioned the City’s interest in prohibiting parking on grass. Mr. Bowman answered it was to prevent the appearance of damaged grass. He acknowledged it may be preferable not to add impervious surface and to allow property owners to decide where to park particularly in the side and rear yard. He suggested an improved parking surface in the front yard may be appropriate due to the appearance from the street. Mr. Snyder commented the genesis of this type of regulation was large rooming houses in college towns. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there were regulations that required grass in a front yard. Mr. Bowman answered there was not, the issue was how the Council wanted the community to look. Councilmember Plunkett concluded the City’s only interest was aesthetics. • Change “right-of-way” in 17.60.040(G) to “developed right-of-way” to allow people to park in the undeveloped right-of-way. Staff’s response: this is a policy decision. Typically the City discourages use of the right-of-way for parking. Screening would require an encroachment permit. • Delete Section 17.60.040(J) that prohibits locating a camper in the front yard except in the driveway as this appears to be a question of local taste over private property. Staff’s response: It is a policy decision regarding how the Council wants the community to look. • Why require RVs to be licensed in the State of Washington (17.60.060.A). Staff’s response: this addressed the issue of RVs becoming illegal dwelling units. Mr. Bowman reiterated these regulations were proposed to address frequent citizen complaints. He emphasized staff enforced the code by complaint only; the City has one Code Enforcement Officer and he does not seek out violations. Council President Wilson asked how many complaints the City receives annually related to issues covered by these regulations. Mr. Bowman answered the City receives approximately 200 complaints per year on a wide variety of issues including these. He noted nuisance complaints would now be easier to address because the Council simply required it be screened by a 6-foot solid fence or vegetated barrier. Council President Wilson commented often code enforcement staff become involved in neighborhood disputes. Mr. Bowman replied these regulations defined the rules which the Code Enforcement Officer would enforce. He commented most complaints are resolved rapidly, often as a result of neighbors talking to each other. Mr. Bowman reiterated the issue he raised regarding open storage. Mr. Snyder suggested if the Council did not want to enforce something, they simply inform staff such as technical standards that the City did not have the resources to enforce. He concluded it was better administratively to be able to tell a citizen the Council had decided not to regulate something rather than have a loose/vague standard. Packet Page 27 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 12 Council President Wilson asked if the language regarding a burden of defense was deleted, the Council would be identifying areas they did not intend to enforce. Mr. Snyder answered without a mechanism to fund analysis or shift the burden of proof, the City should not enforce technical standards such as particulate standards and vibration. Council President Wilson inquired about the cost to provide an enforcement mechanism. Mayor Haakenson suggested retaining the proposed language and request staff provide a report in 6-12 months regarding how often it was used. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, advising the Council received correspondence from John Heighway with suggested language regarding lighting and from Ed Caspers who will also speak to the Council. Ed Caspers, Edmonds, commented he has had a motor home or trailer parked in his yard for 25 years with no complaint. He asked why the City cared whether he parked on grass or asphalt. He worked out of the county at times and may not be able to renew his vehicle tabs in a timely manner. Because he lives on a corner lot, a 6-foot fence or vegetation is not practical due to visibility. He was unable to construct a garage on his property to accommodate his trailer and because his lot was on a corner, his entire yard was a front yard In this economy, he questioned the City requiring residents to install a parking surface or construct a garage or 6-foot fence. With regard to lighting, he did not want the floodlights he installed to combat vandalism to be removed. He questioned what constituted an approved container for oil, explaining when he changed his car’s oil, he placed it in a 5-gallon jug that he took to a recycling bin. Dennis Rydquist, Edmonds, commented this was the first time he had heard about this ordinance. He understood the concern with aesthetics but objected to placing an unfair burden on homeowners particularly in this economy. He did not object to his neighbor’s RV and urged the City to tread carefully on property rights and not place onerous rules on homeowners. Dave Page, Edmonds, viewed the proposed regulations as an encroachment on citizens’ rights and an example of creeping control and urged the Council not to approve them. He provided a quote from an Australian economist who said the reason the United States was the richest county in the world was because the government started later than the governments of other countries on the policy of intervening on the private lives of its citizens. He concluded each year there were more laws, more regulation, and more control of citizens by government. He suggested most issues could be addressed by negotiation rather than regulations. If these regulations were passed, he anticipated the City would need to hire an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Mayor Haakenson assured the City would not be hiring another Code Enforcement Officer. Marc Petrella, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Page’s comments, pointing out most complaints were resolved without additional regulations. He questioned how many complaints the City received regarding RVs that could not be resolved. He envisioned the Council was trying to fix something that was not broken and recommended the Council not approve the ordinance. Lynn Jackson, Edmonds, referred to staff’s statement that there were approximately 200 complaints per year, recalling at an earlier Council meeting, of the total complaints received, 60-70 were related to RVs. She noted 200 complaints represented less than .005% of the population of Edmonds and anticipated many of the 200 complaints were made by the same person, someone who was unhappy with their neighbor. She questioned the amount of time the Council had spent on developing these restrictive policies. She questioned the intent of a 6-foot fence to screen an RV as most were 9-11 feet tall and would not be concealed by a 6-foot fence. Packet Page 28 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 13 Julie Owensby, Edmonds, expressed support for the regulations regarding the number of vehicles that can be parked on a residential lot. She described a situation in her cul-de-sac where a house across the street has eight cars parked in their yard and in the cul-de-sac. She pointed out numerous vehicles parked in a yard and on the street negatively affected the value of homes in the area. Colin Southcoat Want, Edmonds, pointed out the danger of unintended consequences of some of the provisions, particularly 17.60.040(D) that requires cars parked in the front yard to be on an impervious surface. He provided his situation as an example, two cars in the garage and their teenager’s car parked on the grass behind a hedge. If they were required to install an impervious surface to park the car, they may be inclined to park in the street, particularly since the car parking on the grass is temporary. He pointed out there was no definition of improved parking surface such as the amount of gravel, whether strips for the tires were sufficient, etc. He questioned whether it would be preferable for cars to be parked on the street instead of on the grass. Julie Holt, Edmonds, expressed concern with the financial consequences this could have on her parents who have a number of vehicles. She pointed out a homeowner should be allowed to do what they want with their property and the neighbors should not care how many cars are parked in their driveway as long as no illegal activities are occurring on the property. She preferred neighbors work out issues between themselves. She concluded there may be residents who complain simply because they had too much time on their hands. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented his research found there were a lot of RVs in Edmonds, 3-4 per block parked in driveways in Seaview and many of those homeowners were opposed to the proposed regulations. He thanked Councilmember Bernheim for his questions which addressed the underlying problem with this ordinance. He objected to the intrusion into private property rights and urged the City not to prohibit him from using his grass yard as he wishes. He compared these regulations to the regulations that were proposed regarding treehouses that pitted neighbor against neighbor. He agreed with limiting the number of RVs in the front yard to two but recommended not limiting the total number that could be stored on a property as RVs were more than motor homes. He recommended a fence height of 5-6 feet rather than a strict 6 feet. He also objected to the requirement to store a camper top in the driveway, viewing that as over regulation. He recommended the Council work from Councilmember Bernheim’s questions in revising the proposed regulations. Duane Farman, Edmonds, commented he had a slide-in/un-mounted camper and was uncertain whether it could only be stored in the driveway. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder suggested striking “improved” from Section 17.60.040(D)(1). Mr. Bowman explained Mr. Farman had a paved driveway and a gravel area next to the driveway and his question was whether he could store his camper on the gravel. Mr. Bowman agreed that was reasonable and the ordinance would need to be revised to accommodate that situation. Mr. Bowman acknowledged when this effort began, the economy was better; however, regardless of the economy, the same issues exist. With regard to parking on grass, he noted the testimony seemed to support allowing residents to park on the grass; however, he urged the Council to consider the appearance of the front yard. With regard to Mr. Caspers’ comments about his floodlights, Mr. Bowman relayed they must not be a problem because the City has not received any complaints. With regard to oil storage, Packet Page 29 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 14 storing oil in a sealed container was an appropriate container. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 17.60.040(D)(2)(b) that required containers of oil and fluids to be stored in an approved structure and in compliance with all health regulations and provisions of state and federal law. With regard to concerns expressed about property rights, Mr. Bowman explained these were policy decisions for the Council to determine the type of community they wanted. For example, the Council could strike all regulations regarding RVs. In response to the question about requiring a 6-foot fence to screen an 11-foot tall RV, he explained it was an aesthetic issue to provide some screening. He relayed that homeowners associations typically required RVs be stored behind a 6-foot fence. Mayor Haakenson recalled the 6-foot fence was not originally intended to screen RVs but nuisance items such as stacked wood, etc. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the average citizen learned the Council was discussing these regulations, commenting because citizens were not aware of the regulations, they assumed they were all new. Mr. Bowman explained many of the regulations had been in place for many years. The revisions addressed the total number of vehicles, RV storage and habitation in an RV. Councilmember Wambolt asked how much of the document was new. Mr. Snyder estimated 5%. Councilmember Wambolt summarized residents had been regulated by it in the past but were not aware of it because there had not been any complaints. Mr. Bowman agreed enforcement was only by complaint. Mr. Snyder explained the City advertises and posts Planning Board and Council public hearings in excess of State statute requirements. Other than notifying all property owners with a registered RV or more than two cars, there was no practical way to ensure citizens were aware the Council was discussing this topic. Mr. Bowman explained he included common language in the newspaper public hearing notice to ensure the public was aware what performance standards were being discussed. Council President Wilson pointed out if the Council did not pass the ordinance, all the existing regulations regarding odor control, waste disposal, etc. would continue to be enforced. He recommended the Council at least pass the regulations regarding particulate matter. Mr. Snyder explained the provisions of 17.60.030(B) regarding lighting were added at Council suggestion and made the lighting provisions more rational. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS THE COUNCIL DIRECTION. Councilmember Orvis commented he did not care what happened in the back or side yard, he found parking vehicles on the grass acceptable and he agreed with limiting the number of vehicles in the front yard. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO MODIFY THE ORDINANCE SO THAT IT IS OKAY TO PARK ON THE GRASS. Councilmember Olson did not want to regulate the surfaces on which people parked. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the amendment because he did not favor requiring someone to pave their yard to in order to park in their yard. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON VOTING NO. Packet Page 30 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CARS IN THE FRONT YARD TO FIVE AND THE NUMBER OF RVS TO TWO. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO REMOVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT FOR RVS ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. Councilmember Orvis suggested the requirement for screening be based on the vehicle, pointing out a 6- foot fence would provide a significant screen for a car. He was amenable to lowering the required fence height to 5½ feet. Council President Wilson questioned whether the Council wanted to regulate RVs at all. He agreed with not having junk cars on lawns due to their impact on property values and regulating public safety issues. He was supportive of eliminating regulations regarding RVs. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the Beautify America Program started by Ladybird Johnson, recalling many yards before that effort were appalling. He envisioned not regulating the number of vehicles would be a regressive step. Councilmember Peterson commented the requirement for screening was questionable in this economy. However, having several vehicles parked in the yard could adversely affect real estate values in a neighborhood. He observed the Council passed an ordinance tonight restricting accessory buildings that most audience members were pleased with; that too was a restriction of property rights and prevented property owners from constructing a 30-foot tall garage separate from their house. This ordinance was further regulation regarding the number of vehicles that could be parked in a yard, an aesthetic issue similar to accessory buildings. He encouraged residents to reduce the number of vehicles for environmental reasons. He concluded the Council must balance property rights with the rights of citizens as a whole. He agreed with limiting the number of cars in the front yard, observing if there were no limit on the number of cars in a backyard, would it constitute a junkyard. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE HABITATION SECTION 17.60.050 TO READ FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS IN A CALENDAR YEAR. Council President Wilson advised the current language prohibited habitation in an RV for a period longer than 14 days in a calendar year. He recalled as a child his grandparents would stay in their RV for longer than 14 days when visiting his family. Councilmember Wambolt questioned why the City wanted to regulate the habitation period. Mayor Haakenson responded it would prevent people from living in an RV. Mr. Bowman responded there was currently no regulation regarding the time period an RV could be occupied; staff currently enforced it as an unpermitted dwelling unit if there was water and power to the vehicle. Staff could enforce a 60 day period. Councilmember Wambolt asked why occupying an RV for long periods of time was problematic. Mr. Snyder pointed out the extensive regulations the City adopted regarding accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Wambolt asked how staff would determine whether an RV had been occupied for 60 Packet Page 31 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 16 days. Mr. Bowman answered that information was often provided by the person filing the complaint or staff could establish the 60 day period. Councilmember Plunkett asked why the City cared about someone living in an RV. Mr. Snyder reiterated the City had adopted regulations regarding the number of unrelated individuals that can live at a site as well as circumstances under which a resident could have an accessory dwelling unit. The City should regulate habitation of an RV consistent with regulations of dwelling units. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this provision pertained to a vehicle on the street. Mr. Bowman answered no, as vehicles parked on the street must be moved every 72 hours. Council President Wilson commented there were also public safety concerns with someone living in an RV on a vacant property. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO CHANGE MINIMUM OF 6 FEET HIGH TO A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET HIGH IN 17.60.030(H) OPEN STORAGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN RV USED FOR HABITATION TO BE LICENSED TO THE SITE ADDRESS WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. Councilmember Wambolt asked why that language was included. Mr. Bowman answered it was intended to address an out-of-state trailer parked on a site that was used as a dwelling unit. The 60 day habitation provision could now be used to address that situation. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bowman clarified two cars parked in a carport and five cars parked in the front yard would be allowed according to the Council’s direction. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADD “IMPROVED” PRIOR TO “PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY” IN SECTION 17.60.040(G). Councilmember Bernheim commented the unimproved right-of-way was the property owner’s property; the City only had an easement. Mr. Bowman explained in some situations the underlying ownership of the right-of-way belonged to the property owner and the City had an easement for street purposes, in other cases the City may own the right-of-way. Councilmember Bernheim clarified his intent was only the privately owned right-of-way. Councilmember Peterson asked whether this could be a problem for code enforcement. Mr. Bowman agreed it had the potential to be problematic as staff did not survey the location of the right-of-way. Councilmember Orvis suggested allowing the unimproved right-of-way to be used for parking may reduce damage to lawns. Packet Page 32 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 17 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, ORVIS, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO STRIKE SECTION 17.60.040(J). Councilmember Bernheim explained by striking this section it would allow a canopy top to be located in the front yard and not require it be located in the driveway. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Anticipating the audience would depart following the conclusion of this item, Council President Wilson announced following the Council meeting, the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) will hold a public hearing on a proposed $20 vehicle license fee. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, congratulated the Council for approving a Sustainability Agenda. She announced Sustainable Edmonds’ next meeting on Sunday, February 22, from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. at the Port of Edmonds conference room, 336 Admiral Way. The focus of the meeting is planning for climate change impacts at Edmonds downtown coastal zone, accounting for future impacts of climate change on the City’s planning process. The case study will focus on future sea level rise in relation to the off and on again debate over the past several years of the possible redevelopment of the downtown Edmonds coastal zone. The coastal zone is the area between Puget Sound and the western edge of downtown where land ranges from the beach to a height of only a few feet above sea level where the water tables are only a few feet below the surface in places. Lara Whitely Binder of the UW’s Climate Impacts Group will present the scenario for rising sea-level in the 50-75 year future. Following her presentation, Tim Trohimovich, land use/environmental planner, attorney, and Planning Director of Futurewise, will discuss ways in which the risk of future climate impacts can be factored into the Edmonds planning process. Judy Stead, Edmonds, explained she lived in a small rambler with a view of her neighbor’s blue tarps, yet the City’s portion of her real estate taxes increased $69.06. She referred to the Council’s plans to ask the voters to approve a levy of $22/month to sustain the basic elements of the City, pointing out basic elements were water, sewer, heat, electricity, safety and transportation. With the newly created TBD and plans to create a Regional Fire Authority, it appeared the City was shifting basic elements away from City responsibility. She questioned the need for a City government if there were centralized taxing districts/authorities to provide basic needs. She reminded the Council that nice-to-have projects such as Yost Pool, the Center for the Arts and the Senior Center were not basic elements and were not necessary for the survival of citizens. She questioned Councilmembers acting as Board Members of the TBD, envisioning a conflict of interest. She asked why another layer of bureaucracy to tax citizens was better for them, how it would save her money and be more efficient and provide basic elements, and how shifting the City’s responsibilities for providing basic needs to other government entities benefited citizens. Packet Page 33 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 18 Merrilyn Alkire, Edmonds, explained during walks along Sunset Avenue with her dog she often needed to sit down due to health issues, yet was told she could not sit on a bench on Sunset Avenue because dogs were not allowed. It was her understanding the City prohibited dogs in parks because owners did not clean up after them; she compared this to banning people from parks because they might litter. She urged the Council to allow leashed dogs in City parks. She also suggested the park south of the ferry terminal be open to people walking their dogs. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, announced the Senior Center had a new director. He commented on the Council’s lengthy discussion regarding performance standards, reiterating his thanks to Councilmember Bernheim for his questions. He recalled in the early 1930’s when his father worked for the telephone company in the Gray’s Harbor area, he worked half a day or 3-4 days a week. He suggested this as a possibility for City staff. He recalled the Council authorized the Mayor’s salary increase earlier this year but now had delayed the increase. He was glad the Council realized the City had a serious financial problem, commenting it had been created by years of leadership that did not realize money did not go on forever. Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, anticipated in the coming months there would be considerable discussion regarding the levy on the November ballot to fund city operations. He shared the response of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg when questioned about New York City’s response to current financial challenges relative to those in the 1970s, “we’re not going to make the mistake that was made in the 70’s to stop policing the streets, stop cleaning the streets, stop cleaning graffiti off buildings, stop supporting cultural institutions, building parks, schools and all those things. We’re going to continue those things. We may have to stretch some construction projects, ask people to do more with less, may not be able to have the frills or life at the edge but we’re not going to walk away from our city; that’s the prescription for disaster. When you do that your tax base leaves and the rest of this county as well as New York are going to have exactly the same decisions to make; the taxpayers are going to have to decide whether they want to have a future or not. If they don’t want to have a future they’re not going to have to pay as much now but if they want to leave a better world for their kids, they’re going to have to pay the bills up front.” Mr. Senderoff summarized Mayor Bloomberg’s message was that the city government and the community bear the responsibility to ensure the services they value and depend on are continued and that they do not entirely neglect new growth opportunities. He commented it may be useful to remind each other of this message in the months ahead as discussions proceed and the levy vote approaches. Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Council banned dogs from the benches on Sunset Avenue. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council placed strict restrictions on dogs in parks; Sunset Avenue is considered a park. 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - CRIMINAL OFFENSES. This item was removed from the agenda. 11. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 10, 2009. Finance Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee reviewed proposed amendments to the Fee Resolution which was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. Staff reviewed the Interfund Loan that had been established and this was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. Next staff reviewed the January 2009 Revenue and Expenditure reports, no action was required. Staff provided an overview of changes made to the April 2000 Purchasing Policy which was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. Staff described Packet Page 34 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 19 the results of the Utility Rate Study; this item will be presented to the full Council as a public hearing. The final item discussed by the Committee was a sole source purchase to replace the sewer TV truck. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee reviewed a proposed ordinance amending City adopted building code ECDC 19.00.005 relating to a required progress inspection for permit renewal. This was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee reviewed an Interlocal Agreement with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for office space in the Public Safety Building which was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. The Committee was also informed that due to budget cuts, Snohomish County District Court will no longer prosecute gross misdemeanors and will refer them to Municipal Court. An ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Title 5 - Anticipatory Offenses - was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. Agenda item 10 which was removed addressed several other issues that the Committee requested be discussed again at their next meeting. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to an article in the Enterprise that attributed a comment to him regarding the levy, “instead $4.5 million represents the cost of avoiding either dramatic city-changing cutbacks or bankruptcy.” After receiving a call from King 5 news regarding the City being in bankruptcy, Mayor Haakenson clarified the City was not in bankruptcy and was not considering bankruptcy. His comment at the retreat was if the levy fails and the City failed to make budget cuts, it would essentially go bankrupt. He assured the City was not going bankrupt but was in dire financial straits and if the levy failed, budget cuts would be made. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson invited anyone interested in participating on the Citizen Review Committee to contact Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman via email at Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us. He requested participants be able to attend meetings on Monday March 23, March 30, April 6 and April 13 from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. To Ms. Stead’s comments about the creation of a new bureaucracy, Council President Wilson assured no one wanted to create bureaucracy; however, an Eyman initiative several years ago dramatically reduced funds for transportation and prevented the City from continuing to provide the same service level although the City did more with less than any other like City. The City’s property taxes are lower than similar cities and the City provides a broader range of services with fewer employees per capita. He recalled Ms. Stead recommended the City focus on need-to-have items rather than want-to-have, noting she included parks as a want-to-have. He pointed out that was the question, whether residents wanted Yost Pool and parks. He anticipated public hearings would be held in September and October on ordinances identifying cuts that would be required if the levy did not pass. Mayor Haakenson explained after realizing the Eyman initiative reduced transportation funding, the State Legislature created the ability to establish a TBD and the bureaucracy to collect those funds. Council President Wilson assured there was not a separate bureaucracy other than the Board and there was no separate staff. He explained the Regional Fire Authority (RTA) was still under consideration and if created, it would be because a better level of service could be provided for less money. If an RFA were formed, he anticipated City taxes would be lowered. Packet Page 35 of 217 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 20 Councilmember Peterson announced Council President Wilson and he were going to Olympia on Wednesday and Thursday to attend the Association of Washington Cities legislative conference and Environmental Lobby Day on Thursday along with members of Sustainable Edmonds. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Packet Page 36 of 217 AM-2117 2.D. Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Debbie Karber Submitted For:Kathleen Junglov Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #109980 through #110080 for February 19, 2009 in the amount of $988,676.64. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #47847 through #47883 for the period February 1 through February 15, 2009 for $821,491.36. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2009 Revenue: Expenditure:$1,810,168.00 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $988,676.64 Payroll: $821,491.36 Attachments Link: Claim cks 2-19-09 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 02/19/2009 11:27 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 11:45 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 11:53 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 12:16 PM APRV Packet Page 37 of 217 Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 02/19/2009 10:29 AM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 38 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 109980 2/19/2009 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 265567 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 63.25 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 5.63 Total :68.88 109981 2/19/2009 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 209159 PICKLEBALL SHIRTS PICKLEBALL T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 14.82 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1.32 Total :16.14 109982 2/19/2009 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101581719 M5Z34 CAL GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.23 M5Z34101591042 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 82.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 7.30 Total :116.53 109983 2/19/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4112780 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.03 Total :37.07 109984 2/19/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4112783 C/A 21580001 1Page: Packet Page 39 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 109984 2/19/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.36 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.31 Total :101.67 109985 2/19/2009 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 76027 CITY HALL - NAME PLATE FOR S PETERSON CITY HALL - NAME PLATE FOR S PETERSON 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 145.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 12.91 Total :157.91 109986 2/19/2009 002170 BARTON, RONALD 19 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,625.78 Total :1,625.78 109987 2/19/2009 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 119 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE Web Site Maintenance 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 300.00 Total :300.00 109988 2/19/2009 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN10390 YOGA YOGA #10390 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 956.20 YOGA #10403 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 837.90 Total :1,794.10 109989 2/19/2009 067008 BUCHANAN AUTOMATION INC 0485006 VALVE VALVE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 227.50 Total :227.50 109990 2/19/2009 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINE10372 DOG OBEDIENCE CLASSES 2Page: Packet Page 40 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 109990 2/19/2009 (Continued)003255 CANINE COLLEGE DOG OBEDIENCE #10372 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00 Total :420.00 109991 2/19/2009 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11116 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11116 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 179.20 Total :179.20 109992 2/19/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460358431 UNIFORMS Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 136.64 Stn. 17 - OPS 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 136.65 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 12.16 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.16 OPS UNIFORMS460358454 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 131.25 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.68 Total :440.54 109993 2/19/2009 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I09000215 WATER QUALITY - LAB ANALYSIS WATER QUALITY - LAB ANALYSIS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 676.80 Total :676.80 109994 2/19/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 3718 Aquatic Manager, #09-02 ad Aquatic Manager, #09-02 ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00 Tim Godbey - suggestion award 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 50.00 3Page: Packet Page 41 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :75.001099942/19/2009 069983 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 109995 2/19/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2425 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS GYMNASTICS MATT, AND SPRINGS 001.000.640.575.550.350.00 1,615.44 COFFEE FOR PUBLIC MEETING 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 26.14 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 108.85 EASTER EGG HUNT SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 124.52 FRAMES, ETC. 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 28.07 FOLDING PROJECT 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 159.35 GYMNASTICS STICKERS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 107.81 CHAIR FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 219.99 PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.01 GYM WIPES FOR WEIGHT ROOM 001.000.640.575.540.310.00 45.04 NOTARY RENEWAL FOR CLIFF EDWARDS 130.000.640.536.200.490.00 132.27 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES2994 WATER FOR AQUATICS MEETING 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.97 REFRESHMENTS FOR AQUATICS STUDY PUBLIC 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 30.01 DIVIDERS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.39 SISTER CITY DIVIDERS 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 9.86 Total :2,645.72 4Page: Packet Page 42 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 109996 2/19/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1033 GFOA - K Junglov Conf 6/28-7/1-09 GFOA - K Junglov Conf 6/28-7/1-09 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 370.00 GFOA - D Sharp Conf 6/28-7/1/09 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 370.00 WFOA - D Karber Govern Acct Class 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 100.00 Qqest/Mngr + upgrade1287 Qqest/Mngr + upgrade 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 495.00 Computer Stop-Computer repair Labor & 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 446.87 HP - Power Source 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 106.25 Domain Name Reg - Registration 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 38.85 Corel - Software 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 14.95 DRI Sonic Solutions - Softward 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 16.32 Experts Exchange - Membership 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 109.45 ARIN - Registration of AS # Assignment 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 500.00 CDW - HP Officejet Pro - Water Dept 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 184.31 CDW - Hard Drives - IS Dept 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 315.67 HP - Return power supply1287 HP - Return power supply 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 -115.72 Total :2,951.95 109997 2/19/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4783 Office supplies for Council Office 5Page: Packet Page 43 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 109997 2/19/2009 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Office supplies for Council Office 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 82.78 Refreshments/Interview Council 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 80.07 Total :162.85 109998 2/19/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 8708 OPS EXPENDABLE TOOLS weight mach resistr 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 18.61 OPS SUPPLIES9380 DO,JS,KG, safety lens 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 592.30 CORREIRA9858 IAFC registratn 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 292.00 IAFC Mbrshp dues 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 299.00 Survey Monkey subscrptn 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 59.85 Orleans Hotel 001.000.510.522.400.430.00 98.10 Total :1,359.86 109999 2/19/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2276 - 02-09-09 #2276 EDMONDS - GANNON CUPS, KLEENEX, BATTERIES, HAND SANITIZER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 282.08 GUN CASES FOR DETECTIVES 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 518.51 COFFEE FOR 1/28 TAC MEETING 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.14 COOKIES FOR 1/28 TAC MEETING 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 31.96 6Page: Packet Page 44 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 109999 2/19/2009 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS #8298 02-09-09 EDMONDS-BARD8298 02-09-09 DVD-RW PACK - MANDEVILLE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 25.46 SKILLPATH CLASS - COMPTON 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 299.00 BOOK, THUMB DRIVES FOR PATROL, ASST 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 161.55 RCW AND WACS ON CD 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 108.90 NIK ONLINE TRAINING FOR SPEER 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 9.95 LASER BATTERIES FOR PRISM 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 114.45 #9237 02-09-09 LAWLESS-EDMONDS9237 02-09-09 CHECKED BAG FEE - LAWLESS TO QUANTICO 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.00 CHECKED BAG FEE #2 - LAWLESS TO QUANTICO 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 25.00 LAWLESS SHUTTLE - AIRPORT TO FBI ACADEMY 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 40.00 Total :1,658.00 110000 2/19/2009 072556 CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES LLC 1335 SR CENTER KITCHEN UPGRADE PROJECT - 2 SR CENTER KITCHEN UPGRADE PROJECT - 2 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 21,252.37 Total :21,252.37 110001 2/19/2009 004867 COOPER, JACK F 20 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,348.80 Total :1,348.80 110002 2/19/2009 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 510-0000 OPS UNIFORMS balance 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 2.94 7Page: Packet Page 45 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110002 2/19/2009 (Continued)065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OPS UNIFORMS510-0128 Train/Admin BC 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 26.49 OPS UNIFORMS510-0991 Batt Chiefs 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 58.85 PREV UNIFORMS510-1524 Fire Marshal 001.000.510.522.300.240.00 29.44 ADMIN UNIFORMS510-1884 Fire Chief 001.000.510.522.100.240.00 29.44 OPS UNIFORMS510-2341 Asst. Chief 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 38.26 Total :185.42 110003 2/19/2009 005810 CRAIN, DOUGLAS 18 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,593.80 Total :1,593.80 110004 2/19/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-2960 Jun-Dec 08 So Sno Cuty Meeting Minutes Jun-Dec 08 So Sno Cuty Meeting Minutes 001.000.000.237.910.000.00 324.00 Total :324.00 110005 2/19/2009 065046 DITCH WITCH NW EXCHANGE 6186913 UNIT 110 - BRAKE REPAIR PARTS UNIT 110 - BRAKE REPAIR PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 378.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.09 Total :412.97 110006 2/19/2009 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 3126584 SEWER INVENTORY - ~ 8Page: Packet Page 46 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110006 2/19/2009 (Continued)068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS SEWER INVENTORY - ~ 411.000.655.535.800.340.00 1,821.76 S-MHCI-25.25-020 411.000.655.535.800.340.00 103.67 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.340.00 50.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.340.00 175.81 Total :2,151.24 110007 2/19/2009 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 16107 UPS/EQPT. LOAN UPS/EQPT. LOAN 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 25.19 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 2.24 UPS/DEPT OF ECOLOGY16115 UPS/DEPT OF ECOLOGY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 10.07 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.90 Total :38.40 110008 2/19/2009 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 042272 Canon 5870 color copies and maintenance Canon 5870 color copies and maintenance 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 22.96 Canon 5870 color copies and maintenance 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 22.95 Canon 5870 color copies and maintenance 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 22.94 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 2.04 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 2.04 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 2.05 9Page: Packet Page 47 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :74.981100082/19/2009 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 110009 2/19/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0197498 WATER - HYD OIL WATER - HYD OIL 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 53.13 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.04 WATER - FASTITE PIPE, MJ GASKETS0198299 WATER - FASTITE PIPE, MJ GASKETS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,204.76 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 107.22 Total :1,369.15 110010 2/19/2009 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 9300802 Mitel Phone Service Agreement pmt 2 of 2 Mitel Phone Service Agreement pmt 2 of 2 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 4,860.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 432.54 Total :5,292.54 110011 2/19/2009 072637 FORECAST PUBLIC ARTWORKS 350 PUBLIC ART REVIEW TOURISM AD Tourism ad in Public Art Review 120.000.310.575.420.440.00 535.50 Total :535.50 110012 2/19/2009 072639 GAY, JENNIFER GAY0210 REFUND REFUND FOR MEDICAL REASONS 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 44.00 Total :44.00 110013 2/19/2009 072515 GOOGLE INC 642236 FEB-09 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT Feb-09 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 558.96 Total :558.96 110014 2/19/2009 012555 H & L SPORTING GOODS 80293 SCOREBOOKS 10Page: Packet Page 48 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110014 2/19/2009 (Continued)012555 H & L SPORTING GOODS SCOREBOOKS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 66.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 5.87 Total :71.87 110015 2/19/2009 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2473261 WATER - QUICK JOINT COUPLINGS, BRASS WATER - QUICK JOINT COUPLINGS, BRASS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,102.36 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 98.11 Total :1,200.47 110016 2/19/2009 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 2126-120 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Iffert 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 595.00 Turner,Strawn,Hunter 001.000.510.522.200.410.00 1,893.00 Total :2,488.00 110017 2/19/2009 072466 HOME STREET BANK E5MC.Ret5 Premium Const Retainage Pmt 5 Premium Const Retainage Pmt 5 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 8,879.99 Total :8,879.99 110018 2/19/2009 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 424227-1 FAC MAINT - RECHARGABLE CORDLESS WORK FAC MAINT - RECHARGABLE CORDLESS WORK 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 59.61 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 7.34 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 5.96 Total :72.91 110019 2/19/2009 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 010494746 C/A 010494746 11Page: Packet Page 49 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110019 2/19/2009 (Continued)071634 INTEGRA TELECOM PR1-1 City Phone Service 1/10-2/10/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 821.10 Total :821.10 110020 2/19/2009 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E4GA.Pmt 2 E4GA.Pmt thru 01/30/09 E4GA.Pmt thru 01/30/09 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 684,842.04 E4GA.Retainage #2 412.300.000.223.400.000.00 -31,443.62 Total :653,398.42 110021 2/19/2009 069894 ITT 03035032 088364 AIR DIFFUSER ASSY 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,690.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 150.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 163.76 Total :2,003.76 110022 2/19/2009 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.33 E2DB.Services thru 12/31/08 E2DB.Services thru 12/31/08 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 6,677.77 Total :6,677.77 110023 2/19/2009 016600 KROESENS INC 93501 UNIFORMS ALS maltese crosses 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 186.20 Boyle maltese crosses 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.85 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 16.57 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 0.79 12Page: Packet Page 50 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110023 2/19/2009 (Continued)016600 KROESENS INC OPS PROTECTIVE CLTHNG93575 Flett boots 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 275.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 24.48 ALS UNIFORMS93954 Schleicher 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 162.80 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 14.65 Total :689.34 110024 2/19/2009 072262 KUHNHAUSEN, KRIS MAY 08 Hotel Reimb for 2008 PNWS-AWWA Hotel Reimb for 2008 PNWS-AWWA 411.000.654.534.800.430.00 224.30 Total :224.30 110025 2/19/2009 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 160154 UNIT 22 - TIRES UNIT 22 - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,001.12 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 89.10 FLEET - TRAILER TIRE161131 FLEET - TRAILER TIRE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 82.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.37 Total :1,181.36 110026 2/19/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 100354 BUSINESS CARDS ORDER 13Page: Packet Page 51 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110026 2/19/2009 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS Business Cards~250-00217 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 17.20 Gina Coccia250-00217 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20 Debbie Johnson250-00217 001.000.640.574.100.490.00 17.20 Cliff Edwards250-00217 130.000.640.536.500.490.00 17.20 Mary Ann Hardie250-00217 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 17.20 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 1.53 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.53 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.490.00 1.53 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.490.00 1.53 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.53 14Page: Packet Page 52 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110026 2/19/2009 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS BUSINESS CARDS FOR POLICE DEPT.100355 Business Cards~250-00218 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 39.50 M.K. Moore250-00218 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.50 Justin D. Lee250-00218 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.50 Earl Yamane250-00218 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.50 Kari G. Hovorka250-00218 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 14.50 A.J. Frausto250-00218 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.50 Anthony J. Collins250-00218 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.50 Jordan G. Cimino250-00218 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.50 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.81 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.74 Total :247.20 110027 2/19/2009 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 568185 UNIT 10 - THERMOSTAT UNIT 10 - THERMOSTAT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.79 UNIT EQ46PO - REDUCER CONNECTOR568455 UNIT EQ46PO - REDUCER CONNECTOR 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 6.18 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 0.55 15Page: Packet Page 53 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110027 2/19/2009 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC UNIT 138 - AIR FILTERS568793 UNIT 138 - AIR FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 56.08 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.99 UNIT 3 - OIL FILTER, (RETURNED AIR568802 UNIT 3 - OIL FILTER, (RETURNED AIR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.66 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.80 UNIT 3 - AIR FILTER568863 UNIT 3 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.91 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.13 UNIT 3 - AIR FILTERS568875 UNIT 3 - AIR FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -37.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.38 UNIT 138 - AIR FILTER568893 UNIT 138 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.87 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.57 FLEET SHOP - SEALED BEAM WORK AND FLOOD568897 FLEET SHOP - SEALED BEAM WORK AND FLOOD 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 142.26 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.66 UNIT 138 & 55 - AIR FILTERS568922 UNIT 138 & 55 - AIR FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.74 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.14 16Page: Packet Page 54 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110027 2/19/2009 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC UNIT 16 - FUEL FILTER568951 UNIT 16 - FUEL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.89 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.15 UNIT 61 - OIL FILTER569057 UNIT 61 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.23 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.64 FLEET RETURNS FLOOD LAMP, UNIT 138 AIR569075 FLEET RETURNS FLOOD LAMP, UNIT 138 AIR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -163.21 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -14.53 UNIT 477- AIR FILTER569442 UNIT 477- AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 110.27 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.81 UNIT 114 - HOSE CLAMPS, LAMP569454 UNIT 114 - HOSE CLAMPS, LAMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.49 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.54 UNIT EQ46PO - 12V ACCESSORY~569546 UNIT EQ46PO - 12V ACCESSORY~ 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.21 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.20 UNIT 492- OIL FILTER569547 UNIT 492- OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.58 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.41 17Page: Packet Page 55 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110027 2/19/2009 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC FLEET RETURNS569554 FLEET RETURNS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -21.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.94 Total :336.84 110028 2/19/2009 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 20334078 123106800 PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.96 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.47 12310680020334126 PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.60 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.47 12310680020334179 COUPLING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.10 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.47 Total :80.07 110029 2/19/2009 063773 MICROFLEX 00018384 Tax Audit Program Jan-09 Tax Audit Program Jan-09 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 251.62 Total :251.62 110030 2/19/2009 068581 MILLS, GREGORY 2/10/09 OT for the period 1/2 - 1/27/09 (for OT for the period 1/2 - 1/27/09 (for 001.000.410.521.220.110.00 186.82 Total :186.82 110031 2/19/2009 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-231239 101690-01 18Page: Packet Page 56 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110031 2/19/2009 (Continued)069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC GASKET KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 101.76 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.97 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.30 100900-01WA23-231300 OIL SEALS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 140.50 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.25 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.06 101690-01WA23-231387 OIL SEAL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 115.74 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.84 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.82 Total :418.24 110032 2/19/2009 066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 92300436 FLEET SHOP - SHOP SUPPLIES FLEET SHOP - SHOP SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 74.68 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 9.07 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 7.46 19Page: Packet Page 57 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110032 2/19/2009 (Continued)066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY FLEET SHOP - GLOVES, CEMENT GLUE92300552 FLEET SHOP - GLOVES, CEMENT GLUE 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 127.10 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 16.12 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 12.74 FLEET SHOP - SHOP GLOVES92300784 FLEET SHOP - SHOP GLOVES 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 201.80 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 14.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 19.27 Total :482.99 110033 2/19/2009 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0394538-IN UNIT 106 - FILTER UNIT 106 - FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.35 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.41 FLEET FILTER INVENTORY0394542-IN FLEET FILTER INVENTORY 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 48.83 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 4.20 Total :94.79 110034 2/19/2009 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB10357 FUN FACTORY FUN FACTORY #10357 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 847.88 Total :847.88 110035 2/19/2009 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0098837 SODIUM BISULFITE 20Page: Packet Page 58 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110035 2/19/2009 (Continued)066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,540.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 137.10 Total :1,677.60 110036 2/19/2009 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0897181 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0899982 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 233.84 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0899985 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 Total :429.88 110037 2/19/2009 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 600 HPC MINUTES 1/8/09. HPC MINUTES 1/8/09. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 144.00 Planning Board Minutesd 2/11/09.000 00 608 Planning Board Minutesd 2/11/09. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 320.00 Total :464.00 110038 2/19/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 377537 2 pink binders not delivered. 2 pink binders not delivered. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -32.32 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -2.88 Misc. office supplies including 8567213 Misc. office supplies including 8 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 329.52 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 29.33 21Page: Packet Page 59 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :323.651100382/19/2009 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 110039 2/19/2009 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT E5MC.WtrMtr E5MC.3/4" Water Meter E5MC.3/4" Water Meter 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,035.00 E5MC.2" Water Meter 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,385.00 Total :3,420.00 110040 2/19/2009 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00051806 UNIT 55 - SOLENOID VALVE , SUPPLIES UNIT 55 - SOLENOID VALVE , SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 175.77 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.31 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.65 UNIT 55 - E/F FLAP00051864 UNIT 55 - E/F FLAP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 131.78 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.41 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.92 Total :361.84 110041 2/19/2009 072636 PACE COMMUNICATIONS INC 120409P-IN SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AD APRIL 2009 Ad in Southwest Airlines mag April 2009 120.000.310.575.420.440.00 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 110042 2/19/2009 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.804438 CITY HALL - PAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL - PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.12 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.84 22Page: Packet Page 60 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110042 2/19/2009 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. CITY HALL - PAINT SUPPLIES804640 CITY HALL - PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 209.90 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.69 CITY HALL - PAINT SUPPLIES805305 CITY HALL - PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 239.44 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.31 Total :536.30 110043 2/19/2009 072593 PETROCARD 0694264 WATER - MACHINE GREASE~ WATER - MACHINE GREASE~ 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 204.17 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.17 Total :222.34 110044 2/19/2009 071983 PICKELBALL STUFF LLC 08823 PICKLEBALL SUPPLIES PICKBALL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 34.20 Freight 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 6.70 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 3.64 Total :44.54 110045 2/19/2009 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100fb09 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease from 1/30-Feb. 28 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00 Total :866.00 110046 2/19/2009 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER 23Page: Packet Page 61 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110046 2/19/2009 (Continued)029117 PORT OF EDMONDS Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax 411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96 SVC FEE 411.000.652.542.900.450.00 16.66 Total :1,682.62 110047 2/19/2009 072444 PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION GROUP E5MC.Pmt 5 E5MC.Complete thru 01/30/09 E5MC.Complete thru 01/30/09 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 184,177.76 Total :184,177.76 110048 2/19/2009 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ10330 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP FELDENKRAIS, FINDING FLEXABILITY~ 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 313.60 Total :313.60 110049 2/19/2009 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0030498-IN EDMCITW EAR PLUGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 49.95 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 4.45 Total :54.40 110050 2/19/2009 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478332B TELEMETRY TELEMETRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 137.85 Total :137.85 110051 2/19/2009 071696 RANKINS, KATE RANKINS0214 ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR FOR DANCE 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00 Total :36.00 110052 2/19/2009 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES 20024 PS - ALARM SYSTEM REPAIR 24Page: Packet Page 62 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110052 2/19/2009 (Continued)066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES PS - ALARM SYSTEM REPAIR 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 317.75 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 28.28 Total :346.03 110053 2/19/2009 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 01042009 COMCAST FRANCHISE CONSORTIUM Comcast Franchise Negotiations 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,792.04 Total :1,792.04 110054 2/19/2009 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC 22712 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES JAN 2009 Environmental legal services Jan 2009 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 72.00 Total :72.00 110055 2/19/2009 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 130040 RED HEAD FITTING RETURN Red Head fitting 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 -47.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 -4.23 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTH131334 Hunter face shields 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 82.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 7.99 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 8.01 Total :46.27 110056 2/19/2009 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-971008 FLEET INVENTORY - SCREEN ASSEMBLIES FLEET INVENTORY - SCREEN ASSEMBLIES 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 37.76 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 3.36 25Page: Packet Page 63 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110056 2/19/2009 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC UNIT 189 - HARNESS03-971388 UNIT 189 - HARNESS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.68 UNIT 717 - OIL SEAL03-971849 UNIT 717 - OIL SEAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.61 Total :69.17 110057 2/19/2009 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 250679 UNIT 114 - CABLE ASSEMBLY UNIT 114 - CABLE ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.58 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.32 Total :3.90 110058 2/19/2009 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 192452 UNIT 16 - TOWING UNIT 16 - TOWING 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 228.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 20.35 Total :249.10 110059 2/19/2009 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0089707-IN UNIT 11 - AMP CONN UNIT 11 - AMP CONN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.00 UNIT 11 - STROBE, AMBER LENS W/GASKET0090628-IN UNIT 11 - STROBE, AMBER LENS W/GASKET 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 87.40 26Page: Packet Page 64 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110059 2/19/2009 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM UNIT EQ46PO - LED SCENE LIGHT, CHROME0090914-IN UNIT EQ46PO - LED SCENE LIGHT, CHROME 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 388.50 Freight 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 13.75 Total :569.65 110060 2/19/2009 065476 SMITH & GREENE CO 327340 SR CENTER - RANGE #E36FLC SR CENTER - RANGE #E36FLC 116.000.651.594.190.640.00 7,032.71 RANGE #E36LC 116.000.651.594.190.640.00 5,987.33 12" HOT TOP SECTION IN LIEU OF STANDARD 116.000.651.594.190.640.00 900.54 Sales Tax 116.000.651.594.190.640.00 1,238.93 SR CENTER - DELIVERY SET UP333767 SR CENTER - DELIVERY SET UP 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 2,552.94 Sales Tax 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 227.21 SR CENTER - CASTERS FOR 750-CTUS334086 SR CENTER - CASTERS FOR 750-CTUS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 210.00 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.16 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.95 Total :18,183.77 110061 2/19/2009 071999 SMITH, TODD Q 2/10/09 OT for 1/19 - 2/2/09 from TL check OT for 1/19 - 2/2/09 from TL check 001.000.510.522.200.110.00 42.90 Total :42.90 27Page: Packet Page 65 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110062 2/19/2009 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV I000220085 2009 Dues Sno Co Tomorrow 2009 Dues Sno Co Tomorrow 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 10,448.00 Total :10,448.00 110063 2/19/2009 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING RECYCLING 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 28.31 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.70 Total :30.01 110064 2/19/2009 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4146495-01 2613 UNIFORM/VAUGHAN 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 321.23 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 28.77 03664146498-01 UNIFORM/NORDQUIST 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 314.70 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 28.01 Total :692.71 110065 2/19/2009 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2334460-01 SEWER - BOOT 09 - B NILSON - ~ SEWER - BOOT 09 - B NILSON - ~ 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 167.50 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 14.41 WATER - 4 WORK PANTS - V SMITH2335579-01 WATER - 4 WORK PANTS - V SMITH 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 139.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.95 28Page: Packet Page 66 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110065 2/19/2009 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS SEWER - 2 JEANS - B NILSON2335904-01 SEWER - 2 JEANS - B NILSON 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 74.10 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 6.37 WATER - 5 WORK PANTS - D GILBERT4144398-01 WATER - 5 WORK PANTS - D GILBERT 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 170.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 15.13 WATER - 5 WORK PANTS - R SHORE4145294-01 WATER - 5 WORK PANTS - R SHORE 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 153.65 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 13.67 SEWER - 2 WORK PANTS - T HARRIS4145295-01 SEWER - 2 WORK PANTS - T HARRIS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 63.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 5.61 SEWER - 3 WORK JEANS - J CLEMENS4145296-01 SEWER - 3 WORK JEANS - J CLEMENS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 97.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 8.63 SEWER - 5 WORK PANTS - D CRAWFORD4145366-01 SEWER - 5 WORK PANTS - D CRAWFORD 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 165.50 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 14.73 SEWER - 3 WORK PANTS - T HARRIS4146287-01 SEWER - 3 WORK PANTS - T HARRIS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 85.50 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 7.61 29Page: Packet Page 67 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,213.361100652/19/2009 038410 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 110066 2/19/2009 065984 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 195011 UNIT 70 - RFM 60 METER UNIT 70 - RFM 60 METER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 337.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.17 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.54 Total :373.71 110067 2/19/2009 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1755899 UNIT EQ46PO - ELECT SUPPLIES UNIT EQ46PO - ELECT SUPPLIES 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 41.56 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 3.70 WATER - ELECT SUPPLIES1762447 WATER - ELECT SUPPLIES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 25.25 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.25 SR CENTER - ELECT SUPPLIES1768275 SR CENTER - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.76 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.85 Total :95.37 110068 2/19/2009 065941 SvR DESIGN CO 7626 E8MA.Services thru 01/21/09 E8MA.Services thru 01/21/09 132.000.640.594.760.410.00 3,567.50 Total :3,567.50 110069 2/19/2009 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10775447 FLEET SHOP - ELECT SUPPLIES 30Page: Packet Page 68 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110069 2/19/2009 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC FLEET SHOP - ELECT SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 90.39 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.04 FLEET SHOP ELECT SUPPLIES10775448 FLEET SHOP ELECT SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 11.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 1.06 FLEET SHOP ELECT SUPPLIES10777466 FLEET SHOP ELECT SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 42.36 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.77 Total :157.50 110070 2/19/2009 072635 TENNESSEE FLAG COMPANY 32627 CITY SUPPLIES - 3X5 FLAGS CITY SUPPLIES - 3X5 FLAGS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 120.00 4X6 FLAGS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 150.00 Total :270.00 110071 2/19/2009 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8107521 WATER - MTR BOXES, MTR LIDS, SOFT WATER - MTR BOXES, MTR LIDS, SOFT 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4,537.92 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 403.87 Total :4,941.79 110072 2/19/2009 062693 US BANK 3538 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES 31Page: Packet Page 69 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110072 2/19/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK HOSE COIL W/NOZZLE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.63 SEATTLE NW FLOWER & GARDEN SHOW 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 119.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR EDMONDS ARTS 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 150.00 Total :289.63 110073 2/19/2009 062693 US BANK 3389 Lunches for 2009 Council Retreat Lunches for 2009 Council Retreat 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 251.45 Refreshments for 2009 Council Retreat 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 30.47 Total :281.92 110074 2/19/2009 062693 US BANK 3454 OPS SUPPLIES Vehicles' keyboard 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 19.01 Total :19.01 110075 2/19/2009 062693 US BANK 3181 02-06-09 #3181 02-06-09 BARD - EDMONDS 10, 20, 30 YEAR PLAQUES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 38.99 Total :38.99 110076 2/19/2009 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH PWS ID 22500 U 2009 OPERATING PERMIT FEE - J WAITE 2009 OPERATING PERMIT FEE - J WAITE 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 5,669.30 2009 SYSTEM CERTIFICATION FEE 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 536.00 Total :6,205.30 110077 2/19/2009 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL F0900271 TRAINING 32Page: Packet Page 70 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110077 2/19/2009 (Continued)065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL St Academy tuition 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 3,960.00 Academy food & housing 001.000.510.522.400.430.00 1,830.00 Total :5,790.00 110078 2/19/2009 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 583020 UNIT 118 - V BELTS UNIT 118 - V BELTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 93.30 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.16 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.03 UNIT 118 - EQUIP SUPPLIES583219 UNIT 118 - EQUIP SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 175.93 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.41 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.41 Total :311.24 110079 2/19/2009 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN 21087 UNITS 11,17,474 - CROSS CHAINS UNITS 11,17,474 - CROSS CHAINS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,866.00 UNIT 476 - CROSS CHAINS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 367.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 192.08 Total :2,425.58 110080 2/19/2009 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E62495 UNIFORM/MOORS 33Page: Packet Page 71 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 110080 2/19/2009 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR UNIFORM/MOORS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 321.92 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 28.08 UNIFORM JACKET/LEINE62500 UNIFORM JACKET/LEIN 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 65.00 UNIFORM/GARCIAE62501 UNIFORM/GARCIA 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 319.85 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 27.51 UNIFORM/LEINE62503 UNIFORM/LEIN 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 350.00 BOOT SAVERSE62504 BOOT SAVERS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.90 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.18 BOOTS/SLENKERE62521 BOOTS/SLENKER 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 179.00 BOOTS/VAUGHANE62522 BOOTS/VAUGHAN 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 179.00 Total :1,548.44 Bank total :988,676.64101 Vouchers for bank code :front 988,676.64Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report101 34Page: Packet Page 72 of 217 02/19/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 10:26:21AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 35Page: Packet Page 73 of 217 AM-2111 2.E. 2003 Water System Improvements Project Addendum 6 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Conni Curtis Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 Water System Improvements Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 6 to the professional services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $92,500 for the 2003 Water System Improvements project. Previous Council Action On June 24, 2003, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 Water System Improvements project. On July 5, 2005, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to the professional services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the project. On May 20, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 5 to the professional services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the project. Narrative The Five Corners Booster Pump Station is an integral component of the City’s water system and is necessary to provide fire flow and sufficient water supply to meet customer demands during the summer months. The 2003 Water System Improvements project will improve the operating efficiency of the Five Corners Pump Station to better regulate water system pressure and storage. Additional project improvements include telemetry upgrades, reservoir security, seismic improvements and valve and piping improvements on the City’s water system reservoirs (Five Corners, Yost and Seaview). In 2003, the City selected RH2 Engineering to complete the preliminary and final designs for this project. The preliminary design phase was covered by the initial contract and Addendums 1 and 2. The scope of services for final design and preparation of bid documents by RH2 Engineering was included in Addendums 3 thru 5. Addendum No. 6 includes additional design coordination, permitting assistance, structural inspections and support services during the construction phase of the project. Staff reviewed the scope of services and budget for this work and incorporated it into Addendum No. 6 to the Packet Page 74 of 217 professional services agreement with RH2 Engineering (See Attachment 1). The project costs including Addendum No. 6 will be funded by the 412 Utility Fund. Funding for this project also includes a low-interest Public Works Trust Fund loan of $408,000. Construction of these important operational improvements to the City’s water system is anticipated to begin within a few weeks and will continue thru 2009. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: RH2 Addendum No. 6 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 02/18/2009 05:32 PM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/19/2009 10:39 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 10:43 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 10:48 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 11:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 02/18/2009 01:16 PM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 75 of 217 Packet Page 76 of 217 Packet Page 77 of 217 Packet Page 78 of 217 Packet Page 79 of 217 Packet Page 80 of 217 Packet Page 81 of 217 Packet Page 82 of 217 Packet Page 83 of 217 AM-2118 2.F. City of Lynnwood Olympic View Drive Improvements Project Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Amend the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for the Olympic View Drive Improvements Project and approve the award of Phase 2 of the project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council amend the Interlocal Agreement and approve the award of Phase 2 of the City of Lynnwood's Olympic View Drive Improvement Project. Previous Council Action In January, 2002, Council approved a $250,000 contribution to the City of Lynnwood's Olympic View Drive Improvements Project for sidewalks. On October 7, 2003, Council authorized the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for the Olympic View Drive water main and sewer laterals design and construction. On February 5, 2008, City of Lynnwood Staff provided Council an informational presentation on their Olympic View Drive Improvements project. On March 25, 2008, Council approved an amended Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to include installation of City of Edmonds fiber optic conduit in conjunction with the Olympic View Drive Improvement Project. On May 5, 2008, Council approved the award of the City of Lynnwood’s Olympic View Drive Phase 1 improvement project that included the City of Edmonds watermain, sewer and sidewalk improvements. Narrative The City of Lynnwood's Olympic View Drive (OVD) Improvements project will improve vehicle and pedestrian safety by widening the road and constructing new sidewalks on both sides of the street. The project has been divided into two phases. Phase 1, from 178th Place SW to 168th Street SW, started construction in 2008 and will be completed by May, 2009. Phase 2, from 76th Avenue West to 178th Place SW, is expected to begin construction in the spring of 2009. During the design of Phase 2 improvements, a localized flooding problem was identified in Edmonds adjacent to Olympic View Drive. It was determined that the flooding problem could be addressed by upsizing a portion of the proposed stormwater drainage improvements within the Phase 2 project limits. In 2002, the City Council approved a $250,000 contribution to the Olympic View Drive Improvements for new sidewalk that would benefit Edmonds residents. The contribution will be split between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements. The amended Interlocal Agreement (Attachment 1) now includes the Packet Page 84 of 217 additional Phase 2 storm drainage work and financial committment for sidewalks. On February 4, 2009, the City of Lynnwood received bids for Phase 2 of the Olympic View Drive Improvement project. The low responsive bid was received from Plats Plus, Inc. in the amount of $3,315,063.21 for all Phase 2 project work (including both Lynnwood and Edmonds work). The following table shows the estimated Phase 2 construction budget for Edmonds share of the work: Watermain Schedule B Sewer - Schedules C,D,E Fiber Optic Storm Drain Phase 2 Contract $181,055 $15,518 $23,900 $80,164 Construction Contingency-10%$18,105 $1,552 $2,390 $8,016 Construction Management-8.5%$15,390 $1,319 $2,032 $6,814 Phase 2 TOTAL $214,550 $18,389 $28,322 $94,994 The water, sewer and storm costs will be paid from the 412 Utility Fund and the remaining sidewalk contribution will be paid from Fund 112 (transportation projects). The cost for the fiber optic conduit was not included in the 2009-10 Budget and will be paid from the General Fund Balance. The ILA between Edmonds and Lynnwood requires that Lynnwood obtain concurrence from Edmonds prior to awarding the Edmonds watermain and sewer portions of the construction contract, and that Edmonds authorize an additional 10% of the contract award amount for the Edmonds utilities work as a construction contingency. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Interlocal Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 02/20/2009 08:22 AM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/20/2009 08:36 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/20/2009 08:43 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/20/2009 08:49 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/20/2009 09:28 AM APRV Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 02/19/2009 10:31 AM Final Approval Date: 02/20/2009 Packet Page 85 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 1 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE WATER MAIN, SEWER/DRAINAGE LATERALS, FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT & STORM DRAINAGE INSTALLATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION between THE CITY OF EDMONDS and THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter, “the Agreement”) is entered into under the authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter “EDMONDS”), a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and the City of Lynnwood (hereinafter “LYNNWOOD”), a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington (collectively “the Parties”), to provide for the design and construction of the EDMONDS Olympic View Drive Water Main Installation project, installation of sewer/drainage laterals, installation of fiber optic conduit, and upsizing of the storm drainage system in conjunction with the design and construction of the LYNNWOOD Olympic View Drive Improvements (76th Avenue West to 168th Street SW) project, and to define the Parties’ respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking. RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdivisions or units of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mutual advantage to provide for services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the EDMONDS 2002 Water Comprehensive Plan identifies a requirement to install 8-inch ductile iron pipe water main, fire hydrants, and appurtenances on Olympic View Drive from 76th Avenue West to 181st Place SW, and from 180th Street SW to 174th Street SW, and WHEREAS, LYNNWOOD is presently designing their Olympic View Drive Improvements project to widen the roadway and provide sidewalks and bike lanes on Olympic View Drive from 76th Avenue West to 168th Street SW; and WHEREAS, there are approximately thirteen private properties in EDMONDS located along Olympic View Drive between 76th Avenue West and 168th Street SW that are not presently connected to a sanitary sewer system, and WHEREAS, it is likely that the septic systems for these properties will fail in the future, and it will become necessary to construct sewer laterals to connect them to the LYNNWOOD sewer trunk line on Olympic View Drive, and Deleted: 17 Deleted: & Deleted: Packet Page 86 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 2 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that the sewer laterals to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement will extend from the existing sewer main to up to 10 feet beyond the right of way, where they will be capped and available for future connection by the owners of the private properties located as indicated in Exhibit A, but that the actual connections by the private property owners and the design standards for such private connections will be addressed separately from this Agreement, and made pursuant to the 1982 “Agreement for Joint Use of Sanitary Sewerage Facilities between City of Edmonds and City of Lynnwood, Trunk- Treatment-Disposal”; and WHEREAS, Edmonds has offered to contribute $250,000 for sidewalk improvements benefiting Edmonds’ residents; and WHEREAS, as part of its efforts to move to “smart” water metering, public safety wireless communication, and other municipal uses, EDMONDS seeks to install underground fiber optic cable along Olympic View Drive; and WHEREAS, during design of the storm drainage system for the project, a localized flooding situation was discovered adjacent to the intersection of Olympic View Drive and 181st Pl. SW, as well as adjacent 183rd Place SW, east of 72nd Avenue. W; and WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that correcting the localized flooding problem as part of the Olympic View Drive Improvements by upsizing the proposed drainage system is prudent and fiscally responsible, and the Parties have agreed to evenly divide the construction costs to do so; and WHEREAS, integrating EDMONDS’ new water main, sewer/drainage laterals, and fiber optic conduit installation into LYNNWOOD’s construction process for the Olympic View Drive Improvements project would be more expedient, less expensive, and less disruptive to the public than undertaking the projects separately; and WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to establish a formal arrangement under which EDMONDS will pay LYNNWOOD a specified sum in exchange for LYNNWOOD’s construction of the EDMONDS water main, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and upsized drainage system; and WHEREAS, LYNNWOOD has selected a qualified design consultant through a competitive process for their roadway improvements, it therefore becomes more expedient, less expensive, and more efficient for EDMONDS to select and separately contract with the same consultant for the design services needed for their water main, sewer/drainage, fiber optic, and storm drainage improvements, and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of defining their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking; and WHEREAS, the City Councils of the City of Edmonds and the City of Lynnwood have taken appropriate action to approve their respective City’s entry into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: Deleted: 17 Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Deleted: p Inserted: parties have agreed that correcting the localized flooding problem as part of the Olympic View Drive Improvements by upsizing the proposed drainage system is prudent and fiscally responsible, and the Deleted: p Inserted: parties have agreed to evenly divide the construction costs to do so; and Deleted: Packet Page 87 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 3 TERMS Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a formal arrangement under which EDMONDS will pay LYNNWOOD to construct the EDMONDS Olympic View Drive water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and storm drainage improvements in conjunction with LYNNWOOD’s design and construction of the proposed LYNNWOOD Olympic View Drive Improvements (collectively, “the Project”). The terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement shall accordingly be interpreted to advance the new Olympic View Drive water main and sewer laterals installation purpose. This Agreement further seeks to allocate and define the Parties’ respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities concerning the establishment, operation and maintenance of this undertaking. Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the Parties hereto. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall remain effective until the sooner of the following events: (a) EDMONDS’ written acceptance of all infrastructure provided pursuant hereto, or (b) December 31, 2011, when it shall expire automatically. The Parties may at their option renew this Agreement for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both Parties. Section 3. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by providing the other Party with 30 days written notice of its intent to terminate. Termination or expiration shall not alter EDMONDS’ payment obligations under Section 6 for services already rendered and shall not alter the Parties’ respective obligations under Section 9 and Section 13 of this Agreement. Section 4. Obligations of EDMONDS. EDMONDS agrees to: A. Provide periodic payments to LYNNWOOD to reimburse LYNNWOOD for its costs in constructing the EDMONDS Olympic View Drive water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, and fiber optic conduit pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement. B. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by LYNNWOOD or its agents regarding the new water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, and fiber optic conduit. C. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by the consultant for the water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and storm drainage installation. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. D. Provide (apply for and obtain) City of Edmonds permits for water main, sidewalks (if required), sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage work within the City of Edmonds at no cost to LYNNWOOD. Provided, that nothing herein shall be construed as waiving or otherwise abridging the City of Edmonds regulatory authority for work within the City of Edmonds. Deleted: 17 Deleted: and Deleted: 10 Deleted: the Deleted: and Deleted: and Packet Page 88 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 4 E. Obtain Temporary Construction Easements from all property owners adjacent to new sewer lateral locations to allow the laterals to be extended beyond the right- of-way line. F. Provide timely review of utility designs prepared by its consultant, and complete final design by the timelines established by Lynnwood to meet the construction bidding schedule. G. Obtain Bid Award concurrence from the EDMONDS City Council in accordance with section 7 within 30 days of the bid opening. If EDMONDS City Council fails to act within the 30 day time period, LYNNWOOD has the option to eliminate the EDMONDS work schedules from the contract. H. Contribute up to Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for sidewalk improvements within the designated project. Section 5. Obligations of LYNNWOOD. LYNNWOOD agrees to: A. Incorporate the EDMONDS Olympic View Drive water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage designs into the LYNNWOOD design for roadway improvements B. Assume responsibility for constructing the new Olympic View Drive water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage improvements in accordance with the design plans approved by EDMONDS (including but not limited to securing all necessary consultants, contractors, and subcontractors). All construction contracts shall be procured through a formal competitive bidding process consistent with applicable State law. LYNNWOOD shall be solely and exclusively responsible for ensuring the compliance of said bidding process with all applicable procedures required under state and local regulations. C. Submit to EDMONDS written invoices for payment in accordance with Section 6. Include copies of invoices from contractors, clearly indicating the EDMONDS portion of the invoices. Provide EDMONDS a brief written progress report with each invoice, describing in reasonable detail all work performed on the new water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage improvements during the period covered by the invoice. D. Assume lead agency status and sole responsibility for applying for and obtaining any and all regulatory permits necessary to complete the new water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage improvements in conjunction with the LYNNWOOD Olympic View Drive Improvements, including but not limited to SEPA and building permits. Deleted: 17 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5", Tabs: 1", List tab + Not at 0.75" Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: their Deleted: ir Deleted: G. Deleted: 45 Deleted: 45 Deleted: Deleted: and Deleted: and Deleted: and Deleted: and Packet Page 89 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 5 E. Provide EDMONDS personnel reasonable access to the Project’s construction area for purposes of monitoring the progress of work performed on the new water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage improvements. F. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by EDMONDS or its agents regarding the Project. Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and payment schedule: A. For each outside construction contract expense incurred by LYNNWOOD regarding the Project, LYNNWOOD shall within 30 days submit an invoice to EDMONDS for the EDMONDS share of said expense for the new water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage improvements. Said invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed explanation of the methodology utilized by LYNNWOOD in calculating the EDMONDS share of each expense. Contracts for construction shall provide for separate bid schedules, or other means to clearly identify the EDMONDS portion of the Project cost for the new water main, sidewalks, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit and storm drainage improvements. B. Within 30 days of receiving any invoice pursuant to subsection 6.A, EDMONDS shall tender payment to LYNNWOOD in the form of a check, money order or other certified funds for the undisputed portion of the invoiced amount; PROVIDED, that the total payment by EDMONDS for invoices submitted by LYNNWOOD shall not exceed $575,000 (plus 8.5 % of actual direct construction contract cost for construction management and administration per Section 6.C) for construction of the water main, $345,000 (plus 8.5 % of actual direct construction cost for construction management and administration per Section 6.C) for construction of the sewer/drainage laterals, and the actual cost of the change order or bid response for the fiber optic conduit (plus 8.5 % of actual direct construction cost for construction management and administration per Section 6.C), and the actual cost to upsize from an 18-inch to a 24-inch storm drainage pipe between Station 50+31 and Station 25+00, as shown on construction drawings for Olympic View Drive Phase II 76th Avenue West to 178th Place SW, whereby the EDMONDS share is estimated to be approximately $81,000, without prior written approval by EDMONDS for each expense incurred in excess of said amount. Written notice of any dispute shall be provided within said thirty-day period and shall be resolved in accordance with subparagraph D below. LYNNWOOD shall inform EDMONDS in writing in advance if expenditures necessary to complete the water main sewer/drainage laterals, and storm drainage improvement installations are expected to exceed these amounts. In the event that the start of construction (award of construction contract) for the new Edmonds utilities is delayed for a period in excess of two years from the date of signing of this agreement, the parties agree that the not-to-exceed construction cost amounts Deleted: 17 Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Superscript Deleted: and Deleted: and Deleted: and Deleted: and Packet Page 90 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 6 stated in paragraph 6.B will be increased based on 90% of the Department of Labor Consumer Price Index for the Seattle metro area, for each year the project start is delayed beyond the two year period. C. Recognizing that LYNNWOOD shall be reimbursed for their costs of incorporating the EDMONDS utilities work into the construction contract for the LYNNWOOD roadway improvement project, EDMONDS agrees to pay LYNNWOOD an amount equal to 8.5% of the actual construction contract cost for the EDMONDS utilities work for all Construction Management (including resident engineer, inspection, materials testing, etc.) and additional in-house administrative costs incurred by LYNNWOOD to accomplish the construction of the new water main, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and storm drainage improvements in conjunction with the LYNNWOOD Olympic View Drive Improvements. This amount will be invoiced by LYNNWOOD and paid by EDMONDS as an 8.5% markup on construction contractor invoices submitted to EDMONDS for payment in accordance with Section 6B above. D. Within thirty (30 ) days of notice of completion, EDMONDS shall tender payment to LYNNWOOD for its proportionate share of sidewalk improvements. EDMONDS shall pay a total of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) toward its proportionate share of sidewalk construction costs. EDMONDS’ share is an amount equal to the ratio of $250,000 to the total estimated cost of sidewalk construction and shall not exceed $250,000 in total. Receipt of $107,974 paid toward such construction costs is hereby acknowledged. E. In the event that the Parties disagree regarding the EDMONDS share of any expense incurred by LYNNWOOD regarding the Project, the Parties may agree to submit the question for resolution by a mediator or arbitrator acceptable to both Parties. Section 7. Construction Bid Acceptance. Upon opening of construction bids, LYNNWOOD shall obtain concurrence from EDMONDS prior to award of the water main, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and storm drainage improvements portion of the construction contract. Within 15 days after bid opening and prior to acceptance of the bid and award of a contract, LYNNWOOD shall inform EDMONDS of its financial responsibility. Concurrence with bid award by EDMONDS shall be within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of the bid amounts and EDMONDS financial responsibility. EDMONDS agrees to, if contract award is authorized in a bid amount acceptable to their City Council, authorize an additional 10% of the contract award amount for the EDMONDS utilities work as a construction contingency, subject to the change order authorization limitations in Section 8. The EDMONDS Public Works Director is authorized to determine the water main and/or sewer/drainage laterals and/or fiber optic conduit, and/or storm drainage improvements bid items/schedules, or combinations thereof, for which a contract will be awarded, provided that the total cost does not exceed the limits established in Section 6. Deleted: 17 Deleted: and Deleted: D Deleted: Deleted: and Deleted: to Packet Page 91 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 7 Section 8. Construction Change Orders. The following change order authorizations are hereby established: A. The LYNNWOOD resident engineer may authorize change order requests up to $2,000 per change order and shall immediately provide a copy of the change order authorization to the EDMONDS City Engineer. B. The LYNNWOOD Public Works Director, with the prior written concurrence of the EDMONDS City Engineer, may authorize change order requests up to $10,000 per change order. C. The Mayor of LYNNWOOD, with the prior written concurrence of the Mayor of EDMONDS, may authorize change order requests up to $50,000 per change order. D. Change order requests exceeding $50,000 per change order will be reviewed by the respective City Councils of LYNNWOOD and EDMONDS for approval or denial, and any such approval shall require the concurrence of both City Councils. E. In no event shall the total aggregate amount of change orders cause the total construction cost to exceed the maximum amounts in Section 6, without prior written approval by EDMONDS. F. Change orders involving a change in scope shall have the scope change authorized in writing by EDMONDS, and be subject to the 8.5% LYNNWOOD construction management and administration fee in Section 6.C. Section 9 Construction Claims and Disputes. In the event construction claims for additional payment are made by the construction contractor and/or disputes result, LYNNWOOD will endeavor to resolve the claims/disputes and obtain EDMONDS approval prior to finalizing resolution. EDMONDS will assist in resolving claims/disputes as necessary. Financial responsibility for legitimate construction claims/disputes arising from water main, sidewalk, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and/or storm drainage improvements construction for EDMONDS shall be the sole responsibility of EDMONDS. In the event such claims exceed the financial parameters established in Section 6, EDMONDS will authorize additional funding to cover the cost of the claim/dispute. Section 10. Construction Project Acceptance. Upon satisfactory completion of the water main, sidewalk, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and storm drainage improvements work, resolution of all claims for additional payment, completion of all contract closeout documents and agreement between LYNNWOOD and the contractor regarding the final contract quantities for the water main, sidewalk, sewer/drainage laterals, fiber optic conduit, and storm drainage improvements portions of the project, LYNNWOOD shall recommend final acceptance to the EDMONDS City Engineer. Approval by the EDMONDS City Council shall be the responsibility of EDMONDS staff. Deleted: 17 Deleted: Deleted: or Deleted: or Deleted: and Deleted: and Deleted: and Packet Page 92 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 8 Section 11. Ownership and Disposition of Property. The new water main and appurtenances constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall become and remain the exclusive property of EDMONDS upon completion. The new sewer/drainage laterals (and collectors where applicable) constructed pursuant to this Agreement, from the edge of the right-of-way to the point of connection to the LYNNWOOD sewer trunk line or the roadway drainage system as applicable, shall become and remain the exclusive property of EDMONDS upon completion. The new fiber optic conduit and appurtenances constructed for Edmonds pursuant to this Agreement shall become and remain the exclusive property of EDMONDS upon completion. The new drainage system within the Olympic View Drive right-of-way shall become and remain exclusive property of LYNNWOOD upon completion. The Olympic View Drive street improvements including sidewalks constructed shall become and remain the exclusive property of LYNNWOOD upon completion. Section 12. Administration; No Separate Entity Created. Pursuant to RCW 39.34.030, the parties hereby appoint a Contract Administrator who will be responsible for administering this Agreement, and at the direction of the parties, this Contract Administrator shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that this Agreement is implemented in accordance with its terms. The parties hereby designate the LYNNWOOD Public Works Director, or his designee, as the Contract Administrator for this Agreement. No separate legal entity is formed by this Agreement. Section 13. Release, Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, and those of its own agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors, to the fullest extent required by laws of the State of Washington. Each Party agrees to protect, indemnify and save the other Party harmless from and against any and all such liability for injury or damage to the other party or the other Party’s property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and causes 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 its own fault or that of its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Each party specifically promises to indemnify the other party against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its own employees, contractors, or subcontractors, and waives any immunity that each party may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify the other party. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. Each party shall also indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any wage, overtime or benefit claim of any of the first party's employees, agents, representatives, contractors or subcontractors performing services under this Agreement. Each party further agrees to fully indemnify the other party from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the other party is held harmless therefrom. Section 14. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court. Deleted: 17 Formatted: Justified Packet Page 93 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 9 Section 15. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between EDMONDS and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of LYNNWOOD, or between LYNNWOOD and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of EDMONDS. Section 16. Notices. Notices to EDMONDS shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds City Engineer 121 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to LYNNWOOD shall be sent to the following address: City of Lynnwood Public Works Director 19100 44th Avenue W., P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008 Section 17. Duty to File Agreement With County Auditor. EDMONDS shall, after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, file this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor. Section 18. Integration. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the Agreement between the Parties, and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this Interlocal Agreement signed by the Parties hereto, shall be implemented as described above. Section 19. Non-Waiver. Waiver by any Party of any of the provisions contained within this Agreement, including but not limited to any performance deadline, shall not be construed as a waiver of any other provisions. CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF LYNNWOOD By: By: Gary Haakenson, Mayor Don Gough, Mayor Date: Date: ATTEST: ATTEST: ________________________ ________________________ Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk John Moir, Finance Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ _________________________ Scott Snyder, City Attorney Eric Frimodt, City Attorney Deleted: 17 Deleted: ¶ Deleted: ¶ Deleted: ¶ Deleted: Mike Ruark Packet Page 94 of 217 AMENDED AGREEMENT: FEBRUARY 20, 2009 10 Exhibit A Approximate List of Properties within City of Edmonds Requiring Construction of Sewer Laterals in Conjunction with LYNNWOOD Olympic View Drive Improvement Project • 7101 Olympic View Drive • 7109 Olympic View Drive • 7115 Olympic View Drive • 7327 Olympic View Drive • 7333 Olympic View Drive • 7530 184th Place SW • 17632 Olympic View Drive • 17708 Olympic View Drive • 17626 Olympic View Drive • 17806 Olympic View Drive • 17810 Olympic View Drive • 17910 Olympic View Drive • The unaddressed property between 17810 and 17910 Olympic View Drive The EDMONDS Public Works Director is authorized to modify the list of properties for which to provide sewer laterals, provided that the project cost does not exceed the limits established in Section 6 of the Agreement. Deleted: 17 Deleted: ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ Deleted: ¶ Packet Page 95 of 217 AM-2120 2.G. Lake Ballinger Forum Capital Request Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval for Mayor to sign letter of support regarding Lake Ballinger Forum capital request. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The attached draft '2009 Lake Ballinger Joint Letter of Support' is a product of the 5 cities and Snohomish County's efforts to secure funds from the 2009 Legislature. The initial Legislative request for funds is included for review. It is the letter addressed to Sen. Fairley. The draft 'Joint Letter of Support' has been approved already by Lake Forest Park and Mountlake Terrace. Other jurisdictions are considering it. Approval of this item gives the Mayor the authority to sign this letter on behalf of the City of Edmonds, and follows the approval of the Lake Ballinger request as part of the 2009 Legislative Agenda for the City of Edmonds. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Joint Letter of Support Link: 01-27-09 Fairley Letter Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 04:35 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/20/2009 08:56 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/20/2009 09:28 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/19/2009 03:59 PM Final Approval Date: 02/20/2009 Packet Page 96 of 217 DRAFT REVISED 2.13.09 February 12, 2009 Senator Rosemary McAuliffe (1st Legislative District) Representative Mark Ericks (1st Legislative District) Representative Al O’Brien (1st Legislative District) Senator Paull Shin (21st Legislative District) Representative Marko Liias (21st Legislative District) Representative Mary Helen Roberts (21st Legislative District) Senator Darlene Fairley (32nd Legislative District) Representative Maralyn Chase (32nd Legislative District) Representative Ruth Kagi (32nd Legislative District) Dear State Senators and Representatives: On behalf of our cities, we are supporting the efforts of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum with this request for $250,000 in funds from the 2009-2011 Capital Budget for the purpose of the Forum be able to implement the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Strategic Action Plan, which is expected to be completed by June 30, 2009. We also support an additional request for $1.0 million for the purpose of capital improvements to control and reduce the flooding in both the upper and lower watersheds which will be determined in the conclusion of the “Strategic Action Plan”. We would also be interested in looking for opportunities to implement LID (Low Impact Development) infrastructure concepts when possible including assistance and education for lakeside and streamside property owners to implement “natural drainage and green infrastructure solutions” with their landscaping. The challenge of responsible water quality and water quantity stewardship within this Watershed is regional in nature and beyond the scope of any single jurisdiction. The cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline and Snohomish County joined together in the spring of 2008 through an interlocal agreement to prepare a “Strategic Action Plan” to address issues related to water quantity and water quality within the drainage basin. The State Legislature appropriated funds in 2008 totaling $200,000 through the Department of Ecology to develop this “Strategic Action Plan” that will promote regional efforts to address: 1) stormwater and surface water flow issues related to the level of Lake Ballinger 2) flow issues from the lake and the associated impacts to McAleer Creek; and 3) water quality, aquatic habitat, lake and streamside enhancement opportunities. Packet Page 97 of 217 DRAFT REVISED 2.13.09 The Forum meets monthly and in addition to the cities and Snohomish County includes participation from Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation, Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of US Representative Jay Inslee, and numerous citizen groups. The Forum agenda is a commitment to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions, to identify problems and solutions to the issues mentioned above and to seek federal, state and local funding to implement projects and programs designed to eliminate or mitigate water quality and water quantity issues. In summary, these capital requests will move the Forum forward in a way only regional funding can. It will begin implementation of an initial strategy determined by our “Strategic Action Plan” and will support further integration of the members and other stakeholder groups and partners, to include the State in a process that will require long- term collaboration. We appreciate your support and interest in the needs of the Forum. The State is an integral partner in our future and your continued support is important to our success. Sincerely, Gary Haakenson, Mayor David R. Hutchinson Don Gough, Mayor City of Edmonds City of Lake Forest Park City of Lynnwood Jerry Smith, Mayor Cindy Ryu, Mayor City of Mountlake Terrace City of Shoreline Packet Page 98 of 217 January 27, 2009 Senator Darlene Fairley 227 John A. Cherberg Building PO Box 40432 Olympia, WA 98504-0432 Dear Senator Fairley, Please accept this letter as a request for $1 million in funds from the 2009-2011 Capital Budget for the purposes of reconstructing a weir and culvert system at the south end of Lake Ballinger at the head of McAleer Creek. As the Chair of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum, I would be honored to have you submit this Capital Budget request on our behalf. A new weir will be a significant step towards managing water quantity issues at both Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek. Moreover, funding for this project would provide major support for further integration of the participating jurisdictions as we move towards implementation of a “Strategic Action Plan.” Project History On December 3rd, 2007, severe storms hit central Puget Sound. Saturated soil and melting snow from earlier winter storms created major flooding in the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek watershed. The total damage from this one event is estimated to total more than $25 million in direct and economic damages. This event was the worst event in a string of recent floods in the last 10 years. Since the inception of the Department of Ecology, Lake Ballinger has consistently been on the State of Washington’s list of most polluted bodies of water. That status has not changed significantly in more than 35 years. In 2008, the jurisdictions of the City of Edmonds, City of Mountlake Terrace, City of Shoreline, City of Lynnwood, City of Lake Forest Park and Snohomish County signed an interlocal agreement creating the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum (“Forum”). In coordination with $200,000 in funds through the Department of Ecology, the Forum has engaged in a strategic planning process to address three areas: 1) water quality, 2) water quantity, and 3) habitat. That planning process is underway currently, and is projected to be completed by June 30, 2009. Current Status Packet Page 99 of 217 The Forum meets monthly. In addition to the jurisdictions mentioned, participation in the Forum process includes the Dept of Ecology, Dept. of Transportation, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of US Rep. Jay Inslee, and numerous citizen groups. We have engaged one of Puget Sound’s leading consultancies to work with the Forum to determine the set of problems, the scope of the problems, and the severity of the problems related to the watershed. Once identified, the consultant will produce a “Strategic Action Plan” for the watershed, which we hope to begin implementing beginning July 2009. Initial strategies for consideration were presented today during our Forum meeting. One item to receive particular mention, support, and comment during conversation with Department of Ecology officials was the reconstruction of the weir at the south end of the lake. This weir stands at the head of McAleer Creek, into which Lake Ballinger drains. Current Findings Among the current findings produced by the Forum are the following: - There is 43% more water in the watershed today than would exist in a forested area - Existing infrastructure (weir, culverts, etc) are in various stages of disrepair, limiting the proper management of water during periods of high volume - A lowering of the lake by 2 feet may provide enough additional detention capacity to limit outfall from Lake Ballinger, assuming construction of a new weir, thus avoiding major downstream erosion during high volume events - Any lowering of the lake level will not increase flows downstream, and may reduce them somewhat due to the increased detention capacity of a lowered lake. Additional findings have been published in a document known as “Technical Memorandum #1” and in a hydrology study completed in 2008 via an interlocal agreement between Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline. I will be sure to forward you a copy of these documents, as well as “Technical Memorandum #2,” upon its completion next week. Capital Budget Request and Rationale The Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum requests the state Legislature provide $1 million in funding towards the construction of a new weir and related culvert at the head of McAleer Creek at Lake Ballinger. 70% of the water in this basin flows into Lake Ballinger, which then must flow over this weir into McAleer Creek. The weir is in disrepair and has limited functionality to manage the water outflow in a high volume event. Packet Page 100 of 217 This funding leverages existing operational funds totaling $200,000 through the Dept. of Ecology to create the Strategic Action Plan. It also leverages local funds planned for operational issues committed by local jurisdictions. By doing so, this state funding helps keep the various jurisdictions at the table, working in concert. The funding for this project would support Department of Ecology statements made at today’s Forum meeting regarding Ecology’s interest in modernizing the weir. It builds upon Kevin Fitzpatrick, Water Quality Section Manager at the Dept. of Ecology which recognizes our unique collaboration underway. “I would like to express my encouragement for the recent efforts of the Lake Ballinger Forum to improve both flooding and water quality issues in the McAleer Creek/Lake Ballinger Watershed. The Forum’s collaborative approach is a model for other local governments that share increasingly degraded urban watersheds.” (Letter to City of Mountlake Terrace, 12/15/08) Conclusion In summary, this capital request will move the Forum forward in a way only regional funding can. It begins implementation of an initial strategy determined by our consultant, and appears will have a substantive impact on the water quantity problems at both Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek. Moreover, by funding a project that is beyond the scope of any one municipal jurisdiction, the Legislature can support further integration of the members in a process that will require long-term collaboration. Speaking on behalf of our 6 member jurisdictions, concerned citizens and interested parties engaged in the Forum’s work, I urge your support of this request Sincerely, DJ Wilson President, Edmonds City Council Chair, Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Packet Page 101 of 217 AM-2108 3. Sister City Confirmation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Confirmation and introduction of newly appointed Sister City Commissioners. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please confirm five Sister City appointees to the Commission. Previous Council Action Narrative The Sister City Commission filled five openings that were created due to recent retirements and departures. The following people were selected through an interview process and were appointed by the Mayor to fill the openings. Sister City terms are for three years unless appointed to fill the remaining portion of a term. Sister City appointments require Council confirmation. Yoshitaka Inoue (three-year term) Jeanne Blair (three-year term) Wayne Purser (completes remaining term through 12/31/09) Lili Hall (completes remaining term through 12/31/10) Mariko Watts (completes remaining term through 12/31/10) Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Applications Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/17/2009 05:03 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/17/2009 05:06 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 09:02 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 02/17/2009 12:51 PM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 102 of 217 Packet Page 103 of 217 Packet Page 104 of 217 Packet Page 105 of 217 Packet Page 106 of 217 Packet Page 107 of 217 AM-2112 4. Planning Board Confirmation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Confirmation and introduction of newly appointed Planning Board members. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please confirm Val Stewart and Kevin Clarke to the Planning Board. Previous Council Action Narrative Recently the Mayor and several Councilmembers interviewed five Planning Board candidates to fill two openings (one regular, one alternate) on the board. The Mayor has appointed Valerie (Val) Stewart to fill the regular position and Kevin Clarke to fill the alternate position. Both are four-year terms. Planning Board appointees require Council confirmation. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Applications Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 09:01 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 10:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 10:05 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 02/18/2009 01:32 PM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 108 of 217 Packet Page 109 of 217 Packet Page 110 of 217 Packet Page 111 of 217 Packet Page 112 of 217 Packet Page 113 of 217 AM-2084 5. Community Transit Update on Swift Bus Rapid Transit Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:10 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Community Transit update on Swift Bus Rapid Transit. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Update by Mr. Todd Morrow, Chief of Strategic Communications for Community Transit, on Swift Bus Rapid Transit. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 09:01 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 10:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 10:05 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/09/2009 10:51 AM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 114 of 217 AM-2121 6. Update on the Community Technology Advisory Committee Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Update on the Community Technology Advisory Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Rick Jenness will provide an update on the Community Technology Advisory Committee. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 04:07 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 04:10 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/19/2009 04:06 PM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 115 of 217 AM-2122 8. Discussion on Sound Transit Edmonds Station Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:30 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Discussion on Sound Transit Edmonds Station. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff City administration is seeking City Council concurrence with the following: Request Sound Transit work with other stakeholders, e.g., City of Edmonds, Community Transit, WSDOT, etc., on an ongoing basis, to implement the Sound Transit Edmonds Station plans approved by the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board on April 17, 2002 and presented to the City Council on April 30, 2002. Previous Council Action Narrative As requested by the City Council, this update provides information on the recently released Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Revised Draft Long-Range Plan 2009 – 2030, hereafter referred to as Revised Draft Long-Range Plan. More specifically, the focus of this update relates to potential impacts on the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal (“Edmonds Crossing”) project and on Sound Transit’s Commuter Rail Station (“Edmonds Station”) if proposals contained in the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan were adopted by the Washington State Legislature. Although the attached document contains information related to the Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Revised Draft Long-Range Plan 2009 – 2030, and Edmonds Crossing project, the primary focus relates to Sound Transit Edmonds Station and whether the City should request Sound Transit work with other stakeholders, e.g., City of Edmonds, Community Transit, WSDOT, etc., on an ongoing basis, to implement the Sound Transit Edmonds Station plans approved by the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board on April 17, 2002 and presented to the City Council on April 30, 2002. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - February 19, 2009 Update on WSF Revised Long-Range Plan, Edmonds Crossing and Sound Transit Edmonds Station Link: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Crossing Project as depicted in Final Environmental Impact Statement Packet Page 116 of 217 Link: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Crossing Project as depicted in Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Link: Exhibit 3 - Sound Transit Edmonds Station Site Plan March 28, 2008 Building Permit Submittal Link: Exhibit 4 - Sound Transit Edmonds Station 2002 Plan Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/20/2009 11:21 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/20/2009 11:23 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/20/2009 11:24 AM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 02/19/2009 05:19 PM Final Approval Date: 02/20/2009 Packet Page 117 of 217 City of Edmonds Community Services Department Economic Development Department Date: February 19, 2009 To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council members From: Stephen Clifton, AICP Community Services and Economic Development Director Subject: Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Revised Draft Long-Range Plan 2009 – 2030, Edmonds Crossing, and Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station (Edmonds Station) As requested by the City Council, this update provides information on the recently released Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Revised Draft Long-Range Plan 2009 – 2030, hereafter referred to as Revised Draft Long-Range Plan. More specifically, the focus of this update relates to potential impacts on the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal (“Edmonds Crossing”) project and on Sound Transit’s Commuter Rail Station (“Edmonds Station”) if proposals contained in the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan were adopted by the Washington State Legislature. Background on Edmonds Crossing and Sound Transit Edmonds Station Edmonds Crossing Project Description Edmonds Crossing is a regional project intended to accommodate future growth in travel along the State Route 104 corridor which includes the Edmonds/Kingston ferry run, provide a long-term solution to current operational and safety conflicts between ferry, passenger/commuter rail, carpool/automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic, and reintegrate the Edmonds downtown core and waterfront by removing ferry traffic from the downtown area. The Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation (includes Washington State Ferries), and City of Edmonds propose to develop a multimodal center that would integrate ferry, commuter and intercity rail, and transit services into a single complex. A realigned SR 104, from its current intersection with Pine Street, would provide access. City of Edmonds Z Community Services Packet Page 118 of 217 The project is supported by the Puget Sound Regional Council Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for Central Puget Sound Region-Destination 2030; VISION 2020 - 1996 Updated Metropolitan Transportation Plan; Washington State Ferries System Plan for 1999- 2018; Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element; City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan; and Port of Edmonds Strategic and Master Plans. Project Attributes Edmonds Crossing will provide: • Critically needed improvements to State Route 104 (SR-104), one of the most important and unique highways connecting the Snohomish/King County urban area with the Kitsap and Olympic peninsulas; • An improved interconnection with one of the region’s most traveled railroad corridors with Amtrak service, and Sounder commuter rail service between Everett and Seattle; • Connections to the regional transit system with direct bus service to communities throughout the urban area via high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and bus transfer sites; • Ability for people to rideshare, bicycle and walk to and from different transportation modes, and • Improved safety and travel on Edmonds local streets and along SR-104 between the ferry terminal and Interstate 5. Project Components • A ferry terminal that meets the operational requirements for accommodating forecasted ferry ridership and adequate on-site vehicle storage that will eliminate queuing along State Route 104, thus improving arterial operations. • A train station designed to provide for intercity (AMTRAK) passenger and commuter rail (Sounder) service while providing amenities for passenger comfort and convenience. • A transit center that meets local bus and regional transit system requirements while providing an opportunity to connect the downtown business center with the multimodal terminal through the use of a local circulator service. • A flexibility to operate the facility to respond to changing travel demands for transportation providers in the future. • Facilities for accommodating both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers of the available transportation modes (parking, drop-off areas, retail/ concessionaire space, and waiting areas); • Safety features including grade separation of train traffic from other modes of travel, designated vehicle parking and holding areas, and safer more convenient waiting for bus, train and ferry riders. The preferred Edmonds Crossing alternative is contained within the SR104 Edmonds Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision issued in 2005 (see attached plan). Sound Transit Phase 1 (AKA Sound Move) Project Description During the past several years, Sound Transit has been implementing what is called the Sound Move Plan. One element of the plan includes commuter rail services, otherwise known as Sounder. Commuter rail currently links Everett in the north with Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood in the South, a total of 82 miles through three counties. Three commuter rail stations are currently operating within Snohomish County, i.e., Everett, Mukilteo and 2 Packet Page 119 of 217 Edmonds. Operations include 8 trains per day Monday through Friday, i.e., four round trips, and could eventually include reverse trips. This is a reduction of two round trips from the originally proposed Sound Move operational plan. The first roundtrip train run began in December, 2003. Edmonds Station is currently located between Main and Dayton Streets along both sides of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. The station area is also co-located with Amtrak’s Edmonds Passenger Station. Although the station is operational, all planned interim amenities, e.g., two platforms, lighting fixtures, signage, shelters, railings, revised parking lot, etc., have yet to be constructed. In order to fully commence construction, Sound Transit must obtain all necessary permits, including a building permit submitted to the City of Edmonds on March 28, 2008. Sound Transit and the City of Edmonds must also execute interlocal and developer agreements related to Edmonds Station. As Sound Transit, City of Edmonds administration and legal counsel were nearing an agreement on final drafts of developer and interlocal agreements, Washington State Ferries released a Draft Long-Range Plan on December 19, 2008 and subsequently a Revised Draft Long-Range Plan on January 31, 2009. Up to this point, Sound Transit and the City of Edmonds were considering defining the current Sound Transit Edmonds Station as an interim facility until such time the Edmonds Crossing project is completed, or circumstances related to the status of Edmonds Crossing change. The later of these two scenarios appears to have occurred with the release of the Washington State Ferries Revised Draft Long-Range Plan. As an interim Edmonds Station, Sound Transit is/was proposing fewer amenities than what was contained in an Edmonds Station plan approved by the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board on April 17, 2002 and presented to the City Council on April 30, 2002 (see attached plan). Presentations and updates have been given to the City Council in the past regarding these proposals. Once completed, the station will include a 400-foot-long platform, ADA mini-high platforms, ticket vending machines, light fixtures, shelters, signage, landscaping, and parking lot. The current Edmonds Station project budget is $13.1M. A total of $4.0 million has been spent to date for agency administration, preliminary engineering, temporary improvements, property acquisition, and permits. The remaining Sound Transit Edmonds Station Phase 1 budget may be sufficient to develop final design documents, acquire platform leases and complete construction of the station. On November 4, 2008, voters of the Central Puget Sound region approved the Sound Transit Phase 2 transportation package. Contained within the Phase 2 transportation package is $22.9 - $26.3 million to help fund future permanent Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station improvements. 3 Packet Page 120 of 217 Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Revised Draft Long-Range Plan 2009 – 2030 (issued January 31, 2009) During the 2007 legislative session, the Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2358 (ESHB 2358) - “the Ferry Bill” - and the associated biennial transportation budget ESHB 1094. The legislation contains specific policy and operational directives to assess the efficiency and costs related to how the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Washington State Ferries (WSF) Division provides service. The results of the studies are intended to derive strategies for how WSDOT/WSF operates in the future. The legislation also identifies specific topics for study and requires new levels of cooperation and collaboration among the Legislature (through the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) and the new JTC Ferry Policy Subcommittee), the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), and WSDOT Ferries Division. These directives follow from the January 2007 JTC Ferry Financing Study (also referred to as Ferry Financing Phase 1 or the Cedar River Group Report) and are the next steps in the process of developing a policy framework to address the long-term sustainability of WSDOT Ferries Division. On December 19, 2008, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) issued the Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Draft Long-Range Plan: 2008-2030. On Jan. 31, 2009, WSDOT Ferries Division (WSF) provided to the Washington State Legislature a Revised Draft Long-Range Plan 2009 – 2030 along with public comments received on the draft plan between Dec. 19, 2008 and Jan. 26, 2009. The Revised Draft Long-Range Plan begins a policy discussion, and presents for the communities, Legislature and Governor, scenarios that seek to balance achievable service goals and funding requirements. The plan can be accessed using the following internet link: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/22F3AE77-BB97-4FA7-8EBE- 0A59B6643155/0/RevisedLRPENTIREPLAN2.pdf The Revised Draft Long-Range Plan relates to a timeframe of 2009 - 2030. The plan identifies three strategic issues, i.e., Operational Strategies, Fleet Procurement, and Long Term Capital Funding. The plan also contains possible future service and investment scenarios. Scenario A - This option assumes that current levels of service remain constant with modest capacity improvements primarily related to future vessel acquisitions plus some modest service expansions, the State will continue in its current role as owner, operator, and principal funder of ferry services in the Puget Sound region. Scenario A includes a 23- vessel fleet. Scenario B - This option recognizes that the State may not be able to provide new revenues to meet the evolving needs of all ferry customers and communities, and looks at a reduced marine highway system. While Scenario B does envision some impacts in 2009-11, the major impacts of this scenario would not take place until the 2011-13 biennium. This provides time for the State to engage local governments 4 Packet Page 121 of 217 in a dialog about how the State may be able to mitigate the negative impacts. Scenario B includes a 17-vessel fleet. These scenarios present WSF’s estimate of bookends related to a range of service and capital investments that seek to balance service goals and long-term funding requirements. There are many combinations and variations possible between the alternate visions described in these scenarios, each with a different set of cost and funding impacts. It is expected that during the policy discussion among state representatives, there will likely be many variations tested and evaluated as policy makers consider how to best balance the needs of customers and the practical funding constraints. Thus, the purpose of the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan scenarios is to describe the likely bookends of this policy challenge as a way of starting the deliberative process. The Revised Draft Long-Range Plan contains options and presents key elements of respective operating and capital programs and the overall funding implications for each. Exhibit 6 of the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan indicates that the Edmonds-Kingston ferry route currently carries the highest number of vehicles and second-highest number of passengers of all WSF ferry routes. The forecasted vehicle and passenger ridership is expected to increase 22% and 48% respectively for a total increase of 34% over the next 22-year timeframe. On Page 95 of the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan, Scenario A assumes that the Edmonds Terminal will remain in its current location, at least through 2030, and that an allowance of $26 million in new capital money (see table below) is included to provide multimodal connections. On Page 105, under Scenario B, costs for major terminal improvements and reservation system remain unchanged from Scenario or Plan A. An amount of $11 million is proposed for terminal preservation. The document remains unclear as to how the increase in ridership on the Edmonds-Kingston route will be addressed using only $26 million for multimodal connections. Proposed Capital Expenditures Location Transit - Related Improve Dwell Time Major Terminal Reservation System Other Total Edmonds $0 $0 $26.0 $3.7 $1.3 $31.1 Proposed Terminal Preservation Terminal Slip Preserv ation Trestle Wingwalls & Dolphins Buildings & Overhead Loading Other Total Edmonds $0 $8.0 $1.5 $0.0 $2.2 $11.7 The proposed lack of State funding within the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan is most unfortunate as $12.3 million in federal funding is currently available to match any State funding and contribute toward the Edmonds Crossing project. Considering the current economic climate of Washington State and its agencies, it may be unlikely that the legislature will provide enough funding needed to construct the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project (as defined within the Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision) prior to 2030. 5 Packet Page 122 of 217 This being said, it’s important to note that the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan is only a draft. Mayor Haakenson and I have been communicating with representatives from Washington State Ferries and Edmonds’ state representatives to discuss the Plan and funding for future Edmonds Ferry Terminal improvements. Although the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan does not include sufficient funding to pay for even a small portion of the Edmonds Crossing project (as defined within the Final Environmental Impact Statement 2005 Record of Decision), until the Revised Draft Long-Range Plan is finalized and a State transportation budget is adopted, we are working to ensure that budgeted funding is preserved to help pay for improvements related to a Washington State Ferries facility and operations in Edmonds. City administration has asked that at a minimum, the legislature preserve and retain previously budgeted funds through year 2017 to help pay for review and examination of minimum-build alternatives to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project (as defined within the Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision). Retaining budgeted financial resources could help design and construct a well-functioning minimum build multimodal terminal / area for the City of Edmonds, Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit, and Community Transit. In addition to recent conversations with legislative representatives of Edmonds, City administration has also met with Washington State Ferries representatives to discuss examining minimum build alternatives to the preferred alternative contained within the Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Funding for a minimum build alternative, in whatever form, would/could come from the following sources: Federal Funding – $12.3 million (available and obligated) State Funding – $23 – 26 million (capital) $4.6 - $11 million (preservation) As identified in the WSF Revised Draft Long-Range Plan and Governor’s proposed 2009-2011 biennial budget Sound Transit – $22.9 - $26.3 million Voter approved Proposition 1 in November, 2008 Within the next 21-year timeframe, if, for whatever reason, WSF were not able to move forward with the Edmonds Crossing preferred plan defined within the Environmental Impact Statement 2005 Record of Decision, the funding mechanisms listed above could provide the financial resources to help pay for improvements related to multimodal operations and connections between Washington State Ferries, Community Transit, and Sound Transit in the vicinity of Main / Dayton Streets and Sunset / Railroad Avenues. This funding could also serve as a significant catalyst for other development in the area. Sound Transit Edmonds Station - Where do we go from here? 6 Packet Page 123 of 217 7 In light of the limited amount of funding ($26M) proposed for Edmonds Ferry Terminal improvements within the WSF Revised Draft Long-Range Plan timeframe of 21 years, City administration recommends the following: • Request Sound Transit work with other stakeholders, e.g., City of Edmonds, Community Transit, WSDOT, etc., on an ongoing basis, to implement the Sound Transit Edmonds Station plans approved by the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board on April 17, 2002 and presented to the City Council on April 30, 2002. The 2002 plans include amenities above and beyond those currently proposed as a part of the March 28, 2008 permit set for an interim station. Specifically, additional amenities include, a bus transit station between James and Main Streets, traffic circle within the James Street and Railroad Street intersection (provided these streets remain as public rights of way), landscaping, lighting, shelters, etc. Under this scenario, although Sound Transit could move forward with commencing construction of most station elements depicted and referenced within the March 28, 2008 plans; Sound Transit would also work with the City and other stakeholders to design and eventually construct additional amenities needed to implement the 2002 plan. Ultimately, both Sound Transit and City of Edmonds desire a well functioning, attractively designed station that compliments the overall Sound Transit system and encourages local development that supports regional transit. As such, Sound Transit would utilize unexpended funding from Sound Transit’s originally identified $13.1 million Phase 1 budget, along with any other available funding, for the Edmonds Station Project to fund improvements identified in the 2002 plan. City administration is seeking City Council concurrence with this recommendation. Packet Page 124 of 217 30 60 120 180 200 240 30 60 120 180 200 Modified Pt. Edwards Alternative E D M O N D S C I T Y L I M I T S W O O D W A Y T O W N L I M I T S S M A 9 S M A 1 0 Br e a k w a t e r Salt Marsh Salmon Management Area Boundary (SMA) Port of Edmonds Marina UNOCAL Pier (to be removed) Willow Creek Outlet Tide Gate Open Channel Turnaround Marina Beach Park Bus Stop Terminal Building Drop Off Daylighted Section of Willow Creek (Lined Channel) Ferry Holding Area Stairs and Elevator Edmonds Marsh Railroad Platform Admiral Way Bus Loading Area Covered Pedestrian Walkway 2-Level Parking Garage Garage Entrance (below) Stormwater Treatment Pond Short-Term Parking Toll Booths/ 2nd Story Employee Facilities Safe Room/ Agent Accounting Room Exis t i n g S R 1 0 4 (Ed m o n d s W a y ) Wi l l o w C r e e k P i n e S t r e e t Employee Parking Stalls Terminal Access Road Freshwater Wetlands Deer Creek Hatchery 15 4 0 9 0 . G 1 . 0 2 . A 3 _ T 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 S E A • M o d i f i e d P t . E d w a r d s A l t e r n a t i v e B o a r d • 1 / 1 5 / 0 3 • d k 0 50 100 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET SCALE IN METERS Packet Page 125 of 217 FENCE LINE CROSS WALK LIGHT POLE TRAFFIC ARROW ACCESSIBLE RAMP CONCRETE PAVlNG ASPHALT PAVlNG LANDSCAPING AREA CROSSING PADS [BY BNSF) EDMONDS STATION COMMUNITY OPfN HOU5f JULY 3 1, 2007 Packet Page 126 of 217 Packet Page 127 of 217 AM-2109 9. Update of Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater Management Program Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Jerry Shuster Submitted For:Robert English Time:20 Minutes Department:Engineering Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Update of Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater Management Program. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff None. Information only. Previous Council Action On December 16, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for updating the City’s Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater Management Program. Narrative This information session will discuss a project that will accomplish the following objectives: 1. Update the City's 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan which will guide the management of the City’s Stormwater Utility over the next six years. 2. Update the City's Stormwater Management Program to comply with the Department of Ecology-issued Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Phase II Permit). One of eight key objectives established by Puget Sound Partnership’s recently approved Action Agenda is the management of stormwater so that water quality, habitat and aquatic resources are protected. All of Edmonds stormwater runoff drains into Puget Sound, either directly or indirectly. The direct route is either directly piped to the Sound or to the many small streams on the western portion of the City that discharge into the Sound. The indirect route includes runoff that enters Lake Ballinger that discharges to MacAleer Creek, then to Lake Washington and finally Puget Sound. The vast majority of this runoff receives no treatment prior to discharging to the receiving water. In addition to water quality and aquatic habitat concerns, proper stormwater management includes a reasonable level of flood protection for homes, businesses and infrastructure. The goal of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan is to provide for the management of stormwater runoff from public and private property for the purposes of minimizing: • Property damage from flooding. Packet Page 128 of 217 • Impacts to the water quality and the habitat value of receiving waters. This goal is accomplished by: • Developing a stormwater capital facilities plan, stormwater management program and financial plan to serve the needs of the community. • Ensuring all activities related to the management of stormwater runoff are in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local requirements. The stormwater management program in the City encompasses many areas and Departments. The City’s Stormwater Engineering Program Manager works with other Engineering staff reviewing stormwater plans for new and re-development. The Public Works Street/Storm Manager oversees the daily operation and maintenance of the storm drainage system. The Planning Division is responsible for land use issues that can affect stormwater runoff, and the Building Division is involved in the structural evaluation of larger stormwater infrastructure. The Parks Department, through the Environmental Education Coordinator, and the Public Works Recycling Coordinator provide valuable environmental education services to City residents teaching behaviors that can improve the quality of stormwater runoff. The Finance Department, in coordination with Public Works, manages stormwater rate studies and accounting of the stormwater utility fund. The presentation will begin with a discussion of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update. The balance of the presentation will be presented by the consultant, Herrera Environmental Consultants, and will discuss efforts underway to modify our current stormwater management program to ensure compliance with the Phase II Permit. There are several important compliance deadlines coming up later this year that will require Council action. These include updating the current stormwater management code and provisions to prevent illegal discharges into the City’s stormwater system. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Stormwater Presentation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 02/18/2009 06:32 PM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/19/2009 10:39 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 10:43 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 10:48 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 11:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Jerry Shuster Started On: 02/18/2009 07:43 AM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 129 of 217 1 1 Fe b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 0 of 21 7 2 2 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 1 of 21 7 3 3 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 2 of 21 7 4 4 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 3 of 21 7 5 5 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 4 of 21 7 6 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 5 of 21 7 7 7 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 6 of 21 7 8 8 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 7 of 21 7 9 9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 8 of 21 7 10 10 1. P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n & O u t r e a c h 1. P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n & O u t r e a c h Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 9 of 21 7 11 11 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 0 of 21 7 12 12 3. I l l i c i t D i s c h a r g e D e t e c t i o n & E l i m i n a t i o n 3. I l l i c i t D i s c h a r g e D e t e c t i o n & E l i m i n a t i o n Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 1 of 21 7 13 13 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 2 of 21 7 14 14 5. P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n a n d O p e r a t i o n s & 5. P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n a n d O p e r a t i o n s & Ma i n t e n a n c e ( O & M ) f o r M u n i c i p a l O p e r a t i o n s Ma i n t e n a n c e ( O & M ) f o r M u n i c i p a l O p e r a t i o n s Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 3 of 21 7 15 15 5. P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n & O p e r a t i o n & 5. P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n & O p e r a t i o n & Ma i n t e n a n c e ( O & M ) f o r M u n i c i p a l O p e r a t i o n s Ma i n t e n a n c e ( O & M ) f o r M u n i c i p a l O p e r a t i o n s Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 4 of 21 7 16 16 Fu r t h e r A c t i o n , N e x t S t e p s Fu r t h e r A c t i o n , N e x t S t e p s Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 5 of 21 7 17 17 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 6 of 21 7 AM-2110 10. Work Session on Recommended Amendments to ECDC Chapter 20 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:02/24/2009 Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:45 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Work session on recommended amendments to Chapter 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to establishing permit types, process requirements, notice requirements, consistency with SEPA, open record hearing procedures, closed record appeals, and development agreements. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct staff to set a public hearing on the draft regulations for March 17, 2009. Previous Council Action Narrative A key section of the code rewrite deals with our process and procedure regulations found in Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Planning Board recommended changes to Chapter 20. The purpose for these revisions is to clearly define the process and procedures for handling permit processing. The draft regulations also address the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner that needed clarifiying. Key changes include: * Establishing permit types * Tables identifying the different permit types and the decision making process * Submission requirements and procedures * Public notice requirements establishing the responsibility for the permit applicant to provide the notice * Establishing SEPA consistency regulations * Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures * Creating a new section dealing with Development Agreements Bio Park, City Attorney, and Duane Bowman, Development Services Director, will go over the draft recommended regulations at the meeting and will address any questions that the City Council may have. March 17, 2009 has been teneatively set for a public hearing on the proposed changes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Packet Page 147 of 217 Link: Exhibit 1 - Draft Chapter 20 Amendments Link: Exhibit 2 - PB Minute Extracts Link: Exhibit 3 - CC Minute Extract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 11:13 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2009 11:15 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2009 11:45 AM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman Started On: 02/18/2009 11:28 AM Final Approval Date: 02/19/2009 Packet Page 148 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 1 Sixth DISCUSSION DRAFT Chapter 20.01 TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Sections: 20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. 20.01.003 Development project permit application framework. 20.01.004 Joint public hearings. 20.01.005 Decisions. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. 20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application processing. 20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits. A. For the purpose of development project permit processing, all development project permit applications shall be classified as one of the following as addressed and referenced in Chapter 20.02 ECDC: Type I, Type II, Type III or Type IV. Legislative decisions are Type V actions, and are addressed in ECDC 20.01.005. Exclusions from the requirements of development project permit application processing are contained in ECDC 20.01.003(B). B. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline shall falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. A. Determination by Director. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”) shall determine the proper procedure for all development project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure. B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest numbered to the lowest. C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection B of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing Deleted: Fourth Packet Page 149 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 2 bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner or Planning Board, as applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to ECDC 20.01.004. Concurrent public hearings held with the design review board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present. 20.01.003 Development project permit application framework. A. Decisions. TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A Type IV-B TYPE V Statement of zoning restriction Modification to landscape plans Plat vacations and alterations Essential Public Facilities Final plats Site specific / contract rezone Development agreements Boundary line adjustments, lot line adjustment, lot combination Formal interpretation of the text of the ECDC by the Director or designated staff Shoreline substantial development, shoreline variance Architectural Design review Final Planned Residential Development Zoning text amendments; area-wide zoning map amendments Permitted uses not requiring site plan review Home occupation permit Preliminary Planned Residential Development Comprehensive plan amendments Special use permits Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional use Annexations Minor amendments to Planned Residential Development Draft environmental impact statement / SEPA determinations General variances, and sign permit variances, Development regulations Minor Preliminary Plat amendment Revisions to shoreline management permits Site plan/major amendments to site plans Master Plan Minor design review Administrative variances Preliminary plats Sign permits Short plat Land clearing/ grading Comment: Pursuant to RCW 35A.21.280 Comment: Zach thinks the city should spell out the process of requesting an interpretation of the code from the city. Packet Page 150 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 3 B. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this Title: Landmark designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under Title 18. C. Action Type. PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A TYPE IV-B TYPE V Recommendation by: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board Final decision by: Director Director Hearing examiner Hearing examiner / ADB City council City council City council Notice of application: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision: No Only if appealed, open record hearing before hearing examiner Yes, before hearing examiner to render final decision Yes, before hearing examiner or board to render final decision No Yes, before Planning Board which makes recommendation to council Yes, before Planning Board which makes recommendation to council Closed record review: No No No Yes, before the council No Yes, before the council Yes, or council could hold its own hearing Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20.01.004 Joint public hearings. A. Administrator’s Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The director may combine any public hearing on a development project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city limits; and (2) the requirements of subsection C of this section are met. B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be held within the time periods set forth in this title. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings. Packet Page 151 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 4 C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when: 1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so; 2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies’ adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules; 3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing; or 4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city. 20.01.005 Decisions. A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative. Administrative decisions are made by the Director. B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II decisions are quasi-judicial. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner and/or the city council. C. Legislative Decision. Type V decisions are legislative. Legislative decisions are made by the city council. 1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, and zoning code text, development regulations and zoning map amendments. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. 2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning Board’s recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, and zoning code text, development regulations and zoning map amendments, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing. 3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in ECDC 20.03.004. 4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. Deleted: district Deleted: district Comment: Zach’s suggestion is for the council to retain right to hold public hearing itself on all Type V actions. Packet Page 152 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 5 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, or the city’s development regulations as part of the annual revision process. 20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application processing. A Whenever a permit or approval in the Edmonds Community Development Code has been designated as a Type I, II, III or IV permit, the procedures in this title shall be followed in development project permit processing, except as provided in ECDC 20.01.003(B). B. Pursuant RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city’s SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other development project permits, are excluded from the following procedures: 1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.02.004) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the development project permit decision; 2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated development project permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B)); 3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.01.004); 4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.002(C)); and 5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.008). Packet Page 153 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 6 Chapter 20.02 TYPE I – IV DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Sections: 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. 20.02.002 Development project permit application. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. 20.02.004 Notice of application. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. A. Prior to filing applications for development project permit Type III actions requiring a preliminary plat or site plan review and Type IV actions, the applicant may request a preapplication conference. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to merely acquaint the applicant with the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Applicant shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of information provided by the city at the conference. B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city’s adopted fee resolution. C. The director shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference: 1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application; 2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application; 3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to approval of the application; and 4. The city’s design guidelines. D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications will be considered on a time-available basis by the director. 20.02.002 Development project permit application. Packet Page 154 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 7 Applications for development project permits shall be submitted on forms provided by the director. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable development regulations, and shall include the following general information as applicable: A. A completed development project permit application form; B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property; C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as required by the applicable development regulations; D. The applicable fee; and E. Statement addressing all applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving a development project permit application, the city shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a determination which states either: 1. That the application is complete; or 2. That the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the determination of completeness. C. Additional Information. A development project permit application is complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The director’s determination of completeness shall not preclude the director’s ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information is required, or substantial changes are made to the proposed project. D. Incomplete Applications. Packet Page 155 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 8 1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003(A)(2) that the development project permit application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection A of this section. 2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. 3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested within the 90-day period, for the development project permit, the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed. 4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s determination of completeness. E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. A development project permit application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection A of this section. F Date of Acceptance of Application. Development project permit applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is found complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing. G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under no circumstances shall the city place any applications on “hold” to be processed at some later date, even if the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless of the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection does not apply to applications placed on “hold” upon determination by the city that the application requires additional information for a decision. 20.02.004 Notice of application. Comment: Can the director’s determination of incompleteness be appealed by the applicant as a Type II decision? If so, when does the 120 day clock start? Packet Page 156 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 9 A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided to the public, all city departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project permit applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. B. Issuance of Notice of Application. 1. Within 14 days after the city has made a determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003, a notice of application shall be issued. 2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the requested development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 15 days prior to the open record hearing. C. Contents. The notice of application shall include: 1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application; 2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under Chapter 36.70B RCW; 3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to the extent known by the city at that time; 4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; 5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment period, which shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of application; (b) the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and (c) any appeal rights; 6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled when the date of notice of application is issued; 7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the director’s threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of application. D. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments in response to the notice of application must be received by the city’s development services department by 4:00 PM on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be Packet Page 157 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 10 accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible. E. SEPA Exempt Projects. A notice of application shall not be required for development project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. Within 10 days of accepting a complete application, the director shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. The affected agencies and city departments shall have 15 days to comment on the application. The agency or city department is presumed to have no comments if comments are not received within the 15-day period. The director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves unusual circumstances. Extensions shall be for a maximum of five working days. Deleted: may Comment: Zach suggestion to delete fax and email delivery of comments to eliminate electronic malfunction argument for late comments. Deleted: or sent by facsimile or electronic mail Packet Page 158 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 11 Chapter 20.03 PUBLIC NOTICE Sections: 20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice. 20.03.002 Public notice of application. 20.03.003 Optional public notice. 20.03.004 Notice of public hearing. 20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice. A. Except where an action is initiated by the city, the applicant for a development project permit application shall be responsible for all posting, publishing, mailing and other notification required by the director. 1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing and/or mailing, the applicant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each required method of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in this and other applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all parties provided public notice. 2. If the affidavit and U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing is not filed as required, any scheduled hearing or date by which the public may comment on an application shall be postponed, if necessary, in order to allow compliance with the notice requirements of this and other applicable chapters. 3. If the applicant fails to file the affidavit and U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing as herein required within 90 days of required date of posting, publishing and/or mailing, the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed. B. The appellant of a development project permit decision shall be responsible for all posting, publishing, mailing and other notification required by the director. 1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing and/or mailing, the appellant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each required method of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in this and other applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all parties provided public notice. Deleted: , or the appellant thereof, Deleted: or appellant Packet Page 159 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 12 2. When the responsibility of providing notice is on the appellant, failure to timely or properly file affidavit of notice and certificate of mailing may be grounds for the director to summarily dismiss the appeal. 20.03.002 Public notice of application. Notice of application for Type II, Type III and Type IV development project permits shall be provided by posting, publishing and mailing. A. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals shall consist of one or more notice boards as follows: 1. A single notice board shall be placed by the applicant: a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise directed by the director for maximum visibility; b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director; c. So that the top of the notice board is between five to six feet above grade; and d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians. 2. Additional notice boards may be required when: a. The site does not abut a public road; b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or c. The director determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice. 3. Notice boards shall be: a. Maintained in good condition by the applicant during the notice period; b. In place at least 30 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at least 15 days prior to the end of any required comment period; c. Removed within 15 days after the end of the notice period. Packet Page 160 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 13 4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is replaced and remains in place for the specified time period. 5. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with specifications promulgated by the director. The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the complete application may be reviewed. B. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city’s official newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City). The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the complete application may be reviewed. C. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to the following: (1) owner of the property involved if different from applicant; and (2) owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the application. The format and content of the notice of application must be pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the complete application may be reviewed. D. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Permits. 1. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the application of a permit under the purview of the city’s shoreline master program (SMP) shall be given by one or more of the following methods: a. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property upon which the proposed project is to be built; b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as determined by the director, on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or c. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the director to accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public. 2. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include: a. A statement that any person desiring to submit written comments concerning an application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision concerning an application, may submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the Packet Page 161 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 14 director within 30 days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to this subsection; b. A statement that any person may submit oral or written comments at the hearing; c. An explanation of the manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the city’s decision on the application no later than two days after its issuance. 3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30 days. 4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions. 20.03.003 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion, may: A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of proposal; B. Notify the news media; C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals; D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners. 20.03.004 Notice of public hearing. A. Applicants of Type III or Type V actions, and appellants of Type II actions shall provide notice of public hearing by mailing, posting and publishing. B. Content of Notice of Public Hearing for All Applications. The notice of a public hearing required by this chapter shall contain: 1. The name and address of the applicant and the applicant’s representative; 2 A description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the public of its location, including but not limited to a vicinity location or written description, a map or postal address, and a subdivision lot and block designation (complete legal description not required); 3. The date, time and place of the hearing; Deleted: 20 Comment: The below was deleted to eliminate any inference that director’s failure to provide a required notice is grounds for invalidation of permit. Deleted: ¶ B.The director’s failure to provide an optional notice, as described in this section, shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision. ¶ Packet Page 162 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 15 4. The nature of the proposed use or development; 5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony; 6. The sections of the code that are pertinent to the hearing procedure; 7. A statement explaining when information may be examined, and when and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing body may be admitted; 8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained; 9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and that copies will be provided at the requestor’s cost; and 10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be provided at the requestor’s cost. C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as follows: 1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to: a. The applicant; b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant; c. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the application; and c. Any person who submits a public comments on an application; 2. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above, requirements for mailed notice of public hearing for preliminary plats and proposed subdivisions shall also include the following: a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town, or which contemplates the use of any city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town authorities; b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish County shall be given to the appropriate county officials; Packet Page 163 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 16 c. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway or within two miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the secretary of transportation; d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.909(1)(b) shall be given to owners of real property located with 300 feet from any portion of the boundaries of the adjacent parcels owned by the owner of the real property to be subdivided. 3. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation pursuant to Chapter 16.07 ECDC, notice shall be as provided in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090. 4. General Procedure for Mailed Notice of Public Hearing. a. The records of the Snohomish County assessor’s office shall be used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for a mailed notice required by this code shall be obtained from the applicable county’s real property tax records. As required under ECDC 20.03.001, the applicant shall provide a sworn certificate of mailing to all persons entitled to notice under this Chapter. b. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail. D. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public Hearing. 1. Posted notice of the public hearing shall comply with requirements set forth in ECDC 20.03.002(A). 2. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the city’s official newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City). The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the director. E. Time and Cost of Notice of Public Hearing. 1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 10 or more than 30 days prior to the hearing date. Posted notices shall be removed by the applicant within 15 days following the public hearing. 2. All costs associated with the public notice shall be borne by the applicant of Type III and Type V actions, or appellant of Type II actions. Packet Page 164 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 17 Chapter 20.04 CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA Sections: 20.04.001 Determination of consistency. 20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis. 20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions. 20.04.001 Determination of consistency. A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through the process described in this section. B. Consistency. During development project permit application review, the director shall determine whether the development regulations applicable to the proposed project, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, the city’s comprehensive plan, address the following: 1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied; 2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density; 3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan; and 4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW. C. Project Review. Project review by the director and appropriate city staff shall identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable significant adverse environmental impacts. During project review, neither the director nor any other city reviewing body may re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on decided matters which have already been found to be consistent with development regulations and/or the comprehensive plan, except for issues of code interpretation. 20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis. A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the development project permit application for consistency with the State Environmental Packet Page 165 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 18 Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC, and shall: 1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts; 2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address identified environmental impacts; and 3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level. B. In its review of a development project permit application, the director shall determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal. C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the development project permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review for the same adverse environmental impacts. D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local, state or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse environmental impacts of a proposal when: 1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or 2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable. E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or laws of another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations. F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW. Deleted: Chapter 207-11 Packet Page 166 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 19 G. The director shall also review the application under Chapter 20.15A ECDC, the city environmental policy ordinance; provided, that such review shall be coordinated with the underlying permit application review. 20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions. A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA. B. Planned Actions. 1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation under SEPA. 2. A “planned action” means one or more types of project action that: a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution adopted by the city; b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with: i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, or ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project; c. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection; d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030; e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200; and f. Are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW. C. Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the Deleted: Chapter 207-11 Packet Page 167 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 20 jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or this title. D. During project review, the city shall not re-examine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items identified in ECDC 20.04.001(B), except for issues of code interpretation. E. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable adverse environmental impacts. Packet Page 168 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 21 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Sections: 20.06.001 General. 20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing. 20.06.003 Conflict of interest. 20.06.004 Ex parte communications. 20.06.005 Disqualification. 20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof. 20.06.007 Order of proceedings. 20.06.008 Decision. 20.06.009 Notice of final decision - Miscellaneous. 20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision. 20.06.001 General. A. Open record public hearing, or simply public hearing, means a hearing conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized to conduct such hearings, that creates the city’s record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed in this Chapter. A public hearing may be held prior to the city’s decision on a development project permit to be known as an "open record predecision hearing." A public record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the development project permit. B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and V development project permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules. 20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing. The director shall: A. Schedule project applications for review and public hearing; B. Verify compliance with notice requirements; C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations on development project permits in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city’s development regulations or SEPA authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has Packet Page 169 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 22 not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination. D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision. 20.06.003 Conflict of interest. The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in RCW 35A.42.020, Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. 20.06.004 Ex parte communications. A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue. B. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in ECDC 20.06.004(C). C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record: 1. All written communications received; 2. All written responses to the communications; 3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made; and 4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte communication. The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made after notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the record. 20.06.005 Disqualification. Packet Page 170 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 23 A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearing. B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members present, after stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be requalified and deliberations shall proceed. 20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof. A. Except for Type V actions, appeal of Type II actions and closed record appeals, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The development project permit application must be supported by convincing proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city’s development regulations and comprehensive plan (review criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately mitigated. B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal. C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision shall be given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and contained in its decisions. 20.06.007 Order of proceedings. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as appropriate. A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be determined: 1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding; 2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined. B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted information, such as: 1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards, and state law; 2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law. C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any Packet Page 171 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 24 information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of matters listed in subsection B of this section at any time. Any information given official notice may be rebutted. D. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit. E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending the hearing to ask questions. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony by the presiding officer. F. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting information. An opportunity to present rebuttal shall be provided if new information is presented in the questioning. When all evidence has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially close the record and end the hearing. 20.06.008 Decision. A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007, the hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory prohibition against two open record hearings, remand the decision for additional information. B. The hearing body’s written decision shall issue within 10 working days after close of record of the hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties. C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.06.009. D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a development project permit application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. 20.06.009 Notice of final decision - Miscellaneous. A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative Packet Page 172 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 25 appeals. For Type II, III and IV development project permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, the following periods shall be excluded: 1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the director determines that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the additional information is provided to the city; 2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the particular insufficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply; 3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A; 4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant; 5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing. C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a development project permit application: 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation; 2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or Packet Page 173 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 26 3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070. 20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision. A. Generally. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.003 as having standing to file an administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a development project permit application described in this chapter. Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to: 1. error(s) of procedure; 2. error(s) of law or fact; 3. error(s) of judgment; and/or 4. the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence, been discovered. B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be filed with the city planning director within 10 calendar days of the hearing examiner’s written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 5:00 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are received by mail after 5:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked. C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner’s decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the appeal may be filed on the next business day. D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee (which shall be the same as the administrative appeal fee), and contain the following information: 1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor; 2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of the request for reconsideration; 3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon which the request is based; 4. The specific relief requested; Deleted: by mail, electronic mail, personal delivery or facsimile Packet Page 174 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 27 5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be true, followed by his/her signature. E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner’s decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on reconsideration. Once a decision is rendered, the appeal period shall recommence at the point at which the request for reconsideration was filed. F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The requestor shall provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003. G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be issue within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city. 1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration. 2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived. 3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration. H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner’s decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the hearing examiner’s decision. I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009. J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing examiner’s decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. Deleted: If multiple requests for reconsideration are received, the matter is stayed as to all parties of record. Deleted: which Deleted: was Packet Page 175 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 28 Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Sections: 20.07.001 Appeals of decisions. 20.07.002 Consolidated appeals. 20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal. 20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions. 20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal. 20.07.006 Judicial appeals. 20.07.007 Resubmission of application. 20.07.001 Appeals of decisions. A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.05(B), and only appeal argument allowed. B. The right of appeal for all development project permit applications and Type V land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. 20.07.002 Consolidated appeals. All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than appeals of determinations of significance (“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the appeal procedure for the highest type permit application. 20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal. A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative appeal. B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean: 1 The applicant; 2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application; 3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or Packet Page 176 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 29 4. The city of Edmonds. 20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions. A. Permit Decisions or Recommendations. Appeals of a hearing body’s recommendation or decision on development project permit application shall be governed by the following: 1. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body’s decision. 2. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 10 working days of the issuance of the hearing body’s written decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city’s development services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before 12:00 PM on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 12:00 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or postmarked. 3. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, then the appeal may be filed on the next business day. 4. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the city’s adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information: a. Appellant’s name, address and phone number; b. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal; c. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal; d. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific references to the facts in the record; e. The specific relief sought; f. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant’s signature. 5. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body’s decision until such time as the appeal is concluded or withdrawn. 6. Notice of Appeal. The appellant shall provide mailed notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003. Comment: Why provide an appeal of a recommendation? To permit briefing? Packet Page 177 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 30 20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal. A. Closed record appeals shall be on the record established at the open record hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings. 1. At his own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record, the transcription must be performed and certified by a transcriber that is pre-approved by the City. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the City directly from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. It shall be each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the City. 2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved transcribers that are court approved; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more than one official transcription is admitted into the record. B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1) new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication provided during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the hearing body/officer. 1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must specifically request in writing within 5 working days of the appeal deadline that the information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed to the city council president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason why the hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information. 2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city council president may request other parties of record to submit written arguments rebutting the above. Non response by the city council president within 7 working days of the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a rejection of the same. C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council. Argument shall describe the particular errors committed by the decision maker below, with specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that the decision below is clearly erroneous given the record. D. Appellant may submit his or her written arguments 12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. Parties of record, except for the appellant, may respond in writing to appellant’s arguments no later than 7 working days before the Packet Page 178 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 31 closed record review. Appellant may rebut in writing to responses submitted by parties of record no later than 4 working days before the closed record review. If the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to appellant’s rebuttal no later than 2 working days before the closed record review. E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received by the city’s development services department by mail or personal delivery at or before 12:00 PM of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by mail after 12:00 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties involved to obtain for their own use from the city copies of written arguments, responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted. F. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided, double spaced and without exceeding twelve pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not be allowed. D. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by a presentation by the director, or the director’s designee, of the general background of the proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the director’s presentation, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an opportunity for the director (or designee), appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall not request information outside the administrative record. E. The city council shall determine whether the decision below by the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional information. F. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on closed record appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009. 20.07.006 Judicial appeals. The city’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. 20.07.007 Resubmission of application. Packet Page 179 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 32 Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this chapter that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for reconsideration for a period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed project. Packet Page 180 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 33 Chapter 20.08 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Sections: 20.08.010 Authority and general provisions. 20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements. 20.08.030 Enforceability. 20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements. 20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation. 20.08.060 Judicial appeal. 20.08.010 Authority and general provisions. A. The city may consider, and enter into, a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may consider a development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but within the urban growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. B. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development regulations. 20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements. A. As applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following: 1. Project components which define and detail the permitted uses, residential densities, nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes; 2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications; 3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW; 4, Design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum heights, setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water quality requirements and other development features; 5. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable; 6. Parks and common open space preservation; 7. Phasing; Packet Page 181 of 217 {BFP684348.DOC;6/00006.900150/} 34 8. A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards; and 9. Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure which is based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or standard. B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. 20.08.030 Enforceability. Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part of the build- out period specified in the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. The permit approval issued by the city after the execution of the agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. 20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements. A development agreement is a Type V development project permit application and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public hearing. 20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation. A. Form. All development agreements shall be in a form provided by the city attorney’s office. The city attorney shall approve all development agreements for form prior to consideration by the Planning Board. B. Term. Development agreements may be approved for a maximum period of five years. C. Recordation. A development agreement shall be recorded against the real property records of the Snohomish County assessor’s office. During the term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including any area that is annexed to the city. 20.08.060 Judicial appeal. Development agreements that relate to development project permit approvals are applicable to, but only to, the extent required by RCW 36.70B.200, et seq. Appeals shall be to Superior Court and shall be brought within 21 days and according to the provisions of the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. Packet Page 182 of 217 Packet Page 183 of 217 Packet Page 184 of 217 Packet Page 185 of 217 Packet Page 186 of 217 Packet Page 187 of 217 Packet Page 188 of 217 Packet Page 189 of 217 Packet Page 190 of 217 Packet Page 191 of 217 Packet Page 192 of 217 Packet Page 193 of 217 Packet Page 194 of 217 Packet Page 195 of 217 Packet Page 196 of 217 Packet Page 197 of 217 Packet Page 198 of 217 Packet Page 199 of 217 Packet Page 200 of 217 Packet Page 201 of 217 Packet Page 202 of 217 Packet Page 203 of 217 Packet Page 204 of 217 Packet Page 205 of 217 Packet Page 206 of 217 Packet Page 207 of 217 Packet Page 208 of 217 Packet Page 209 of 217 Packet Page 210 of 217 Packet Page 211 of 217 Packet Page 212 of 217 Packet Page 213 of 217 Packet Page 214 of 217 Packet Page 215 of 217 Packet Page 216 of 217 Packet Page 217 of 217