2010.02.02 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 2, 2010
6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding pending litigation.
6:45 p.m. - Interview candidate for appointment to the Architectural Design Board.
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-2770 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2010.
C. AM-2763 Approval of claim checks #116698 through #116865 dated January 28, 2010 for $448,651.69.
D. AM-2766 Approval of Council appointment to the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected
Officials.
E. AM-2740 Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report.
F. AM-2748 Ordinance amending provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D)(3), Nonconforming Buildings and/or
Structures, to correct a scrivener's error.
G. AM-2761 Ordinance renaming Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive, and directing staff to make the
appropriate changes in City planning documents, notification and signage.
3. AM-2758
(5 Minutes)
Proclamation in honor of Arts Day, February 2, 2010.
4. AM-2768
(15 Minutes)
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3769 - Defining temporary homeless shelter,
and identifying zoning districts where temporary homeless shelters are permitted.
5. AM-2769
(45 Minutes)
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3775 - Amending Title 20 ECDC, Review
Criteria and Procedures, to expand opportunities for closed record administrative
appeals.
6. AM-2762
(10 Minutes)
Public hearing to establish the process to surplus a Public Works Department utility
vehicle, three (3) pump station emergency power generators and various water and
wastewater utility equipment.
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
Packet Page 1 of 236
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-2773
(60 Minutes)
Discussion on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Title
18.
9. AM-2771
(15 Minutes)
Firdale Village Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) - staff direction on
proposed revisions.
10. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 236
AM-2770 2.B.
Approve 01-26-10 City Council Meeting Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2010.
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: 01-26-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 02:46 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/28/2010 02:48 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 03:24 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 01/28/2010 02:33
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 3 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
January 26, 2010
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
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director
Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
John Ferebee, Court Administrator
Susan Ivanjack, Court Clerk
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson relayed Council President Bernheim’s request to move Item 4 after Item 6.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
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 JANUARY 19, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #116585 THROUGH #116697 DATED JANUARY 21,
2010 FOR $437,010.24. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#49027 THROUGH #49058 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY
15, 2010 FOR $662,656.90.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LANDON B.
REYNOLDS ($3,276.16).
Packet Page 4 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 2
E. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
– JANUARY, 2010.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECYCLING GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR 2010-2011.
ITEM G: SENIOR CENTER RECREATIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR 2010 FOR THE
SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the process for the Senior Center Board to review and approve the
agreement. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded in the past the Executive Director has
signed the contract and forwarded it to the City for approval or the Senior Center Board has reviewed and
approved the contract. Councilmember Plunkett concluded that following the Council’s approval of the
agreement, it would be forwarded to the Senior Center for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE ITEM G: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. T
3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Peterson commented the City was fortunate to have Kristiana Johnson volunteer to serve
on the Planning Board. He noted that Mayor Haakenson’s previous recommendation for a Planning
Board Member, Lois Jean Broadway, was also an excellent candidate, perhaps one of the best qualified
candidates. The Council, however, chose to reject the Mayor’s recommendation to appoint Ms.
Broadway to the Board. He expressed concern that the Council did not have any public debate regarding
why they chose not to confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Ms. Broadway.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT OF KRISTIANA JOHNSON TO THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Council President Bernheim commented that his not confirming Mayor Haakenson’s recommendation to
appoint Ms. Broadway was prompted by his great admiration of Ms. Johnson. He worked with her for
several years on the Transportation Committee; she is a highly committed, trained planner and an
independent thinker.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. MUNICIPAL COURT 2009 ANNUAL REPORT.
Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair congratulated and welcomed Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and
Buckshnis. He acknowledged Court Administrator Joan Ferebee who has worked for Edmonds since
1993 and prepared the data for this report. He also introduced Court Clerk Susan Ivanjack who has
worked for Edmonds for 22 years.
Judge Fair demonstrated the video hearing system that the court began using this past Thursday. The
system includes a large screen that allows all parties to see the defendant in custody at the Snohomish
County Jail and his/her attorney, the judge, and the prosecutor. Staff continues to work on the sound
quality as the Council Chambers has a multi-directional mike; his preference would be to have four-track
sound. He explained the system cost approximately $15,000; however, the cost to the city was zero.
When his position was made an elected position, the State provided funds that are placed in a Court
Packet Page 5 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 3
Improvement Account. The City has received approximately $30,000 since 2006. To date approximately
$21,000 has been expended from this account for the video hearing program, to pour concrete steps and
install handrails outside the back entrance, provide a keyless security entry for the backdoor and
chambers, reconfigure the probation office for increased safety by routing probationers through an outside
door rather than the main entrance to the Court’s administrative office, offset payments for an update to
the security alarm system used in the public safety facility, wireless headsets for staff, and panic buttons
for clerks and the judge to summon the police in an emergency.
Judge Fair explained prior to the installation of the video hearing system, he had one in-custody calendar
per week on Wednesdays that was limited to ten people due to space and staffing limitations. As a result,
some defendants were held in custody for 2-3 weeks awaiting their opportunity to attend an in-custody
calendar. With the video hearing system, the maximum wait should be 3-4 days as up to 20 people per
week can be seen on in-custody matters.
He described the process of transporting inmates from the Snohomish County Jail to the courthouse every
Wednesday which requires a security detail of two Edmonds off-duty Police Officers on overtime.
Although nothing has happened in Edmonds during transport or while inmates are in the court, there are
obvious security and liability issues during transport as well as at the court. For example, following in-
custody hearings in Edmonds, the custodial staff has found knives and drug paraphernalia in the men’s
restroom. In the past, the City paid the weekly cost of approximately 11 hours of off-duty police officer
overtime. With the installation of the video hearing system, the City pays the line rate for two jail guards
for approximately 6-8 hours/week. He anticipated there may be additional costs for the public defender
and the prosecuting attorney as he had added an in-custody calendar each week. Costs will also be
reduced by defendants being seen sooner and likely released sooner.
Judge Fair reviewed 2009 filings, explaining filings were up slightly over 2008. He reviewed case filings
by year for traffic violations, traffic infractions, parking, DUI, criminal traffic and criminal non-traffic,
commenting there were no significant changes in case filings by category. He reviewed monthly
revenues for 2005 to 2009, advising there was only a slight increase in gross revenue from 2008 to 2009.
Net revenues after expenses were $140,682, an increase of approximately 8% over 2008. He assured
public safety would never be a money maker as these numbers did not include the public defender,
prosecutor, jail, etc.
Judge Fair reviewed expenses by category, identifying expenses that were over/under budget. He
highlighted savings in staffing due to not replacing a part-time staff member, furloughs and two new
employees hired at a lower rate. He reviewed passport revenue 2002 to 2009, advising applications and
2009 revenues were down approximately $20,000. He reviewed the cost, profit and jail savings from
electronic home monitoring (EHM). He explained EHM administered through the court was down
because the system was land-line based and only worked with certain communication companies,
requiring the court to contract for EHM. Overall EHM, alcohol bracelet monitoring systems and
community service are very helpful and save the City the cost of numerous jail days.
He summarized the court continues to do more with less. He anticipated as capacity continued to
increase, additional staff would be necessary.
Councilmember Wilson asked Judge Fair his opinion about his compensation being reviewed by the
Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. Judge Fair answered it did not concern him. In
order for the City to be eligible for State funds, he was compensated at 90% of a full-time District Court
Judge based on his caseload which is currently 0.55 of a full caseload. The latest AOC statistics indicate
his caseload should be 0.90 which he felt was somewhat inflated. He anticipated there may be changes
Packet Page 6 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 4
made to this program due to the State’s budget crisis. He planned to testify at the Legislature tomorrow
regarding a bill to make all municipal judge positions elected.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out 2009 filings increased approximately 2500 over 2005 and have
leveled out recently. He asked the reason for that increase. Judge Fair recalled vacant police officer
positions have been filled since 2005 and Traffic and Street Crime Units were created. Councilmember
Plunkett inquired whether there had been any changes in State law that would account for the difference.
Judge Fair answered in 2003 Driving While License Suspended was declared unconstitutional. The
legislature reenacted it in 2004 and the number of tickets increased the following 1-2 years. He advised
DWLS3 was the most common criminal traffic citation in the court.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Judge Fair on winning the election.
6. PUBLIC DEFENDER ANNUAL REPORT.
Public Defender James Feldman advised his office included 7 attorneys, 2.5 of whom are dedicated to
Edmonds matters. He did not anticipate another in-custody hearing would significantly affect their
monetary compensation. Their compensation has not changed for the past 20 years; the total amount of
compensation has increased due to increased volume. He echoed Judge Fair’s comments that one of the
advantages of the video hearing system was it allowed cases to be heard sooner, thereby reducing jail
time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there had been any change in the type of defendants in recent years. He
also asked what type of offenses Mr. Feldman typically defended. Mr. Feldman answered Driving While
License Suspended (DWLS) was the most common. If the cities could convince the legislature to make
DWLS a civil traffic infraction instead of a criminal case, it would have a significant impact on the
budget. Approximately 40-50% of the people they represent are due to licensing issues. He explained
there were three degrees of DWLS; first degree the State takes a person’s license for at least 7 years;
second degree the State takes away the person’s license for less than 7 years; and third degree is
something other than the first two, the majority of which is failure to pay a traffic ticket.
Failure to pay a traffic ticket results in a warrant, once the person comes to court, the court fines the
person, and as a result there is no deterrent for DWLS. Cities pay a great deal for jail, public defender,
and prosecutor costs because a person has not paid a ticket. He recalled Edmonds tried to decriminalize
DWLS in the mid-1980s and the legislature required the City to follow the State mandate and handle it as
a criminal offense. He did not anticipate any major changes in the law that would impact the number of
municipal court case filings.
4. UPDATE ON THE 2010 BUDGET (MAYOR HAAKENSON).
Mayor Haakenson distributed a five-year budget projection. He wanted the Council to have this
information in time for their annual retreat to allow them to strategize solutions to revenue shortfalls. The
City’s revenue streams continue to fall; revenues for 2010 have been adjusted downward by nearly $1.1
million compared to the projections provided to the Council on October 16, 2009. Nearly half of the
reduction was due to reductions in property taxes and building permit fees. Expenses have also been
reduced by $500,000 for 2010 from the projections provided to the Council in October 2009.
Because the Council had just been provided the five year budget projections, he suggested a more in-
depth discussion of the budget occur at the retreat. He highlighted several items in the 2010 budget: Yost
Pool is fully funded, Parks seasonal labor is fully funded, there are no furloughs and several positions will
be left vacant until further notice. Two key areas as efforts begin to build the 2011-2012 budget are
Packet Page 7 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 5
revenues and labor costs. Revenues are at significantly lower levels than the City has become
accustomed to over the past five years. The economy has taken a toll on the City’s revenues which is
likely to continue. With an improved economy, he expected revenues would begin to grow again but
when that would happen was unknown and staff would continue to forecast conservatively until that time.
Even with revenue growth back to pre-recession levels, the City will not have sufficient resources to
provide all the services citizens have come to expect. The City clearly needs more non-property tax
revenues into the General Fund. He recognized the step the Council took toward that goal via the creation
of the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The EDC has completed the first step in a process
designed to increase revenues for the long term. The EDC’s report put the ball in the Council’s court;
they are seeking direction from the Council. He was hopeful at their retreat the Council would validate
the EDC’s work to-date and empower them to move forward with additional tasks.
The second opportunity afforded the Council during the 2011-2012 budget planning process is
negotiating labor contracts this year. The 5 year projections show labor costs growing at about 3.5% per
year, a number that is only a placeholder. Based on current cost of living numbers, that number may be
high; a 1% reduction to 2.5% would increase ending cash by approximately $175,000/year. The real
opportunity for the Council will be the negotiation of labor costs that will drive labor costs for the next
three years and have a huge impact on the bottom line. He suggested at the retreat the Council determine
a negotiation strategy for each of the bargaining units.
The short term financial picture looks better due to the contract with Fire District 1 and past budget cuts
and furloughs. The long term outlook remains in doubt. The model shows the City’s ending cash balance
will slip into deficit in 2013. Another retreat topic for the Council is to discuss whether to place a levy on
the ballot in 2011 or 2012. A levy could be part of an overall strategic plan that incorporates the work of
the EDC, an effective negotiation policy and the levy; a three pronged effort at future financial stability
for the City.
The 5-year projection indicates the City is in good shape for the balance of 2010. Over the course of
2010, the City will spend down ending cash by nearly $1 million and still be solvent through 2011. In
2012, the City is in the same position as 2009. He summarized the contract with Fire District 1
accomplished the short-term financial goals and bought the City time. The Council must use that time
wisely to design a roadmap for the City’s financial future. He recommended the Council use the
upcoming retreat as a starting point for that effort.
Councilmember Wilson asked why the projected revenue under Intergovernmental Services Charges was
approximately $1 million less than the budget. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to Footnote 3
which states the number reflects the termination of the fire service contract with Woodway and
Esperance. Councilmember Wilson inquired why Miscellaneous Revenues increased. Mr. Hines referred
to Footnote 2 which states the increase is due to the sale of the Fire Department rolling stock.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested reference to the footnote be inserted next to the appropriate line
items.
Councilmember Wilson suggested prior to the retreat staff provide data regarding how labor costs have
changed in the past 6-8 years. He inquired whether the 3% increase in labor costs included COLA and
step increases. He asked for data regarding labor costs if all the current positions remain filled and COLA
and step increases are provided and the amount of the COLA and step increases over the past 6-8 years.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the City’s employees are approximately 80% topped out with regard to
step increases. He offered to provide the last two 3-year labor contract settlements by bargaining unit and
the unfilled positions.
Packet Page 8 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 6
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to grant revenue for 2009, noting there was a large reduction in
2010 between the budget and projection. She assumed this was because staff had not yet determined what
grants they would apply for. Mr. Hines agreed some grants had not yet been applied for; some grants
received last year have not been fully expended. At the time of the next budget amendment, he would ask
the Council for authority to spend those grants which would increase the projection. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked for an example of grants. Mr. Hines agreed to provide an inventory of the grants.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Haakenson advised contracts to be negotiated include Teamsters,
SEIU, Police Support and Police. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many people those unions
represented. Mayor Haakenson answered approximately 80% of the City’s employees or approximately
190-200.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the actuals were as of January 20, 2010. Mr. Hines answered the
City was still paying 2009 bills in January; the month was typically not closed until the 13th day of the
next month. The final month of the fiscal year will be closed approximately the 20th day of the month to
ensure all the previous year’s expenditures are included. Mayor Haakenson advised at the time of the
next update, the starting point would be January 1, 2010. Mr. Hines agreed. He explained the numbers
for December 31, 2009 will not be finalized until the State audit is complete in March.
Councilmember Plunkett offered to email his questions to Mr. Hines in preparation for discussion at the
retreat.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the labor line item under expenses by function included
benefits. Mr. Hines answered it did.
7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CITY
COUNCIL CAMPAIGNS AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 OF THE EDMONDS CITY
CODE.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the proposed ordinance would apply to City Council as well as Mayoral
campaigns.
Council President Bernheim explained he had previously proposed to the Council that a limit be
established on local City Council and Mayoral campaigns. His proposed ordinance would establish a
$750 cap on individual contributions per election. This would apply to cash as well as in-kind campaign
contributions. The enforcement mechanism would be the way campaign contributions are reported to the
Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) which would allow any citizen to learn whether the cap was being
exceeded. If a person illegally contributed an amount over the cap such as a $1000 to a campaign without
reporting it, it would be a PDC violation. As a result, the enforcement of the proposed limitation on
campaign contributions would be cost free to the City. The proposed cap included in-kind contributions
to prevent a person from, for example, contributing $5000 in yard signs to a campaign. The proposed cap
did not include the equivalent value of volunteer services. The proposal also does not place a limit on the
amount a candidate could contribute to their own campaign.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the proposed ordinance references a limit per election and includes a
definition of election cycle. The definition of an election cycle includes the general and primary election.
He observed the limit Council President Bernheim proposed applied to the election cycle. Council
President Bernheim clarified his proposal was for the limit to apply to a candidate’s race for office, from
the beginning to the end, regardless of how many elections were in that time period. Councilmember
Plunkett summarized the limit Council President Bernheim proposed was not per election, the limit was
Packet Page 9 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 7
per election cycle. Council President Bernheim agreed his proposed limit of $750 would apply to both
the primary and general campaigns.
Councilmember Plunkett advised a limit could not be placed on a candidate’s own personal contributions.
The Supreme Court has determined that constitutes free expression and cannot be limited. He preferred a
$250 cap, noting $750 was not really a cap. For example, he raised approximately $32,000 in his last
campaign; under a $750 cap, he anticipated he could raise $30,000. If the goal was to make campaigns
more fair, the cap needed to be more realistic.
Councilmember Wilson agreed some cap on campaign contributions was appropriate. He preferred to
adopt the PDC’s disclosure standards which are applied by the State of $850 per election. That process is
in place and is the number one standard in the United States. To Council President Bernheim’s assertion
that this would be a no cost proposal, Councilmember Wilson anticipated there would be a cost. For
example, enforcement of the City of Seattle $600 per election cycle limit required the creation of an
enforcement agency because the PDC is not tasked with enforcing cities’ laws, only the State law. If the
City adopted the PDC law, the PDC would have enforcement authority. In the example cited by Council
President Bernheim where a candidate reported a contribution over the $750 cap, the public would learn
of the contribution and it would be contrary to the code but there was no enforcement mechanism.
Councilmember Wilson anticipated a limit on contributions would increase the power of those who are
independently wealthy and can contribute to their own campaigns. The Supreme Court also allows a
corporate or union to contribute any amount. The lower the limit on individual campaign contributions,
the less likely the City would have diverse membership on the Council or candidate voices that stood up
against corporate or union unencumbered contributions. Although he supported some type of limit, he
cautioned against giving power to people or entities with unlimited resources at the expense of candidates.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the proposed cap was a good starting point but was “smoke
and mirrors” regarding campaign finance reform. In order to have campaign finance reform, there must
be a limit on the total amount a candidate can spend, such as $10,000 for the primary and $10,000 for the
general. She summarized that would represent real campaign finance reform and would put everyone on
an equal playing field. When candidates self-finance or are provided in-kind donations of various
services, they can double the amount raised by some candidates and results in people who do not want to
run for election. She recalled during the interviews for the Council vacancy, several people indicated they
did not run for the position due to the amount of money they would be required to raise. Edmonds is one
of the highest cities in the State with regard to the amount required to run a campaign.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. He
anticipated placing a limit on the total amount a candidate could raise would be unconstitutional. He
agreed the more limits placed on individual campaign contributions, the more power a wealthy individual
would have. If a specific dollar limit were placed on campaign contributions, the amount would need to
be revisited periodically. He preferred to utilize the PDC’s existing mechanism, noting the Washington
PDC was one of the most respected bodies in the United States with regard to tracking campaign
contributions and ensuring it is an open and fair process.
Councilmember Peterson noted any limit on a campaign contribution could be viewed as arbitrary
whether it was $250 or $750 or $1000. If a limit were established, he wanted to ensure it accomplished
the goal of more fair elections, and not just to make people feel better. Further, the Supreme Court’s
decision regarding contributions by unions and corporations placed individuals in a disadvantage. While
it was doubtful a group of businesses or unions would funnel a great deal of money into a campaign in
Edmonds, if a limit were imposed, they would have a greater ability to contribute than would a grassroots
Packet Page 10 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 8
collection of individuals. He supported allowing people to donate to candidates and causes they believed
in.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had a very grassroots campaign and had only one $500
donation. People in Edmonds talk and if someone “bought” a campaign, the people would know about it.
She supported establishing a limit on campaign contributions, preferring a Council campaign be about
issues and the money should be secondary. She concluded establishing a limit was not just “smoke and
mirrors,” it was necessary. She assured if someone bought their campaign, it would be in the newspaper.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of campaign finance reform with limits on campaign
contributions. He supported a limit of $250 per election but was willing to accept a slightly higher limit
or restructuring the limit to cover the election cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a $250 limit per person would be $500 per household. He was
interested in learning whether a limit on the total amount spent on a campaign was possible. He pointed
out the legislature utilized the PDC limit; it cost $100,000 or more to be elected to the State Legislature
which he did not view as campaign reform. With regard to a person funding their own campaign, he
preferred that over a person accepting campaign contributions of $1000-$3000 from unions, corporations
or individuals. He anticipated unions and/or corporations in Edmonds would not get involved in
campaigns unless a candidate via a third party asked. He concluded a $250 per person/$500 per
household limit on campaign contributions would be fair and allow more people to participate. He
preferred a $250 per person/$500 per household limit over the PDC $850 limit, noting any limit would be
better than the current unlimited campaign contribution.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not aware that the PDC had a limit on City Council or Legislative
campaign contributions other than a $1500 limit on contributions for House members. She disagreed the
PDC had an $850 limit on campaign contributions, noting if that were true nearly all Councilmembers
have violated that limit. She reiterated her support for establishing a limit on the cash and in-kind amount
a candidate could spend during their campaign.
Council President Bernheim advised it was unconstitutional to place a cap on the amount a candidate
spend on their campaign.
Public Comment
David Dwyer, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers ask themselves what problem they were solving; in
his opinion the problem the proposed ordinance would solve was incumbents losing an election. The
ordinance protects incumbents and wealthy individuals. Incumbents already have more name familiarity
than a challenger and have the ability to raise money from many sources. Wealthy individuals have the
ability to self-finance their campaigns and do not rely on contributions. The ordinance reduces the ability
for citizens to donate to the campaign of the candidate of their choice. The proposed ordinance is not a
progressive measure and does not promote competition for elected office.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he was most concerned with past contributions and how they
affected the City Council’s decision making. He questioned how large contributions from Al Dykes
affected the Council’s decisions on upcoming redevelopment. He questioned whether Councilmembers
who received large contributions from certain individuals would be asked to recuse themselves from the
vote. He concluded the public knew which Councilmembers received large contributions and expected a
certain performance based on whether they were an unbiased vote or a possible suspect bias vote.
Student Representative Marmion referred to Council President Bernheim’s statement that the proposed
ordinance would prevent an in-kind donation of $5000 worth of signs. He questions whether a separate
Packet Page 11 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 9
organization could be formed that would allow people to donate whatever amount they wanted and for
that group to unofficially run a candidate’s campaign. Council President Bernheim responded in his
proposal, every entity had a contribution limit.
Councilmember Wilson agreed every entity would have a limit on the amount they could contribute, but
there were no limits on contributions that could be made to outside groups. An outside group could
accept any amount of money and do whatever they wanted as long as it was done in an unofficial way and
there was no direct connection to the campaign. The proposed ordinance does not limit those
contributions and in fact cannot per the Supreme Court.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Mr. Dwyer’s comments, the proposed ordinance was a successful
incumbent plan. If the problem the Council wanted to solve was to level the playing field, the proposed
ordinance did not accomplish that. As Councilmember Plunkett stated, with a limit of $750, he could
have raised $30,000 rather than $32,000. Leveling the playing field could be done via public financing of
campaigns which is another topic altogether and well worth discussing. If a candidate accepted public
financing, they would commit to accepting no private contributions and the amount of money spent on a
campaign could be limited.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment, Councilmember Wilson assured no Councilmembers would put
the time and energy into being a Councilmember if they could be bought by the amount of money that
was donated to a City of Edmonds campaign, whether it was $25 or $3000. To imply that any Edmonds
Councilmember lacked the integrity to do the job under the existing rules without selling their soles was
condescending to the nth degree.
Council President Bernheim advised his intent was not to approve the ordinance tonight but to consider
the Council and the public’s comments and return at a later date.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified the difference between raising $32,000 or $30,000 was if the limit was
$750 versus $850. If there was a $250 limit, he would have raised and spent half the amount. Voters
would not have received three robocalls in one week if there was a $250 limit, instead of four mailings,
voters would have received two. If the intent was to prevent Councilmembers from raising campaign
funds in $2000 and $3000 increments and if the intent was to reduce campaign expenditures and make
campaigns more fair, Councilmembers should support a limit on campaign contributions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Mr. Dwyer that the proposed ordinance would allow a
wealthy individual to self-finance their campaign. She was concerned with the social and economic
impacts of having a Council comprised of people who self-funded their campaigns.
Council President Bernheim pointed out that under the current process, all contributions are unlimited;
anyone could contribute any amount.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed the proposed ordinance pandered to the rich. A person can work
hard and run a grassroots campaign; she had one contribution of $500 and 250 contributions of lesser
amounts. She had no union or corporate contributions. If limits were established, a person would not
have to compete against a candidate able to finance multiple robocalls. She assured if someone self-
funded their campaign, the newspaper would report it.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Mr. Dwyer’s comments regarding the power of incumbency which
includes name recognition as well as resources from previous campaigns such as yard signs or campaign
literature. He questioned whether the proposed ordinance would require an incumbent to declare existing
yard signs as a donation. He summarized people would run for an open seat but were hesitant to run
Packet Page 12 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 10
against an incumbent. He agreed the current unlimited campaign contribution system was inappropriate
but was uncertain what amount would be appropriate. To the comment that Edmonds was an expensive
place to run a campaign, he pointed out it was expensive because Edmonds consistently has the highest
voter turnout in the State. Edmonds voters are educated and they want information. He wanted to retain
the right for people to support the candidate they believe in. He pointed out a $250 individual limit did
not necessarily equate to a $500 per household contribution because there were single households or
married people supporting different candidates. He preferred to utilize the PDC’s existing system.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO BRING BACK A DRAFT
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND
AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT FULL COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested obtaining an opinion from City Attorney Scott Snyder
regarding the constitutionality of placing a cap on the amount spent on a campaign and establishing a
limit on cash and in-kind contributions.
Councilmember Wilson asked Councilmember Plunkett whether his motion included a $250 limit.
Councilmember Plunkett answered not at this time; he anticipated proposing an amendment when the
ordinance was brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Wilson requested Council President Bernheim also research enforcement. Council
President Bernheim explained the proposed mechanism was cost free because the only thing the campaign
contribution limit did was limit the amount of the contribution. Under State law, every contribution to a
City Council must be reported to the PDC. The State PDC does not limit the amount, it only requires that
contributions are reported. The City would observe the PDC records and whenever the limit was
exceeded, the candidate would receive a call from the Police Department because the violation would be a
misdemeanor in the third degree. The violation would then be enforceable via the City Prosecutor. If a
candidate did not accurately report a contribution, they were committing a PDC violation. His intent was
to develop an inexpensive, easily controllable improvement to the current system that allowed unlimited
contributions from anyone anywhere in the world.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the proposed ordinance would task the Police Department with checking
campaign contributions to see who exceeded the limit? Council President Bernheim responded he knew
of at least 25 citizens who regularly read the PDC reports and anytime the contribution amount was
exceeded, it would be reported in the newspaper and the Police or the Mayor could ask the Prosecutor to
enforce the law. Mayor Haakenson responded that portion of the proposed ordinance needed work.
Councilmember Wilson agreed that the enforcement mechanism needed work. He disagreed the proposal
was cost free if it required the involvement of the Mayor, Police Chief or Prosecutor. He noted the
Council has expressed support for making the possession of marijuana the equivalent of a traffic
infraction. If the Council approved the proposed ordinance, exceeding the campaign contribution limit
was a misdemeanor. He suggested that portion of the ordinance needed further work.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified his intent was for the ordinance to be brought back to the Council with
Mr. Snyder available to answer questions.
Councilmember Orvis commented enforcement could be complaint driven. Although enforcement would
not be cost free, he did not anticipate there would be very many complaints.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 13 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 11
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Don Hall, Edmonds, reported on January 19 at approximately 10:45 p.m., Councilmembers Plunkett,
Fraley-Monillas, and Buckshnis and Council President Bernheim along with 8-10 of their supporters went
to Engel’s Pub. His efforts to inform the Councilmembers that a quorum was present were disregarded.
He contacted Mayor Haakenson the next day and he agreed the four Councilmembers were in violation of
the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr. Hall advised he had contacted Tim Ford, Assistant Attorney General
who serves as Washington’s Open Government Ombudsman. The City deserves and expects better from
these elected Councilmembers. To Councilmember Plunkett, as a senior Councilmember he should know
better. To Council President Bernheim, he should know the laws governing the Council. To
Councilmember Buckshnis, she ran on credible, trust and transparency. To Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas, although new, she has been around government long enough that she should know better. He
concluded it was a matter of public trust, openness, fairness and how the Council was perceived, not
necessarily that they had done something wrong.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, reported on the perception of three rolling quorums since the beginning of the
year. Two of the perceived violations occurred during the January 5 meeting, the first when the Council
rejected the Mayor’s nomination of Ms. Broadway to the Planning Board. Ms. Broadway is extremely
well qualified, yet no Councilmember stated why they rejected her appointment. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas had not interviewed Ms. Broadway. Because Mayor Haakenson’s nomination was dismissed
without debate, he concluded the decision was made via illegal Councilmember communications outside
the public meeting. The second perceived violation at the January 5 Council meeting was the adoption of
an interim ordinance amending Title 20. Pointing out it was the first meeting of the year, the first meeting
for Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, there was not a full Council, the item was considered after 11:00
p.m., it was not on the agenda and there were no materials available, it was reasonable to assume there
was illegal communication outside the public meeting by the four Councilmembers who approved the
interim ordinance. The third perceived violation occurred at the January 19 Council meeting when a
Councilmember was instantly appointed, just nine minutes after the meeting began. The process occurred
so rapidly that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’s nomination of Ms. Petso did not receive her vote. He
assumed the selection occurred illegally outside the public meeting. He did not intend to file a Public
Records Request because he suspected the communication occurred by telephone. He assured the
Council that citizens were watching and urged them to do what was best for the City as a whole.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, announced the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club was in the early stages of
forming a P-patch for anyone interested in growing vegetables and who did not have their own garden.
She invited anyone who was interested to contact her via their website, www.
EdmondsFloretumGardenClub.org. She advised Edmonds once had a successful P-patch program and
many cities have P-patch programs where surplus vegetables were donated to food banks. The P-patch
program would be realized in cooperation with the City and the Parks Department and would be self-
sustaining. The Edmonds Garden Club is a 501(c)(3) organization which enables it to apply for grants
and donations are tax deductable. She provided a definition of P-patch from Wikipedia, noting there are
55 P-patches in Seattle that provide thousands of pounds of food to food banks.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, announced the Council Critic Committee has accepted Don Hall and Ron
Wambolt as new members. He planned to retire from the Committee and allow Mr. Wambolt to take his
place.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, acknowledged the Council had multiple issues to address and he appreciated
the time and effort Councilmembers devoted. He relayed information from 2006 when Councilmember
Peterson, representing the Chamber of Commerce at that time, emphasized the importance of the vitality
Packet Page 14 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 12
of business and retail space, the same thing being discussed today. He was disgusted that a developer
representing a single property owner orchestrated the process at Firdale Village. He thanked
Councilmember Wilson and Wambolt for their efforts to tweak the developer’s proposal. He relayed a
comment made by Mayor Haakenson in 2008 that the Council should not purchase the waterfront
property but amend the code to the current Council’s satisfaction and that private property owners were
best suited to paying for design and development and land owners expected the City to have design
standards in place to guide developers in the process. At that time it was stated the Council had no plan in
place for the waterfront property and there were more pressing priorities. He agreed there were more
pressing priorities facing the City including an aquatics facility, the senior center, furloughs, budget
reductions, infrastructure, street overlays, etc. He urged Council to set goals and develop a vision at the
retreat to enable them to inform citizens how they planned to save the City from this financial calamity.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented the Council had financial and economic development issues to
discuss, and difficult decisions to make regarding balancing parks and recreation, public safety and other
important priorities. He expressed concern with citizens attempting to distract the Council from the
difficult and good work they needed to do this year to move the City forward by suggesting there had
been inappropriate behavior. He commented the selection of Diane Buckshnis to fill the Council vacancy
was a happy moment for her supporters, including himself. Some of those supporters and a few
Councilmembers met at a local establishment to take in the moment. Her supporters and the
Councilmembers were seated at two tables, with the noise of the establishment and conversations, it
would have been difficult for the group to have had a cohesive discussion.
Councilmember Plunkett welcomed the public’s scrutiny, noting Councilmembers are public officials and
needed to be held accountable. He explained four members of the Council could attend the same social
event; in this instance, the members could not see each other or talk. He relayed the Council’s emails had
already been requested.
To Mr. Hall, Councilmember Buckshnis assured she was not aware that a rule regarding four or more
Councilmembers constituted a quorum existed. She objected to his questioning her integrity when she
was not even aware that it was a violation. She pointed out she would have had to use sign language to
speak to Council President Bernheim due to his location at another table.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Mr. Wambolt was her opponent in the election. She
explained she reviewed the application packet for the Planning Board Members and made an independent
decision based on the information provided. With regard to the interim ordinance amending Chapter 20,
she explained that was a highly contentious issue during the campaign; she wanted to include the people
in the process which differed from Mr. Wambolt’s viewpoint. With regard to her nomination of Ms.
Petso, it was clear she would not get more than her vote for Ms. Petso. She assured she made her
decision to vote for Ms. Buckshnis based on the nominations. She suggested in the future Mr. Wambolt
talk with her if he had an issue with her actions. She summarized the Council had different views on
issues and were not meeting privately to plan their decisions.
Council President Bernheim commented it was incorrect that four Councilmembers could not meet
together. The Open Public Meetings Act prohibits the conduct of Council business outside the public
view without a public announcement. Travel and social occasions are exceptions allowed by the RCW.
Mayor Haakenson explained the email he sent to the Council after Mr. Hall contacted him recognized that
the Councilmembers were celebrating Councilmember Buckshnis’ appointment and that City business
was not discussed; his concern was not a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act but the appearance of
four Councilmembers meeting together which is something the Council has tried to avoid in the past.
Packet Page 15 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 13
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Council President Bernheim reported he attended the Community Transit Board meeting where members
of the Board were selected. Edmonds is a member of a 3-member large city group for which there are
two representatives; Councilmembers from Marysville and Lynnwood were elected to the Community
Transit Board.
Councilmember Wilson reported Councilmember Peterson and he attended the Lake Ballinger Forum
today. A list of the cities capital infrastructure needs has been developed. The next meeting will include
a discussion of a governance structure in order to fund the improvements. They are close to securing $1.4
million in federal funds via Congressman Jay Inslee’s office.
Councilmember Peterson reported Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and he attended the Disability
Board’s quarterly meeting. The Disability Board ensures the needs of past employees supported by
LEOFF1 are addressed. He also reported on the Edmonds Public Facility District Board meeting which
included discussions regarding their budget issues. He urged the public to visit the Edmonds Center for
the Arts, one of the best in Puget Sound. Information regarding performances is available at EC4Arts.org.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she attended the Port Commission meeting yesterday that included
discussion regarding their finances and efforts to improve the public’s understanding of revenue and
expenses. The Boat Show begins Friday. The Port of Edmonds is participating with 15 other marinas in
a Passport to Puget Sound. Boaters who have all the ports punched receive a $500 gift. The passport is
available on the Port’s website.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she attended the Disability Board meeting along with
Councilmember Peterson. She also attended a 2-day AWC training. The AWC stated it is not illegal for
a group of Councilmembers to be in an area together; the issue was the perception.
Councilmember Plunkett reported via the efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission, there are now
13 homes on the Edmonds Historic Register. These listings build interest in preserving properties and
recognition of the program.
Councilmember Plunkett reported at the Downtown Parking Committee, Cultural Services Manager
Frances Chapin informed them of Parking Day, September 17, where a parking stall is turned into a park
to demonstrate the need for parks. He advised the Parking Committee also received a letter complaining
about too much parking enforcement.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim reported he received and paid a parking ticket recently for having his car
parked on the street too long.
Councilmember Wilson reported he would be in Washington DC the rest of this week for work and will
also be meeting with members of the City’s delegation regarding funding for Lake Ballinger and funding
for a railroad track overpass. He had also been in Olympia recently and observed the City’s lobbyist
Mike Doubleday working on the City’s behalf. He further reported his wife plans to take a group of
physicians to Haiti for ten days to visit orphanages.
Packet Page 16 of 236
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Peterson reported his plans to attend the AWC conference in Olympia and looked
forward to conferring with other cities regarding ways to have their voices heard by the legislature and get
the funding they need.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Packet Page 17 of 236
AM-2763 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #116698 through #116865 dated January 28, 2010 for $448,651.69.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$448,651.69
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $448,651.69
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 01-28-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Finance Lorenzo Hines 01/29/2010 08:52 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 08:53 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/29/2010 08:56 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 09:12 AM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 01/28/2010 10:50
AM
Final Approval Date: 01/29/2010
Packet Page 18 of 236
Packet Page 19 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116698 1/28/2010 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 2058 TREE REMOVAL
TAKE DOWN OF ALDER TREE/CUT WOOD INTO
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 675.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 64.13
Total :739.13
116699 1/28/2010 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-091101 Membership for Mike Clugston 4/1/10 -
Membership for Mike Clugston 4/1/10 -
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 385.00
Total :385.00
116700 1/28/2010 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 2010 Dues APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/11
APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/11
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 378.00
APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/11
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 126.00
APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/11
111.000.653.542.900.490.00 126.00
APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/11
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 63.00
APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/11
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 63.00
Total :756.00
116701 1/28/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0123 ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR
ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR FOR DANCE
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
116702 1/28/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4706346 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23
1Page:
Packet Page 20 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116702 1/28/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
UNIFORM SERVICES655-4715767
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23
Total :74.54
116703 1/28/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4706350 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.80
Total :101.47
116704 1/28/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4695947 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-4708176
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-4715768
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
2Page:
Packet Page 21 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116704 1/28/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84
PW MATS655-4720200
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Total :81.78
116705 1/28/2010 072880 ARNOLD, JILL ARNOLD012610 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUBSTITUTE~
001.000.640.575.560.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
116706 1/28/2010 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH ARNOLD11919 KUMIHIMO BRAIDING INTRODUCTION
3Page:
Packet Page 22 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116706 1/28/2010 (Continued)071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH
KUMIHIMO BRAIDING: INTRODUCTION~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 159.60
Total :159.60
116707 1/28/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 35690X-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,128.43
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 202.20
Total :2,330.63
116708 1/28/2010 069451 ASTRA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES 00109264 Water Quality - CV Rubber Kits (4)
Water Quality - CV Rubber Kits (4)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 79.20
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.61
Total :85.81
116709 1/28/2010 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.89
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.17
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.17
Total :37.74
116710 1/28/2010 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 76766 Addition to City Directory/L Hines Jr
Addition to City Directory/L Hines Jr
4Page:
Packet Page 23 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116710 1/28/2010 (Continued)001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 5.70
Total :65.70
116711 1/28/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 53778 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #500 PRINTING
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 37.09
UB Outsourcing area #500 PRINTING
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 37.09
UB Outsourcing area #500 PRINTING
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 37.21
UB Outsourcing area #500 POSTAGE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 119.36
UB Outsourcing area #500 POSTAGE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 119.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.52
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.52
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.54
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS53894
UB Outsourcing area # 600 PRINTING
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 32.57
UB Outsourcing area # 600 PRINTING
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 32.57
UB Outsourcing area # 600 PRINTING
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 32.66
UB Outsourcing area #600 POSTAGE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 109.24
UB Outsourcing area #600 POSTAGE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 109.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.09
5Page:
Packet Page 24 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116711 1/28/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.11
Total :686.24
116712 1/28/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011347108 Canon 5870 Copier Lease (3/1 - 3/31/10)
Canon 5870 Copier Lease (3/1 - 3/31/10)
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35
Canon 5870 Copier Lease (3/1 - 3/31/10)
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32
Canon 5870 Copier Lease (3/1 - 3/31/10)
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33
Caon 5870 supply charge
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01
Caon 5870 supply charge
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00
Caon 5870 supply charge
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 24.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 12.00
Total :415.00
116713 1/28/2010 072581 BARK TIME BLOWER TRUCK SERVICE 122116 Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122117
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122119
Storm Dump Fees
6Page:
Packet Page 25 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116713 1/28/2010 (Continued)072581 BARK TIME BLOWER TRUCK SERVICE
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122122
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122127
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122128
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122129
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122130
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Storm Dump Fees122131
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Total :1,364.40
116714 1/28/2010 002100 BARNARD, EARL 7 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,156.80
Total :1,156.80
116715 1/28/2010 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 2906 E8GA.Services thru 11/20/09
E8GA.Services thru 11/20/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 18,356.56
E8GA.Services thru 12/25/092914
E8GA.Services thru 12/25/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 3,463.72
Total :21,820.28
116716 1/28/2010 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14117112 PROJ # 136859
7Page:
Packet Page 26 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116716 1/28/2010 (Continued)066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL
C-311 ODOR CONTROL
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 6,533.50
Total :6,533.50
116717 1/28/2010 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE11900 PRENATAL YOGA
PRENATAL YOGA #11900
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 77.00
Total :77.00
116718 1/28/2010 069458 CASCADE CONTROLS CORP 340418 24256 -00
CIRCUIT BREAKER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4,000.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 381.69
Total :4,399.49
116719 1/28/2010 073078 CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY 827 Prof Serv - Cascade Agenda Cities
Prof Serv - Cascade Agenda Cities
001.000.110.550.100.490.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
116720 1/28/2010 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC RKT0123 Parts for computer upgrades
Parts for computer upgrades
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1,074.84
Monitors for Public Works
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 797.90
Replacement computer maintenance parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 404.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 216.38
Computer hardware partsRLB7547
Computer hardware parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 150.00
8Page:
Packet Page 27 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116720 1/28/2010 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Memory parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 557.06
Spare monitor for testing
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 241.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 67.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 22.93
Total :3,532.57
116721 1/28/2010 068484 CEMEX 9418558248 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 491.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 46.70
Storm Dump Fees9418564801
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 195.07
Roadway - Asphalt9418564802
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 491.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 46.70
Street - Sand9418573124
Street - Sand
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 141.90
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 567.64
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 13.05
Storm Dirt Dump Fees9418582712
Storm Dirt Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 515.00
Storm Dirt Dump Fees9418589984
Storm Dirt Dump Fees
9Page:
Packet Page 28 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116721 1/28/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 503.20
Roadway - Asphalt9418597562
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 351.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 33.40
Total :3,397.34
116722 1/28/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 152045 WELDING SUPPLIES
HELMET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 284.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.07
Total :312.04
116723 1/28/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 151845 Shop Supplies
Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 173.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 16.51
Water - Fill Carbon Dioxide CylinderLY 151981
Water - Fill Carbon Dioxide Cylinder
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.01
Total :213.38
116724 1/28/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11996 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11996
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 210.00
Total :210.00
116725 1/28/2010 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460589295 OPS Uniform Service
OPS Uniform Service
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 113.19
10Page:
Packet Page 29 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116725 1/28/2010 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
ALS Uniform Service
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 113.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.75
Total :247.89
116726 1/28/2010 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I10000054 Water Quailty - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quailty - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 567.00
Total :567.00
116727 1/28/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7672 INV# 7672 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD
PRISONER R&B DEC 2009
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 3,302.17
Total :3,302.17
116728 1/28/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2145347 CLEANING SUPPLIES
PAPER TOWELS, CLEANER, HAND SOAP, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 936.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 88.95
Total :1,025.29
116729 1/28/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2149604 005302
BIGFOLD TOWELS/LINERS/SOAP
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 155.36
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 14.76
Total :170.12
116730 1/28/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS w2145209 Fac Maint - Good Sense, Crew Neutral,
Fac Maint - Good Sense, Crew Neutral,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 678.22
9.5% Sales Tax
11Page:
Packet Page 30 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116730 1/28/2010 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 64.43
Fac Maint - Hosew2145209-1
Fac Maint - Hose
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.01
Fac Maint - Hosew2145209-2
Fac Maint - Hose
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 105.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.04
Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Hand Soapw2150667
Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Hand Soap
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 263.92
FAC - Roll Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 146.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.98
Fac Maint - Fusew2150841
Fac Maint - Fuse
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.80
Total :1,374.65
116731 1/28/2010 070300 CODE 4 INC 7507 INV# 7507 EDMONDS PD - DAMIAN SMITH
VERBAL JUDO 2/2/10 - D SMITH
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
Total :99.00
116732 1/28/2010 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 34617 Edmonds CDC Complete text, tabs for
Edmonds CDC Complete text, tabs for
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 140.00
12Page:
Packet Page 31 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116732 1/28/2010 (Continued)064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 13.30
Total :153.30
116733 1/28/2010 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY0115 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB~
001.000.640.575.560.410.00 145.00
Total :145.00
116734 1/28/2010 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0110 2989771 5374044 INV # 0110 2989771 5374044
HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00
5 GALLON BOTTLES OF H2O
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 65.52
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.95
Total :78.43
116735 1/28/2010 067794 DALCO INC 50618 CLEANBRITE
CLEANBRITE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.87
Total :79.10
116736 1/28/2010 073082 DAS MANUFACTURING INC 9475 Duracast Custom Curb Markers
Duracast Custom Curb Markers
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,330.00
Total :1,330.00
116737 1/28/2010 068190 DATEC INC 7436 INV#7436 EDMONDS PD
REPLACEMENT KEYBOARD - LAPTOP
13Page:
Packet Page 32 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116737 1/28/2010 (Continued)068190 DATEC INC
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 250.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 21.25
Total :271.25
116738 1/28/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2010-WA0024058 WA0024058
WASTEWATER PERMIT
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 31,331.50
Total :31,331.50
116739 1/28/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2010-WAR045513 PERMIT #WAR045513/STORMWATER
2010 STORMWATER - MUNICIPAL STORMWATER
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 10,720.50
Total :10,720.50
116740 1/28/2010 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2009120121 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for December, 2009
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 250.50
Total :250.50
116741 1/28/2010 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES AH87349 ACCT ID 004,316-08
LEP overpayment for 11/1 -11/30/09
001.000.640.576.800.110.00 383.36
Total :383.36
116742 1/28/2010 072534 DESTINATION MEDIA ALLIANCE LLC 1049-B EXPERIENCE WASHINGTON/SNO CO AD
Advertisement in 2010 WA St Travel
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 2,630.00
Total :2,630.00
116743 1/28/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3065 MINUTE TAKING FOR ECONOMIC DEV COMMISSIO
Minute taking for Economic Dev
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 387.00
Total :387.00
116744 1/28/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3066 MINUTE TAKING
14Page:
Packet Page 33 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116744 1/28/2010 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE
01/19 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
116745 1/28/2010 073064 E KENT HALVORSON 130928 JUNE09 HYDRANT DEPOSIT REFUND~
JUNE09 HYDRANT DEPOSIT REFUND~
411.000.000.245.110.000.00 950.00
Total :950.00
116746 1/28/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001022/1 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
BROOM, DUSTPANS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 31.47
Total :31.47
116747 1/28/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001018/1 City Hall - Surge Strip
City Hall - Surge Strip
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.49
Yost Pool - Foam, Rubber Sponge001019/1
Yost Pool - Foam, Rubber Sponge
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.47
Fac Maint - Calibrated Container Qt,001020/1
Fac Maint - Calibrated Container Qt,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.44
Unit 95 - Trash bags001023/1
Unit 95 - Trash bags
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.99
PS City Council Office - Minwax Poly001024/1
PS City Council Office - Minwax Poly
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.98
Total :78.37
116748 1/28/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 17749 FUNNEL
FUNNEL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.38
15Page:
Packet Page 34 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116748 1/28/2010 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
SUPPLIES17944
WHEEL STUDS, NUTS, OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.66
FITTINGS18018
FITTINGS
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.70
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 0.35
Total :50.61
116749 1/28/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565 WATER
18410 92ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
Total :23.80
116750 1/28/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 89.61
WWTP6-01130
WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63
WWTP WATER6-01140
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 761.53
Total :876.77
116751 1/28/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 216.20
LIFT STATION #123-07525
16Page:
Packet Page 35 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116751 1/28/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 58.66
LIFT STATION #153-07709
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.84
~3-09350
~
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 58.66
LIFT STATION #103-09800
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 52.38
LIFT STATION #93-29875
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.97
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,120.29
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE6-02736
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE6-02737
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 148.57
PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 136.61
LIBRARY & SPRINKLER6-02825
LIBRARY & SPRINKLER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,076.93
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)6-02875
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 25.63
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER6-02925
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,062.57
17Page:
Packet Page 36 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116751 1/28/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Fire Station #166-04127
Fire Station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 465.60
fire sprinkler-FS #166-04128
fire sprinkler-FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65
Public Works Bldg6-05155
Public Works Bldg
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 90.29
Public Works Bldg
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 343.08
Public Works Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 343.08
Public Works Bldg
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 343.08
Public Works Bldg
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 343.08
Public Works Bldg
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 343.08
Public Works Fire Detector6-05156
Public Works Fire Detector
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 1.83
Public Works Fire Detector
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 6.94
Total :6,375.27
116752 1/28/2010 073077 EMERALD PACIFIC HOMES INC 4-44575 RE: 04660-005743534 UB REFUND
18Page:
Packet Page 37 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116752 1/28/2010 (Continued)073077 EMERALD PACIFIC HOMES INC
UB Refund 04600-005743534 ~4-44575
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 58.38
Total :58.38
116753 1/28/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU18900 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.29
SOAP DISPENSERWAMOU18966
SOAP DISPENSER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.94
SUPPLIESWAMOU18970
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.37
SUPPLIESWAMOU18994
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.70
Total :107.22
116754 1/28/2010 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 270333 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
Feb-10 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
116755 1/28/2010 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 940144 MATTER 43 FIBER OPTICS UTILITY
Dec-09 Legal fees for Fiber Optics
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 862.80
Total :862.80
19Page:
Packet Page 38 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116756 1/28/2010 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH11881 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #11881
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 250.25
IRISH DANCE 13+ #11877
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 277.88
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #11889
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 116.03
Total :644.16
116757 1/28/2010 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE11838 WATERCOLOR & DRAWING CLASSES
WATERCOLOR/BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 739.20
DRAWING BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80
Total :1,232.00
116758 1/28/2010 012068 GLENNS WELDING & MFG 16753 Units 474,475,477 - Hose Bed Partitions
Units 474,475,477 - Hose Bed Partitions
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,304.27
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 123.91
Total :1,428.18
116759 1/28/2010 072515 GOOGLE INC 1010299 JAN INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Jan-2010 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 550.54
Total :550.54
116760 1/28/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9154275896 Sr Center - V Belts
Sr Center - V Belts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.73
Total :31.30
116761 1/28/2010 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 09555.00-4 E9FE.Services thru 1/09/10
E9FE.Services thru 1/09/10
20Page:
Packet Page 39 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116761 1/28/2010 (Continued)071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 650.73
Total :650.73
116762 1/28/2010 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-140 Drug testing services 12/2/09
Drug testing services 12/2/09
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 50.00
Period testing (FF)2126-145
Period testing (FF)
001.000.510.522.300.410.00 1,366.00
Periodic testing (FF)
001.000.510.522.300.410.00 615.00
Total :2,031.00
116763 1/28/2010 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 10 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,112.40
Total :1,112.40
116764 1/28/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 21628 E9FG.Services thru 01/01/10
E9FG.Services thru 01/01/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,068.77
E8FD.Services thru 01/01/1021636
E8FD.Services thru 01/01/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 7,507.89
E9FB.Services thru 01/01/1021668
E9FB.Services thru 01/01/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 7,929.30
Total :17,505.96
116765 1/28/2010 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 46960437 Desktops & Cables for IS Dept
Desktops & Cables for IS Dept
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,262.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 119.89
Docking Stations46961170
Docking Stations
21Page:
Packet Page 40 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116765 1/28/2010 (Continued)069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 358.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 34.01
Laptop for Judge46961291
Laptop for Judge
001.000.230.512.500.350.00 879.00
Laptops for Engineering
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 2,998.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.500.350.00 83.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 284.81
Total :6,019.22
116766 1/28/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 8 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,156.80
Total :1,156.80
116767 1/28/2010 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20735 E4GA.Services thru 12/26/09
E4GA.Services thru 12/26/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
116768 1/28/2010 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 360003190029 C/A 360000657091
Nov & Dec 09 Basic e-commerce hosting +
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 70.38
Jan 2010 Basic e-commerce hosting
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 360000764828360003194945
Nov & Dec-09 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 70.38
Jan-2010 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 430001405909440010289932
22Page:
Packet Page 41 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116768 1/28/2010 (Continued)070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP
P&R Directory Listing Dec 09 & Jan 10 &
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 257.23
P&R Directory Listing Feb-2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 130.25
Total :598.14
116769 1/28/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81250405 INV# 81250405 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS
COPIER RENTAL 1/13-2/12/2010
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 96.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 41.49
Total :478.25
116770 1/28/2010 064655 INNOVATIVE VACUUM SERVICES INC S 16430 Wade James - Vactor Lines
Wade James - Vactor Lines
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,445.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 137.27
Total :1,582.27
116771 1/28/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 6295456 C/A 768421
PR1-1 City Phone Service Thru 12/25/09
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 931.33
C/A 7683286368637
PR1-2 City Phone Service thru 1/11/2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 848.64
Total :1,779.97
116772 1/28/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS ED4195 INV# ED4195 ACCT# ED03 EDMONDS PD
BOX OF 24 AA BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 71.92
BOX OF 24 AAA BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.98
23Page:
Packet Page 42 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116772 1/28/2010 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.54
Total :98.44
116773 1/28/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 456258 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,063.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 291.02
Total :3,354.36
116774 1/28/2010 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13039292-00 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 167.06
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 11.53
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 16.97
Total :195.56
116775 1/28/2010 070145 JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS 45670 DISPLAY AD
HALF PAGE DISPLAY AD IN 2010 EDMONDS
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 545.00
Total :545.00
116776 1/28/2010 073074 KENNEDY VENTURES LLC BLD20090882 Overpayment.
Overpayment.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 152.00
Total :152.00
116777 1/28/2010 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 621990 C-311 ODOR CONTROL
C-311 ODOR CONTROL
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 336.65
Total :336.65
116778 1/28/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0110-108246 E8GC.Services thru 12/31/09
24Page:
Packet Page 43 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116778 1/28/2010 (Continued)068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
E8GC.Services thru 12/31/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 570.57
E8GC.Services thru 12/31/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 570.57
E8GC.Services thru 12/31/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 570.58
Total :1,711.72
116779 1/28/2010 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 357777-001 Smarttool American level combo pack for
Smarttool American level combo pack for
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 139.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 13.21
Total :152.21
116780 1/28/2010 017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO 81968 FAC - Gaskets
FAC - Gaskets
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.61
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.58
FAC - 1/3 HP B&G Motor82550
FAC - 1/3 HP B&G Motor
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 767.15
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 73.98
Total :870.95
116781 1/28/2010 018140 LEIN, JONATHAN 0283 LEIN/BOOTS
LEIN/BOOTS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 183.00
Total :183.00
116782 1/28/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103326 CHAIR
25Page:
Packet Page 44 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116782 1/28/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
CHAIR
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 478.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 45.41
Total :523.41
116783 1/28/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 593832 Unit 681 - Cup Holder
Unit 681 - Cup Holder
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.07
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.48
Unit 476 - Helicoil593917
Unit 476 - Helicoil
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.17
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.29
Unit 22 - Filters593982
Unit 22 - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 90.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.62
Unit 22 - Filter594028
Unit 22 - Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.41
Fleet Shop - Adaptor595036
Fleet Shop - Adaptor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.56
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.34
Fleet Shop - Adaptor595075
Fleet Shop - Adaptor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.78
9.5% Sales Tax
26Page:
Packet Page 45 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116783 1/28/2010 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.17
Unit 138 - Horn595293
Unit 138 - Horn
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.61
Unit 405 - Outlet595452
Unit 405 - Outlet
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.66
Unit 14- Oil Filter595958
Unit 14- Oil Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.37
Total :218.48
116784 1/28/2010 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0073682 JACKETS/OVERALLS
JACKET, OVERALLS
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 142.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 13.50
Total :155.60
116785 1/28/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 44931834 123106800
HOSE FITTING/PIPE/FLOAT SWITCH/PIPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 436.15
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.03
12310680045098312
GASKET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 85.38
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.54
27Page:
Packet Page 46 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116785 1/28/2010 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
12310680045194376
HOSE COUPLINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 72.78
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.54
Total :613.42
116786 1/28/2010 067800 MICROFLEX CORP #774353 IN1128448 Street - Gloves
Street - Gloves
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 87.40
Total :87.40
116787 1/28/2010 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER01062010 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL LEAGUE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 110.00
Total :110.00
116788 1/28/2010 072991 MOE, CHELSY MOE01192010 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB~
001.000.640.575.560.410.00 120.00
Total :120.00
116789 1/28/2010 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-235612 100900-01
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.79
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.39
FILTERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 111.18
Total :131.36
116790 1/28/2010 062381 MRSC AG10276 Roster Fee for 2010
Roster Fee for 2010
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 300.00
Total :300.00
28Page:
Packet Page 47 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116791 1/28/2010 073081 MURRAY, MICHAEL Subdivision Fee Refu Subdivision Fee Refund
Subdivision Fee Refund
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 845.00
Total :845.00
116792 1/28/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0264902 Freight
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.02
Water/Sewer - Work Gloves0265313-IN
Water/Sewer - Work Gloves
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 97.50
Water/Sewer - Work Gloves
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 97.50
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.93
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.93
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.95
Total :240.49
116793 1/28/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0420232-IN Unit 31 - Filters
Unit 31 - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.38
Unit 31 - Filter0420308-IN
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.44
Unit 31 - Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.20
Fleet Filter Inventory0420389-IN
29Page:
Packet Page 48 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116793 1/28/2010 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 551.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 52.38
Total :705.42
116794 1/28/2010 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB12170 POWER PLAY
POWER PLAY #12170
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 49.00
Total :49.00
116795 1/28/2010 072741 NEWTON KIGHT LLP 58704 C/A 20027-0001M
Dec-09 Legal Fees Fiber Project
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 439.50
Total :439.50
116796 1/28/2010 070870 NORCAN 1-22-10 MILLER 2010 MEMBERSHIP - D MILLER - EDMONDS
2010 MEMBERSHIP - DAVE MILLER
001.000.410.521.210.490.00 25.00
Total :25.00
116797 1/28/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 33299 CITYEDMTRE
HOSE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 63.25
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.82
Total :69.07
116798 1/28/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 33181 Unit 3 - Hose, Fittings
Unit 3 - Hose, Fittings
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 114.32
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.52
Total :124.84
116799 1/28/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 8301 260
30Page:
Packet Page 49 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116799 1/28/2010 (Continued)066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,521.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 144.56
Total :1,666.20
116800 1/28/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-069089 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-069132
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 412.76
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-069135
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-070141
HONEYBUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 183.47
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-071274
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :1,077.17
116801 1/28/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 102 Planning board meeting minutes on
Planning board meeting minutes on
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 224.00
Historic Preservation Commission000 00 103
Historic Preservation Commission
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00
Total :352.00
116802 1/28/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 041298 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 119.34
9.5% Sales Tax
31Page:
Packet Page 50 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116802 1/28/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 11.34
Total :130.68
116803 1/28/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 070632 INV# 070632 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS
COIN ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 14.63
STORAGE BOXES
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 86.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 1.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 8.19
Total :110.33
116804 1/28/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 008896 Rubberbands/Counter pens/post it notes
Rubberbands/Counter pens/post it notes
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 178.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 16.96
Paper pads/partion clips/desk pad030787
Paper pads/partion clips/desk pad
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 54.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 5.19
Total :255.26
116805 1/28/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 680757 Prof Serv - Leg Legal Serv. 12/2009
Prof Serv - Leg Legal Serv. 12/2009
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 7,965.30
Total :7,965.30
116806 1/28/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 680753 Dec-09 Legal Fees
Dec-09 Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 10,965.45
RETAINER FEES680757
32Page:
Packet Page 51 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116806 1/28/2010 (Continued)025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
Dec-09 Monthly retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 29,401.65
Total :40,367.10
116807 1/28/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 340934 BRUSH DUMP
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 154.70
BRUSH DUMP340940
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 154.70
BRUSH DUMP340941
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 154.70
BRUSH DUMP340950
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 88.40
Total :552.50
116808 1/28/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK11781 PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT~
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 297.74
Total :297.74
116809 1/28/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 182267 INV#182267 ACCT#2772 EDMONDS PD
SHIP BADGE FOR REBURBISHING
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 9.89
Total :9.89
116810 1/28/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 181906 STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16
33Page:
Packet Page 52 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116810 1/28/2010 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14
WATER QUALITY -ASTRA RETURN POSTAGE182050
WATER QUALITY -ASTRA RETURN POSTAGE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 21.34
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I182080
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I182207
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.30
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.30
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.30
STORM/STREET/WATER/SEWER DEPT OF L&I
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.31
Total :47.79
116811 1/28/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier Electricity for
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,665.96
Total :1,665.96
116812 1/28/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 04371 SVC FEE
Svc Fee
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.00
Total :10.00
34Page:
Packet Page 53 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116813 1/28/2010 065021 PRINTING PLUS 67790 WOTS AD
WOTS AD/GRAPHICS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 54.25
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 5.15
Total :59.40
116814 1/28/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 48.67
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 48.67
Fire Monitoring F/S 16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 94.50
Total :191.84
116815 1/28/2010 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 10 045S ACCOUNT NO. EDMO005 Q1-2010
Q1-2010 Clean Air Assessment per RCW
001.000.390.531.700.510.00 6,045.75
Total :6,045.75
116816 1/28/2010 070789 QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES INC 21672 EDMW01
D.O. MODULE/CABLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 332.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 31.54
Total :363.54
116817 1/28/2010 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1001018 E9CB.Services thru 11/12/09
E9CB.Services thru 11/12/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 6,601.30
Total :6,601.30
116818 1/28/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 51238 E3JC.Services thru 12/27/09
E3JC.Services thru 12/27/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 9,790.97
35Page:
Packet Page 54 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :9,790.971168181/28/2010 068483 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC
116819 1/28/2010 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 1/21/10 OT not bought back for J. Sackville
OT not bought back for J. Sackville
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 88.31
OT not bought back for J. Sackville1/21/10 - 1
OT not bought back for J. Sackville
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 88.31
Total :176.62
116820 1/28/2010 066806 SANDERS, BILL 2010 BOOTS 2010 BOOT ALLOWANCE - B SANDERS
2010 BOOT ALLOWANCE - B SANDERS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 183.00
Total :183.00
116821 1/28/2010 037225 SNO CO CLERKS & FINANCE ASSOC 2010 Dues S Chase & L Hynd 2010 Membership dues
S Chase & L Hynd 2010 Membership dues
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 50.00
D Sharp & D Karber 2010 Membership Dues
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 50.00
Total :100.00
116822 1/28/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2450016544 UTILITY BILLING
18500 82ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 82.46
UTILITY BILLING3160831347
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 268.84
OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER3430013627
OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,264.90
UTILITY BILLING3570014369
8030 185TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 220.06
IRRIGATION SYSTEM5070014245
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 33.07
36Page:
Packet Page 55 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,869.331168221/28/2010 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
116823 1/28/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2330012283 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.56
SIGNAL LIGHT2340018510
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 90.91
LIFT STATION #102400010746
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 151.30
LIFT STATION #22410016253
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 78.37
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg2480017397
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 1,109.05
LIFT STATION #42540012560
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 622.71
SIGNAL LIGHT2790022228
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 58.72
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR2880027277
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 33.07
SIGNAL LIGHT3350014902
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.17
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT3380016430
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.60
LIBRARY3720012057
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,579.08
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT3970013581
37Page:
Packet Page 56 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116823 1/28/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.09
SIGNAL LIGHT4210013902
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 61.42
SIGNAL LIGHT4330014129
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 215.79
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 1834610302228
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,421.87
Public Works4840011953
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 93.83
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 356.56
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 356.56
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 356.56
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 356.56
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 356.55
SIGNAL LIGHT5360023807
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.96
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,627.70
CITY HALL5410010689
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,207.89
STREET LIGHTING6000013000
STREET LIGHTING
38Page:
Packet Page 57 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116823 1/28/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,800.95
STREET LIGHTING6100013306
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
STREET LIGHTING6200013008
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :31,886.04
116824 1/28/2010 037723 SNO CO VISITOR INFO CENTER Edm1209 Contract July-December 2009
Contract July-December 2009
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 3,000.00
Total :3,000.00
116825 1/28/2010 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000242758 SERS OPERATING ASSESSMENT
2010 SERS Operating Assessment
001.000.390.525.600.510.00 76,128.00
Total :76,128.00
116826 1/28/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4162128-01 Storm - Jacket
Storm - Jacket
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 86.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 8.19
Storm - 5 Jeans - Sanders4162164-01
Storm - 5 Jeans - Sanders
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 157.00
Jacket
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 86.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 23.11
Street - Jacket - Browning4162197-01
Street - Jacket - Browning
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 90.17
9.5% Sales Tax
39Page:
Packet Page 58 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116826 1/28/2010 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 9.83
Street - 5 Jeans - Browning4162198-01
Street - 5 Jeans - Browning
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 148.70
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 14.13
Street - Jacket - Hanson4162200-0001-04
Street - Jacket - Hanson
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 88.51
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.49
Street - 5 Jeans - Hanson4162201-01
Street - 5 Jeans - Hanson
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 178.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 16.98
Street - Jacket - Rochford4162206-01
Street - Jacket - Rochford
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 77.25
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 7.34
Street - 5 Jeans - Rochford4162258-01
Street - 5 Jeans - Rochford
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 180.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 17.10
Street - Jacket - P Johnson4162262-01
Street - Jacket - P Johnson
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 81.95
5 Jeans
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 173.55
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 24.27
Storm- Jacket - Wichers4162266-0001-04
Storm- Jacket - Wichers
40Page:
Packet Page 59 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116826 1/28/2010 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 88.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.49
Storm - 2 Jeans - Wichers4162267-01
Storm - 2 Jeans - Wichers
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 71.98
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 6.84
Total :1,659.64
116827 1/28/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Standard Insurance STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS
February 2010 Standard Insurance
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 14,939.85
Total :14,939.85
116828 1/28/2010 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2890041 Sewer - TShirt Wipers
Sewer - TShirt Wipers
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 53.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.10
Total :58.74
116829 1/28/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2090097 SEAVIEW PARK ELECTRICAL
SEAVIEW PARK RESTROOM ELECTRICAL SERVICE
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,208.25
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 114.78
SEAVIEW PARK ELECTRICAL2097433
SEAVIEW PARK RESTROOM ELECTRICAL SERVICE
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 937.13
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 89.03
Total :2,349.19
116830 1/28/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2090096 Fac Maint - Elect Supplies
41Page:
Packet Page 60 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116830 1/28/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
Fac Maint - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 715.59
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 67.98
Total :783.57
116831 1/28/2010 073080 SUSTAINABLE EDMONDS 1 Prof Serv- Save Energy Now pilot
Prof Serv- Save Energy Now pilot
001.000.110.550.100.490.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
116832 1/28/2010 072772 T E BRIGGS CONSTRUCTION CO E6DA.Pmt 7 E6DA.Payment 6 thru 11/30/09
E6DA.Payment 6 thru 11/30/09
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 28,886.55
E6DB.Pmt 7 Retainage
125.000.000.223.400.000.00 -1,427.30
Total :27,459.25
116833 1/28/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18892033 100323
HEX NUT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.05
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.24
Total :14.29
116834 1/28/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10911624 Street - Work Gloves
Street - Work Gloves
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 252.18
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 23.96
Total :276.14
116835 1/28/2010 071174 TASER INTERNATIONAL SI1192144 INV#SI1192144 EDMONDS PD
REPLACE TASER SENT FOR REPAIR
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 650.00
9.5% Sales Tax
42Page:
Packet Page 61 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116835 1/28/2010 (Continued)071174 TASER INTERNATIONAL
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 61.75
Total :711.75
116836 1/28/2010 072337 TGB ARCHITECTS 0348609 Overpaid for photocopies
Overpaid for photocopies
001.000.000.341.690.000.00 45.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.000.237.110.000.00 4.34
Total :50.00
116837 1/28/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1680853 NEWSPAPER AD
01/19 Hearing (Kairez Dr.)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 54.04
NEWSPAPER AD1681221
Ordinance 3774
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 32.20
NEWSPAPER AD1681222
Ordinance 3775
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.52
NEWSPAPER AD1681707
01/19 Hearing (Enforcement Procedures)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.40
Total :174.16
116838 1/28/2010 070713 THE GREENBUSCH GROUP INC 200925201 NOISE STUDY
NOISE STUDY
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 2,973.50
Total :2,973.50
116839 1/28/2010 072058 THE NATIONAL TRUST 72614688 Membership for 2010.
Membership for 2010.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 250.00
Total :250.00
116840 1/28/2010 069832 TIMEMARK INC 111983 Traffic Counter Repairs
Traffic Counter Repairs
43Page:
Packet Page 62 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116840 1/28/2010 (Continued)069832 TIMEMARK INC
001.000.620.532.200.480.00 228.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.480.00 21.66
Total :249.66
116841 1/28/2010 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE 12162009 DOOR MONITOR FOR EDC MEETING 12/16/09
Monitor for Economic Development
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
116842 1/28/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8403269 Water Inventory - ~
Water Inventory - ~
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,770.20
M-METER-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 1,385.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 394.75
Total :4,550.05
116843 1/28/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 969501 Sewer - Manhole nets (10)
Sewer - Manhole nets (10)
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 218.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 16.98
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 22.32
Total :257.30
116844 1/28/2010 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS T0298897A INV#T0298897A EDMONDS PD
PAGER & MESSAGING 1/27-2/26/10
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 182.73
Total :182.73
116845 1/28/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE 1/10-2/9/10
FS #20-FAX LINE 1/10-2/9/10
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 53.42
44Page:
Packet Page 63 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :53.421168451/28/2010 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
116846 1/28/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 53.54
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 52.08
Total :105.62
116847 1/28/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.16
Total :56.16
116848 1/28/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.96
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM425-206-8379
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.96
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 100.65
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.65
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.64
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.19
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 70.96
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 58.18
45Page:
Packet Page 64 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116848 1/28/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 58.18
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 82.31
Sewer - PW Telemetry425-774-1031
Sewer - PW Telemetry
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.77
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.76
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.90
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 43.02
Sewer LS 7425-776-2742
Sewer LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.48
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.97
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
46Page:
Packet Page 65 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :910.081168481/28/2010 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
116849 1/28/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 1/10-2/9/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 375.94
Total :375.94
116850 1/28/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0833388191 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg thru 1/12/10
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 128.12
Cell Service-Eng thru 1/12/10
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 170.59
Cell Service Fac-Maint thru 1/12/10
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 116.81
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.22
Cell Service Parks Maint thru 1/12/10
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 59.06
Cell Service-PD thru 1/12/10
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 569.78
Cell Service-Planning thru 1/12/10
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.44
Cell Service-PW Street thru 1/12/10
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 13.24
Cell Service-PW Water thru 1/12/10
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 70.89
Cell Service-PW Storm thru 1/12/10
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 39.66
Cell Service-PW Fleet thru 1/12/10
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.22
Cell Service-WWTP thru 1/12/10
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.18
C/A 671247844-000010833388191
Fire Dept Cell Phone Service Admin &
001.000.510.522.100.420.00 -14.90
Fire Dept Cell Phone Service Admin &
47Page:
Packet Page 66 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116850 1/28/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 -74.50
Total :1,171.81
116851 1/28/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0827840053 C/A 571242650-0001
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 99.71
Blackberry Cell Phone Service City
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 113.36
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Community
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 224.05
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 118.92
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service FD Admin;
001.000.510.522.100.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service FD Admin;
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 333.87
Blackberry Cell Phone Service FD Admin;
001.000.510.522.300.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service FD Air
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 86.02
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR thru
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT thru
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 368.12
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor's
48Page:
Packet Page 67 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116851 1/28/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 153.37
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 57.56
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,051.66
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept thru
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 261.65
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 56.68
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 58.14
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 61.05
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 57.60
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 57.60
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP thru
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 116.57
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.01
Total :3,788.38
116852 1/28/2010 068227 WCCFA WCCFA2010 2010 VOTING MEMBER DUES
2010 VOTING MEMBER DUES:~
130.000.640.536.200.490.00 219.80
Total :219.80
116853 1/28/2010 068180 WCRC 2010 Mbr Renewal Annual Mbr Dues - S Fisher
Annual Mbr Dues - S Fisher
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
116854 1/28/2010 049500 WEST PUBLISHING 819879770 CODE UPDATES
RCW Supplements
49Page:
Packet Page 68 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116854 1/28/2010 (Continued)049500 WEST PUBLISHING
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1,581.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 150.18
Total :1,731.18
116855 1/28/2010 068693 WHATMORE, JEFF 2010 BOOTS 2010 BOOT ALLOWANCE - J WHATMORE
2010 BOOT ALLOWANCE - J WHATMORE
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 171.86
Total :171.86
116856 1/28/2010 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E64639 2613
UNIFORM/VAUGHAN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 252.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 23.26
2706E64640
UNIFORM/DANIELSON
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 196.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 18.04
2613E64641
UNIFORM/VAUGHAN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 65.00
2706E64642
UNIFORM/DANIELSON
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 65.00
Total :620.22
116857 1/28/2010 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 107416 GARDENING SUPPLIES
CASORON, SNAPSHOT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 657.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 62.43
Total :719.51
116858 1/28/2010 065179 WSAPT TREAS / MICHELLE MILLER WSAPT2010 T Umbaugh 2010 membership dues.
50Page:
Packet Page 69 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116858 1/28/2010 (Continued)065179 WSAPT TREAS / MICHELLE MILLER
T Umbaugh 2010 membership dues.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 35.00
Total :35.00
116859 1/28/2010 064170 WSRA Mbr ID 27 Annual Dues - S Fisher
Annual Dues - S Fisher
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 150.00
Total :150.00
116860 1/28/2010 065302 WSU - CONFERENCE MGMNT 22026169 Low Impact Development Workshop.Zulauf
Low Impact Development Workshop.Zulauf
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 220.00
Total :220.00
116861 1/28/2010 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY HARRIS0217 WSU PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION
WSU PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
116862 1/28/2010 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 9 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,156.80
Total :1,156.80
116863 1/28/2010 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 913 JAN-10 RETAINER PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Jan-10 Retainer Prosecuting Attny
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00
Total :11,330.00
116864 1/28/2010 073079 ZONES INC S16071830101 INV#S16071830101 EDMONDS PD
PENTAX PERFORATED PAPER ROLLS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 238.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.65
INV# S16071830102 EDMONDS PDS16071830102
PENTEX POCKETJET W/BLUE TOOTH
51Page:
Packet Page 70 of 236
01/28/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
10:40:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
116864 1/28/2010 (Continued)073079 ZONES INC
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 895.02
PENTAX POCKETJET 3
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 2,730.00
PENTAX CAR ADAPTERS
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 219.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 365.19
Total :4,470.46
116865 1/28/2010 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0137879 Traffic Control - Sign Shop - 25
Traffic Control - Sign Shop - 25
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 237.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 18.64
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 24.29
Total :279.93
Bank total :448,651.69168 Vouchers for bank code :front
448,651.69Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report168
52Page:
Packet Page 71 of 236
AM-2766 2.D.
Approval of Council Appointment
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Debi Humann Time:Consent
Department:Human Resources Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Council appointment to the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected
Officials.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Each even numbered year, the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials, per
City Code 10.80, convenes to review the compensation provided to Council and the Mayor. The
Commission is made up of seven appointments including one from the Mayor, two from Council,
and four from the Commission. This year the Commission experienced several vacancies
including one for Council. Interviews to fill the vacancies were held on Monday, January 25,
with Councilman Wilson and Councilman Peterson representing the Council's interests.
Following the completion of interviews, Councilman Wilson and Councilman Peterson
unanimously selected Norma Middleton to fill the Council vacancy on the Commission. For your
information, the other Council appointee to the Commission is Deb Anderson.
Attached, for your review, is Ms. Middleton's application form. Council approval is requested for
this appointment.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Middleton Application
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 02:27 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/28/2010 02:27 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 03:24 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debi
Humann
Started On: 01/28/2010 11:34
AM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 72 of 236
Packet Page 73 of 236
Packet Page 74 of 236
Packet Page 75 of 236
Packet Page 76 of 236
Packet Page 77 of 236
AM-2740 2.E.
Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None. For information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Ordinance No. 3516 authorizes the collection of Traffic Impact Fees for roads and became
effective September 17, 2004. Pursuant to Section 18.82.080(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, Attachment 1 is an accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee Fund activity,
including interest in the amount of $1,211.24, for the year ending December 31, 2009. Per section
18.82.100 of the Code, $42,283.90 has been used to pay the annual debt service to the Public
Works Trust Fund (PWTF) for the 220th Street SW Improvements Project. The balance will
remain in the Traffic Impact Fee fund and will continue to be used to pay future annual
debt service for the 220th Street SW Improvment Project.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Traffic Impact Fee Log
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 01/27/2010 03:21 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 01/27/2010 03:38 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/27/2010 03:49 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/27/2010 03:51 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 10:02 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 01/21/2010 08:45
AM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 78 of 236
Packet Page 79 of 236
20
0
9
2009
Da
t
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Re
c
e
i
p
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
S
i
t
e
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
F
e
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
Fu
n
d
N
a
m
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Amount TransferredCumulative Total
01
/
0
1
/
0
9
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$
8
8
,
4
1
5
.
3
5
01
/
3
0
/
0
9
0
8
-
0
4
6
3
0
4
8
4
7
7
Su
n
s
e
t
1
0
0
L
P
-
2
U
n
i
t
12
1
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
o
r
t
h
$1
0
5
.
6
1
$88,520.96
01
/
3
1
/
0
9
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$7
1
.
6
6
$88,592.62
02
/
1
3
/
0
9
08
-
0
0
3
1
04
8
5
5
6
31
6
W
a
l
n
u
t
C
o
n
d
o
-
7
U
n
i
t
/
M
i
c
h
e
l
31
6
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
$4
.
7
7
$88,597.39
02
/
2
8
/
0
9
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$8
3
6
.
0
0
$89,433.39
03
/
0
2
/
0
9
09
-
0
0
8
4
04
8
6
1
9
MK
G
M
a
r
t
i
a
l
A
r
t
s
-
3
A
v
e
S
P
r
o
p
11
1
F
o
u
r
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
o
r
t
h
$1
,
7
3
8
.
1
4
$91,171.53
03
/
0
3
/
0
9
08
-
1
0
0
4
04
8
6
2
5
Ch
a
t
e
a
u
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
80
1
4
-
1
9
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
$8
4
0
.
7
2
$92,012.25
03
/
3
1
/
0
9
Ma
r
c
h
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$6
9
.
5
3
$92,081.78
4/
3
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
i
l
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$1
3
.
9
1
$92,095.69
05
/
3
1
/
0
9
Ma
y
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$4
7
.
9
5
$92,143.64
06
/
0
4
/
0
9
07
-
0
6
8
4
04
9
2
2
1
Co
l
u
m
b
i
a
R
i
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
81
3
0
-
2
4
o
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
$1
0
,
6
2
7
.
8
2
$102,771.46
06
/
0
5
/
0
9
09
-
0
2
0
1
04
9
2
3
2
Th
e
W
h
o
l
e
P
u
p
21
0
1
0
-
7
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
$1
0
3
.
9
5
$102,875.41
06
/
1
0
/
0
9
AJ
9
0
0
8
3
(42,283.90)$ $60,591.51
06
/
1
5
/
0
9
08
-
0
8
6
1
04
9
3
0
8
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Y
a
c
h
t
C
l
u
b
32
6
A
d
m
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
$2
6
,
0
6
0
.
3
8
$86,651.89
06
/
1
9
/
0
9
09
-
0
2
7
3
04
9
3
4
4
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
C
a
s
c
a
d
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
61
0
F
i
f
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
,
#
E
$7
1
8
.
2
0
$87,370.09
PW
T
F
A
n
n
u
a
l
Lo
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
a
n
d
F
u
n
d
s
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
D
a
t
a
R
e
c
o
r
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
F
u
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
1
1
2
.
5
0
2
.
0
0
0
.
3
4
5
.
8
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
RE
C
E
I
P
T
S
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
Pa
g
e
1
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
80
of
23
6
20
0
9
2009
Da
t
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Re
c
e
i
p
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
S
i
t
e
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
F
e
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
Fu
n
d
N
a
m
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Amount TransferredCumulative Total
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
a
n
d
F
u
n
d
s
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
D
a
t
a
R
e
c
o
r
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
F
u
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
1
1
2
.
5
0
2
.
0
0
0
.
3
4
5
.
8
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
RE
C
E
I
P
T
S
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
06
/
3
0
/
0
9
Ju
n
e
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$4
9
.
6
2
$87,419.71
07
/
0
1
/
0
9
09
-
0
2
3
7
04
9
4
0
2
Su
b
S
h
o
p
65
0
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
$2
0
0
.
0
0
$87,619.71
07
/
3
1
/
0
9
Ju
l
y
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$1
7
.
4
3
$87,637.14
08
/
1
2
/
0
9
09
-
0
3
8
8
04
9
6
6
6
On
e
B
a
l
l
a
r
d
L
L
C
61
0
F
i
f
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
,
#
F
$1
,
3
8
4
.
6
5
$89,021.79
08
/
3
1
/
0
9
Au
g
u
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$1
0
.
8
7
$89,032.66
09
/
0
9
/
0
9
09
-
0
3
5
4
04
9
8
2
1
Be
e
h
i
v
e
E
s
p
r
e
s
s
o
2
23
8
3
0
S
R
9
9
,
#
1
1
B
$6
3
6
.
4
0
$89,669.06
09
/
1
5
/
0
9
06
-
0
6
7
6
04
9
8
4
2
Sh
e
l
b
o
u
r
n
e
8
-
U
n
i
t
C
o
n
d
o
63
6
D
a
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
$2
,
9
5
3
.
2
0
$92,622.26
09
/
2
2
/
0
9
09
-
0
3
7
6
04
9
8
6
5
Da
v
i
d
F
r
i
t
s
c
h
e
n
16
3
1
9
-
7
5
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
e
s
t
$8
4
0
.
7
2
$93,462.98
09
/
2
2
/
0
9
09
-
0
3
8
9
04
9
8
6
9
Ar
t
i
s
t
i
c
A
c
c
e
n
t
W
a
l
l
s
61
0
5
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
#
G
$8
1
8
.
4
0
$94,281.38
09
/
3
0
/
0
9
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
e
d
$4
.
2
7
$94,285.65
11
/
2
4
/
0
9
09
-
0
7
2
6
05
0
2
5
4
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
y
76
3
1
-
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
$2
,
1
4
2
.
0
0
$96,427.65
12
/
1
6
/
0
9
09
-
0
7
1
8
05
0
3
4
7
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
O
r
t
h
o
d
o
n
t
i
c
s
21
9
2
0
-
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
,
#
2
0
1
$3
,
8
5
3
.
5
4
$100,281.19 $100,281.19
20
0
9
Y
E
A
R
-
E
N
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
Pa
g
e
2
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
81
of
23
6
AM-2748 2.F.
Amending Provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D)(3) to Correct a Scrivener's Error
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Gina Coccia Time:Consent
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D)(3), Nonconforming Buildings and/or
Structures, to correct a scrivener's error.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the draft ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
Council adopted Ordinance #3696 in 2008 (see Exhibit 2) to address architectural detail added in
both side yard and street setbacks.
Narrative
The original ordinance contained a scrivener's error which undermined the intent of the ordinance
(see the whereas clauses in the draft ordinance contained in Exhibit 1). The draft ordinance will
correct the problem.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2: Existing Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Planning Department Rob Chave 01/27/2010 08:30 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 10:02 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/28/2010 11:20 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 02:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 01/21/2010 02:58
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 82 of 236
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
10/9/09
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC
17.40.020(D)(3) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND/OR
STRUCTURES TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER’S ERROR, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance 3696 which provides for
intrusions such as bay windows in the non-conforming setback, and
WHEREAS, this ordinance was originally brought forward to address
architectural detail added in both side yard and street setbacks, and
WHEREAS, the staff’s presentation to the Council Committee, to the Planning
Board, and to the full Council intended to permit features such as bay windows to “encroach into
a non-conforming setback not more than thirty (30) inches,” and
WHEREAS, on the recommendation of the City Attorney, the language was
amended to include another qualifier “… or one-half the distance from the property line” in order
to avoid impacts to adjacent properties from such intrusion in side yard setbacks, and
WHEREAS, the original purpose of the amendment has been subverted by
including a limitation to protect adjacent properties in a provision that is applicable only to
nonconforming setbacks adjacent to access easements and public rights of way, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be appropriate to correct this error as
within the range of alternatives considered by the Council and at public hearing, NOW,
THEREFORE,
{WSS745120.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 83 of 236
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECDC 17.40.020(D)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.40.020 Nonconforming buildings and/or structures.
. . .
D. Maintenance and alterations.
3. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural
improvements in commercial and multi-family zones may
encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access
easement or public right of way not more than 30 inches. Minor
architectural improvements may also be permitted in
nonconforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not
more than 30 inches nor one-half of the distance to the property
line, whichever is less.” ”Minor architectural improvements” are
defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and
architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and decorative
trim. Such improvements shall be required to obtain architectural
design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt such
improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire
Codes.
. . .
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
{WSS745120.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 84 of 236
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS745120.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
Packet Page 85 of 236
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS745120.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
Packet Page 86 of 236
{WSS745120.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 5 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECDC 17.40.020(D)(3) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND/OR
STRUCTURES TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER’S ERROR, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 87 of 236
Packet Page 88 of 236
Packet Page 89 of 236
Packet Page 90 of 236
Packet Page 91 of 236
Packet Page 92 of 236
Packet Page 93 of 236
Packet Page 94 of 236
Packet Page 95 of 236
Packet Page 96 of 236
Packet Page 97 of 236
Packet Page 98 of 236
Packet Page 99 of 236
Packet Page 100 of 236
AM-2761 2.G.
Ordinance renaming Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance renaming Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive, and directing staff to make the
appropriate changes in City planning documents, notification and signage.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council approve the proposed Ordinance.
Previous Council Action
On December 15, 2009, Council passed Resolution No. 1214 directing staff to prepare an
ordinance to rename Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive and to hold a public hearing.
On January 19, 2010, a public hearing was held by the City Council.
Narrative
The homeowners on Kairez Drive have requested the Council change the name from Kairez Drive
to Vista Del Mar Drive. Kairez Drive is a private street within the plat of Vista Del Mar (refer to
attached map). A public hearing was held at the January 19, 2010 Council meeting and no
comments were received. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council directed staff to
prepare an ordinance for the consent agenda to rename Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Ordinance
Link: Resolution 1214
Link: HOA Letter
Link: Map
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 01/27/2010 05:09 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 01/28/2010 11:54 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 02:27 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/28/2010 02:27 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 03:24 PM APRV
Packet Page 101 of 236
Form Started By: Robert
English
Started On: 01/27/2010 03:35
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 102 of 236
{WSS760385.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
1/22/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RENAMING KAIREZ DRIVE TO VISTA DEL
MAR DRIVE, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE APPROPRIATE
CHANGES IN CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
NOTIFICATION AND SIGNAGE, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2009, the City Council passed Resolution 1214
initiating the process established by ECDC 18.65.030 and calling a public hearing regarding the
ordinance on January 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, public notice was provided in accordance with such ordinance, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on January 19, 2010,
and
WHEREAS, based upon the staff report (no public testimony having been given)
and documents submitted by the residents indicating that the Declaration of Protective
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the plat of Vista Del Mar authorized its Homeowners
Association (HOA) to request to rename the private streets within the subdivision and that the
HOA of the subdivision had acted to request such action by the City, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A private street known as Kairez Drive and located within the plat of
Vista Del Mar is hereby renamed as Vista Del Mar Drive.
Section 2. The staff is hereby authorized to make necessary changes to the
Packet Page 103 of 236
{WSS760385.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
official street map, notify the post office and appropriate agencies of the street name change and,
where appropriate, provide signage within the City recognizing such change.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 104 of 236
{WSS760385.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RENAMING KAIREZ
DRIVE TO VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE APPROPRIATE
CHANGES IN CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS NOTIFICATION AND SIGNAGE, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 105 of 236
Packet Page 106 of 236
Packet Page 107 of 236
18006 Kairez Drive
Edmonds WA, 98026
August 12, 2009
Edmonds City Council
C/O D.J. Wilson - Council President
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds Washington 98020
RE; Street Name Change
Dear President Wilson:
This correspondence is to formally request the council to assist and enable the desire of the Kairez
Drive home owners who have unanimously voted via the “Vista Del Mar” home owners association
to have the street renamed “VISTA DEL MAR”. This is the nomenclature on the Plat descriptions
on the town records.
There has been some informal discussion with various individuals who indicate the street can only
be changed and named by the original number designation. This however, is not the home owner
association’s desire. At present there are five homes in the development and all have concurred by
vote to have the name changed.
Our request appears to us to be reasonable. The names of all of the right handed streets going south
from Perrinville are: Taylor, Kairez, Wharf, Blake, Cherry, Euclid, Driftwood, and finally Puget Ln.
Much has been done to enhance the street and the curb appeal of the neighborhood, all at the home
owner’s and association’s expense.
If this request can be accepted and authorized it would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ross Marturano
President- Vista Del Mar Home Owners Association
Packet Page 108 of 236
O L Y M P I C V I E W DR
T A L B O T R D
K A I R E Z D R
179TH PL SW
S
U
N
S
E
T
W
A
Y
178TH PL SW9010
9110 8910
17802
17804
17903
17901
17905
18006
18004
18002
17
9
1
0
17
9
0
9
17
9
0
7
18
0
0
7
Vista Del Mar Properties
By: GC / 01.13.2010
0 200100 Feet ²ADDRESSED OFF KAIREZ DR
ADDRESSED OFF 178TH PL SW
Packet Page 109 of 236
AM-2758 3.
Arts Day Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Arts Day, February 2, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City of Edmonds joins the Governor of the State of Washington in annually making a
proclamation for Arts Day. For the past 26 years the Washington State Arts Alliance has
coordinated Arts Day, a day when arts advocates from across the state gather in Olympia to meet
with their legislators to discuss arts and culture issues. It is an opportunity for constituents to
inform and educate legislators about the role of the arts in their communities and to thank them for
past support.
In Edmonds, partnerships that include the public sector, private businesses, individual citizens,
artists, and arts organizations are critical to ensuring that diverse arts experiences exist and are
accessible to all citizens. The City continues to play a key leadership role in the arts and promoting
the vision of the Community Cultural Plan. Integral to that plan is a focus on the role of the arts as
a vital partner in economic development and cultural tourism. The Arts in Edmonds bring people
together, strengthen our sense of community, enhance education, and contribute to a healthy
economy.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/26/2010 02:45 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/26/2010 02:47 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/27/2010 02:59 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 01/26/2010 12:58
PM
Packet Page 110 of 236
Final Approval Date: 01/27/2010
Packet Page 111 of 236
Packet Page 112 of 236
AM-2768 4.
Public Hearing - Interim Ordinance on Temporary Homeless Shelters
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Gina Coccia Time:15 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3769 - Defining temporary homeless shelter, and
identifying zoning districts where temporary homeless shelters are permitted.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Hold a public hearing. No action is required.
Previous Council Action
On December 15, 2009, the Council unanimously approved Resolution #1213 (on Council values
and direction regarding temporary homeless shelters) and also unanimously approved Interim
Zoning Ordinance #3769 related to temporary homeless shelters (see Exhibits 1 and 2, attached).
Narrative
A public hearing is required on Interim Ordinance #3769 within 60 days of adoption. Tonight,
we'll hold a public hearing on the ordinance, however no action from the Council is required.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Ordinance #3769
Link: Exhibit 2: Minutes from 12/15/09 Council Meeting
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Planning Department Rob Chave 01/29/2010 09:24 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 09:56 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/29/2010 09:57 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 10:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 01/28/2010 01:28
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/29/2010
Packet Page 113 of 236
Packet Page 114 of 236
Packet Page 115 of 236
Packet Page 116 of 236
Packet Page 117 of 236
Packet Page 118 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 15, 2009
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council interviewed the following candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission and Planning Board: John Dewhirst, Lois Broadway and Todd Cloutier. Mayor Haakenson,
and Councilmembers Plunkett, Bernheim, Orvis and Wambolt were present at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson arrived at 6:50 p.m.
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 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
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Wilson requested Item O be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember
Plunkett requested Item R be removed, and Councilmember Wambolt requested Item U be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
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 DECEMBER 1, 2009.
Packet Page 119 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 2, 2009.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115584 THROUGH #115605 DATED NOVEMBER
24, 2009 FOR $42,169.66, #115606 THROUGH #115801 DATED DECEMBER 3, 2009 FOR
$628,698.00 AND #115802 THROUGH #115936 DATED DECEMBER 10, 2009 FOR
$577,575.76. APPROVAL OF KELLY DAY BUY BACK CHECKS #48790 THROUGH
#48820 DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2009 FOR $33,005.84, AND APPROVAL OF HOLIDAY
BUY BACK CHECKS #48821 THROUGH #48913 DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2009 FOR
$224,035.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48914
THROUGH #48954 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30,
2009 FOR $914,791.67.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ERIC THUESEN
CUSTOM HOMES ($47,393.00), AND ELEANOR CORNER ($588.00).
F. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
DECEMBER 2009.
G. REAPPOINTMENT OF LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
2010.
H. LIST OF RETIRING BOARD MEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS, AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE SEASHORE
TRANSPORTATION FORUM.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 4 WITH
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
UPGRADES WITH RESPECT TO THE BNSF DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT.
K. 2010 HOURLY POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE, TITLE AND WAGE.
L. 2010 NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE.
M. 2010 ADDENDUM TO PRISONER DETENTION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
LYNNWOOD.
N. KENNELING SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN ADIX'S BED AND BATH AND THE
CITY OF EDMONDS.
P. SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING, INC. FOR SERVICE
YEARS 2010 – 2012.
Q. 2009-2010 FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN UPDATE #1.
S. ORDINANCE NO. 3766 – ADOPTING A NEW COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT.
T. ORDINANCE NO. 3767 - AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND THE
INCORPORATED WALKWAY AND BIKEWAY PLANS.
V. RESOLUTION NO. 1212 - THANKING COUNCILMEMBER RON WAMBOLT FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL
Packet Page 120 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 3
W. CONFIRMATION OF NEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBER.
ITEM O: WOODWAY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES.
Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon explained after forwarding the contract to the City Attorney, they
advised Ogden Murphy Wallace represents both Edmonds and Woodway. The contract was then
reviewed and approved as to form by the law firm Weed Graafstra & Benson. ACOP Gannon read
Section 7 which was added to the contract after it was reviewed by the Council Committee, “Pursuant to
RCW 39.34.040, this agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor or alternatively listed
by subject on the website of either party hereto or on other electronically retrievable public source.”
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE ITEM O. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM R: ORDINANCE NO. 3765 – AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
UPDATE THE “EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN.”
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this was an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City
Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Comprehensive Plan included several separate elements; the
Council typically amended the Comprehensive Plan element by element.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM R.
ITEM U: ORDINANCE NO. 3768 – CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8)
ALONG A PORTION OF 215TH STREET SW.
Councilmember Wambolt explained he pulled this item to vote against it.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM U. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT VOTING
NO.
3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO COUNCILMEMBER RON WAMBOLT, FOLLOWED
BY A RECEPTION.
Council President Wilson read a resolution commending, thanking and recognizing Councilmember
Wambolt for his service on the City Council from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009. He also
presented him a plaque in recognition of his service.
Councilmember Wambolt commented his four years on the Council had been a very good education. A
few years before joining the Council he did not know what issues were the responsibilities of the Mayor
and which were the Council’s responsibilities. He found the committees he served on very rewarding and
planned to remain on the Downtown Parking Committee, the Hwy. 99 Task Force and the Community
Technical Advisory Committee. He will miss working with the Council, City staff, Port staff and
Commissioners, as well as the interaction with citizens.
Councilmember Plunkett commented all Councilmembers bring a certain skill set to the Council;
Councilmember Wambolt was an excellent example of hard work and diligence. He recognized
Councilmember Wambolt for his ability to work with other Councilmembers as well as the ability to
Packet Page 121 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 4
debate and kid with him. He had enjoyed working with Councilmember Wambolt due to both his spirit
and his work habits.
Councilmember Peterson commented it had been a pleasure to work with Councilmember Wambolt; his
work ethic was without parallel. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s excellent sense of
humor, remarking he would be deeply missed. He looked forward to Councilmember Wambolt’s
continued involvement in the community.
Council President Wilson commented Councilmember Wambolt had been a tremendous resource and
asset to him and he appreciated his wisdom and guidance.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled Councilmember Wambolt’s and his initial contact was on a citizens
group. He looked forward to the role Councilmember Wambolt would continue to play in the
community.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for bringing sanity to the Council, recalling he
challenged the incumbent and his election allowed the Council to keep lower heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Wambolt’s willingness to change his
mind on an issue. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s preparation for Council meetings.
Although Councilmember Wambolt and he had not always agreed on issues, he had the utmost respect for
him and would welcome him back on the Council at any time.
Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a brief reception in Councilmember Wambolt’s honor.
4. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND DIRECTION REGARDING
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THIS
MATTER.
Council President Wilson explained at the Community Services/Development Services Committee
meeting Councilmember Orvis and he spoke with staff regarding the lack of a process in the current code
for permitting a temporary homeless shelter, whether a few days in a church or a tent city. They agreed
an interim ordinance would be appropriate to establish a process followed by further review and
discussion by the Planning Board and staff. He explained the intent of the resolution was to provide
direction to staff regarding the Council’s values to assist in developing a permanent process. He
explained the resolution was developed with the assistance of homeless shelter advocates in South
Snohomish County. He summarized the interim ordinance was not perfect but a starting point.
Charlotte Lawson explained she had been volunteering at a homeless shelter for approximately two
years. She explained homeless people exist everywhere and they often arrive at the shelter cold and
without adequate coats, gloves, hats. During the past 11 days when they offered shelter, the Edmonds
Police Department called four times to inform her of people they discovered living in their cars. She
described the importance of providing shelter for the homeless during emergency weather situations. She
commented on how easily people can become homeless through circumstances beyond their control.
Reverend Barry Keating, Maplewood Presbyterian Church, requested the Council allow churches
freedom from the ordinance that requires churches to have a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm
system. He commented groups of 100+ people are at the church each day without a sprinkler or
monitored fire alarm system. As written, the ordinance would not allow him to bring someone inside the
church that he found sleeping in front of the church on a frigid night. During the current economic
climate when it was difficult for government to provide these services, a group of volunteers and warm
buildings were available to provide emergency shelter. The ordinance seemed to indicate it was better for
Packet Page 122 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 5
the homeless to remain outside in frigid temperatures than take the risk of being inside a building that
lacked a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm. He assured there were homeless people in the
Edmonds/Lynnwood area, remarking it would have been difficult during last year’s four weeks of frigid
weather to obey the City’s ordinance. He urged the Council to consider waiving the ordinance for
churches.
Reverend Eileen Hanson, Trinity Lutheran Church, explained the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter
Network was a grass-roots coalition. Last year they provided 474 beds over 34 nights; this year they
provided 200 beds during the recent 11 days of cold weather. She commented on the diversity of their
guests; they include veterans, youth and pregnant women. The Shelter Network is a coalition of seven
faith communities with tremendous community involvement from approximately 200 volunteers. She
encouraged Council to look at this issue not from a stereotypical point of view but understanding the
diversity among the homeless and the under-housed (living in RVs and cars).
Catherine Roper, Lynnwood, an elder in the Maplewood Presbyterian Church, thanked Edmonds for
their concern about the safety of people in churches. She commented on the importance of community
shelters to provide safe, warm and dry emergency accommodations. Until communities are able to
provide shelter and/or employment conditions improve making emergency shelters unnecessary, churches
are providing a piecemeal, minimal temporary shelter. Until Edmonds was able to provide shelter, she
requested the temporary ordinance waive the requirement for sprinklers and a monitored fire alarm
system. She planned to also urge the Lynnwood City Council to provide temporary emergency housing.
Bill Ellis, Edmonds, representing Edmonds United Methodist Church and accompanied by two church
elders, commented although many believe Edmonds is a prosperous city, there are various types of low
cost housing and a wide mix of income levels. Snohomish County’s 10% unemployment rate is higher
than the State or national rate. The consequences of high unemployment are evident at the food bank; the
food bank served nearly twice the number of people this year compared to last year. Today they served
425 families which represent approximately 2,000 people; their recent toy shop distributed 1,060 toys.
Homelessness is one aspect of the economic crisis and results from unemployment, loss of insurance, and
severe physical and psychological suffering. He commented the homeless includes the near homeless,
people who are living in a car or van or stay with a neighbor or friend. The temperature that activates the
Emergency Cold Weather Shelter Network is 33 degrees. He summarized although there were not huge
numbers of homeless people in South Snohomish County, there were very few facilities. The coalition of
churches is striving to fill that need.
Brooke Burdick, Edmonds, explained he had became involved with the Cold Weather Shelter as a result
of his son’s Eagle Scout Project to collect food, cash and equipment donations to provide for those in
need this winter. Many of the people he met at the shelter while volunteering were not the stereotypical
person staying at a shelter. His son and he attended last week’s Lynnwood City Council meeting and
were discouraged because they were not interested in participating in a solution. He encouraged the
Edmonds City Council to show leadership in Snohomish County by acting swiftly to help the community
provide shelter for the homeless this winter.
Marilyn Nadeau, Edmonds, requested the Council’s support for the ordinance or any other action to
facilitate a shelter in Edmonds. A co-founder of the South Snohomish County Shelter for the Homeless
that was started at Trinity Lutheran, she enlisted the help of several other churches in the area. Their
criteria is 33 degrees or below for 4 hours or more. They only seek to offer a safe, warm environment for
the homeless who include men, women and children. This year they have been open for 10 nights and
housed approximately 200 people including several women. They expect to continue this somehow,
somewhere. She invited Councilmembers to visit the shelter the next time it is open.
Packet Page 123 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 6
Council President Wilson explained he learned by talking with homeless advocates that Edmonds has the
stigma of thinking no homeless people exist in Edmonds and if there were any homeless in Edmonds,
they would be promptly sent out of town. He assured that did not reflect the Council or the community’s
values. Although there are legitimate reasons some buildings could not be allowed to house homeless
people such as if they do not meet the State building code that requires sprinklers, there is a federal law
that allows the land use of religious facilities to override the State Building Code. He anticipated this
would be one of the only Council votes that would save lives. The resolution directs staff to be as flexible
and as aggressive as possible in waiving certain requirements to adhere to federal law.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City has taken two steps already, 1) the City for years has had a
reasonable accommodation process that provides for a waiver of any land use provisions to prevent full
use of property by disabled persons and the homeless community contains a large number of disabled
persons, and 2) the City adopted Ordinance 3730 that adopted the exemption process permitted under the
State Building Code. He explained the City was obligated to enforce the State Building Code and could
not amend the substantive provisions of the State Building Code without the State Building Council’s
approval, a process that takes 6-8 months. The provision for sprinklers is in the State Building Code. Via
adoption of Ordinance 3730, the City exempted existing buildings that would be used for indigent
emergency shelter from change in use requirements such as installing sprinklers. The State Statute
requires that code deficiencies that are exempted pose no threat to human health or safety and the
proposed emergency temporary housing must be less hazardous than the existing use.
Passing the interim ordinance will remove all impediments in the City’s zoning code in addition to the
previous adoption of the State’s Building Code provision and the reasonable accommodation process.
The Fire Marshal community’s position is exempting any use from the sprinkler requirement poses a
threat to health and safety. As attorney Bio Park discussed with the Council committee, that raises legal
issues. Washington State Constitution is broader than the Federal Constitution and Federal statutory
provision and requires, 1) the City’s enforcement of building codes and other requirements be flexible,
and 2) consider reasonable alternatives. He recommended continuing to explore what could be done
within the context of the State law and to assess the risks.
Councilmember Wambolt commended all the speakers for their work on this issue. He acknowledged
there was a problem and the citizens involved in that effort need the City’s assistance. He suggested
consideration be given to using the Senior Center for temporary emergency shelter.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked everyone involved in this effort. He described his past involvement
with the food bank and looked forward to the Council’s effort with regard to this matter.
Councilmember Peterson commented this resolution was the most important page in tonight’s 1,036 page
Council packet. He thanked Council President Wilson for bringing this issue to the Council. The
resolution and interim ordinance are important steps toward raising awareness of the problem in South
Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson thanked everyone involved in providing emergency shelter for the homeless.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1213 REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND
DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND
ENCAMPMENTS
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the intent of the ordinance was to remove all doubt that homeless
shelters were a permitted use in the City’s zones. The interim ordinance will be in effect for six months
while the Planning Board considers the matter and a public hearing is required within 60 days.
Packet Page 124 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3769 RELATED TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND ENCAMPMENTS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION ON RENAMING KAIREZ DRIVE.
Council President Wilson explained the Vista Del Mar Homeowner’s association President contacted him
with a request to rename Kairez Drive. There are two processes, one that costs thousands of dollars and a
second virtually no cost option where Council can direct staff to rename the street.
Ross Marturano, President, Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association, identified five residents of Vista
Del Mar in the audience. He explained there are nine existing homes in Vista Del Mar, two pending sales
and several undeveloped lots. Of the 15 lots, 13 voted in favor of the name change, 1 abstained and 1
voted no. He explained the name Kairez has negative connotations in the neighborhood particularly with
the Police Department. The street was originally known as 92nd Place West and changed to Kairez; the
plat is known as Vista Del Mar. A vote was taken in accordance with the Vista Del Mar Homeowner
Association’s CC&Rs and they are petitioning the Council to change the name. There is no implication
with the title company other than the City must file the name change with Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson inquired about a private road versus public road. Mr. Marturano replied they
are willing to have the road public or private. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this only initiated the
process and set the public hearing. Staff will provide a response by the public hearing regarding the
public versus private road issue. He requested a copy of the Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association
CC&Rs.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1214 INITIATING THE PROCESS TO RENAME KAIREZ
DRIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS “FIRDALE
VILLAGE” FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" (BN) TO THE “FIRDALE VILLAGE
MIXED USE” (FVMU) ZONE AND ESTABLISH A TREE RETENTION BUFFER.
Planner Gina Coccia explained Firdale Village is located at 9617 Firdale Avenue, contains 3.2 acres and 8
parcels. The buildings were constructed in 1942, annexed into the City in 1997 and the site is currently
zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The City received one public comment that is included in Exhibit 1
of Attachment 10. No public testimony was provided at the Planning Board public hearing.
She explained this item included a rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board
recommended approval of both the rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board’s draft
minutes are attached in Exhibit 2. In 2006 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to add goals and
policies for this neighborhood. A code amendment establishing a Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone
(FVMU) and corresponding design standards was approved in October 2009.
Ms. Coccia explained this was two separate actions, 1) a public hearing on the proposed development
agreement and 2) a closed record review of the proposed change in zoning from BN to FVMU. The
application requires compliance with ECDC 20.01 Types of Development, 20.08 Development
Agreements, 20.40 Rezones as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained the development
agreement is a Type V legislative application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public
hearing and forwards a recommendation to the Council for final decision. The City Council may hold its
Packet Page 125 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 8
own public hearing. The rezone is a Type IVB application; the Planning Board conducts an open record
public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. The Council
holds a closed record review which is being done tonight.
Ms. Coccia referred to Exhibit 3, the development agreement, explaining the City recently adopted a
development agreement process, ECDC 20.08, which functions similar to a contract rezone process where
the property owner deliberately enters into an agreement offering mitigation for the zone change. In this
case, the owner has offered to retain a large stand of mature trees along the north property line which
would ease the transition between the single family neighborhood to the north and the proposed mixed
use site at Firdale Village.
Factors for the Council to consider in a rezone are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning
consistency, relationship of the rezone to nearby property, changes in the surrounding area or policy,
economic and physical suitability, and the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared
to the potential increase/decrease in value to the property owners,
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would first hold the public hearing on the development agreement
followed by the closed record review.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Tony Shapiro was the applicant for both the development
agreement and the rezone. Ms. Coccia answered he was.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Exhibit C which is referred to in the development agreement as the
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) which refers to an Exhibit A. Ms. Coccia answered Exhibit
A refers to the site map attached to the development agreement. She explained the NGPE is the setback
along the north side of the property. Councilmember Orvis observed the development agreement did not
specifically refer to a NGPE on a map. Ms. Coccia advised the NGPE was also identified on Exhibit C.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the development agreement indicates a document in substantially
the form shown needs to be recorded within 60 days or the agreement is not valid. The developer needs
to return with a signed copy ready for recording and at that time a legal description would be provided
that matched the map so that the recorded document would have its own Exhibit A that identifies the
NGPE. Councilmember Orvis observed the Council was voting on a NGPE that was not identified. Mr.
Snyder explained if the Council approved the rezone ordinance, before it is placed on the Consent Agenda
for approval, staff would have a recorded document that matched the exhibit. Ms. Coccia displayed
Exhibit A and identified the location of the NGPE.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was any legal obligation to replace a tree that fell in the
NGPE. Mr. Snyder answered there was no replacement requirement; a provision requiring replacement
could be added. Councilmember Orvis responded he would like to include such a provision.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, urged the Council not to vote on the development agreement until it was in its
final form. The development agreement failed to require that commercial development accompany
residential and feared the result would be residential development similar to Pt. Edwards. She anticipated
the developer would develop the residential portion and then say the commercial was not feasible which
would result in the loss of a neighborhood business district. She questioned whether the development
agreement was a mechanism to avoid SEPA. She recalled being told in October that the traffic,
intersection level of service, would be addressed in the SEPA review. However, the same SEPA used
earlier in the process was being used for the rezone and development agreement. She cited answers to
questions in the SEPA checklist: what percentage of the site would be covered with impervious surface -
Packet Page 126 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 9
none; will any structures be demolished - no; how many parking spaces will be created or eliminated -
unknown; and how many vehicle trips per day will be generated - unknown. She urged the Council not to
adopt the development agreement.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Wilson recalled the development agreement was deemed the best mechanism for
retaining the trees. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining the initial ordinance imposing a tree buffer did not
comply with recent Washington case law; there was no legislative record that established the need and
why the tree buffer was the appropriate amount. He suggested retaining the trees via establishing a NGPE
in a development agreement.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder explained the property owner can remove dead or diseased trees in
the NGPE and the City has the right but not the obligation to replant and restock plants or animal habitat
or any other actions appropriate for preservation. The Council could require the property owner to replant
and restock.
With regard to SEPA, Mr. Chave explained this was not the end of the process. The project level SEPA
would occur later in the process at the time of design review.
Councilmember Orvis recalled during the development of the code to create the zone, there were
stepbacks incorporated on portions of the site where there was no buffer. He observed the stepbacks were
not required in the area where the trees would be retained. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent of the
development agreement was to ensure the trees were retained in the buffer. The zone specifies stepbacks
in the areas where the buffer does not exist.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Council President Wilson explained this put in place the zoning criteria and the design standards the
Council adopted via a 6-1 vote in October and this was the appropriate next step to retain the trees on the
site.
Councilmember Orvis recalled he voted against the zone, commenting the buffer was the key piece and
allowed the Council to approve a 50-foot building within 20 feet of a residential zone. He was not
convinced the development agreement would establish a NGPE because there was no map that identified
the area and it put the onerous on the City to plant the trees. He preferred the developer be required to
replace and maintain the trees in the buffer. He did not support the development agreement.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the applicant whether the developer would take responsibility for the
trees. Tony Shapiro responded a survey was done of the site that shows the exact location and size of the
trees. The trees are substantial firs that range from 50 to 100 feet tall and are 50+ years old. He assured
20 feet was more than enough to protect the trees and the criteria require that no construction occur under
the trees. The trees are located at the top of a bank; the site slopes from the north property line to Firdale
Avenue and much of the grade change occurs at the north property line. The 20 foot area where the trees
are located is essentially a plateau and there is a rockery in some areas that drops away 12 feet or more
where the construction would occur.
Mr. Shapiro disagreed that a 50-foot building would be located adjacent to the setback because the height
calculation is based on the average grade from the four corners. This takes into account the lower portion
of the site and results in a 2-3 story building adjacent to the single family development. He noted there
were no zones in the city that required more than a 15-foot rear-yard setback; they proposed 20 feet to
Packet Page 127 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 10
protect the trees. He did not anticipate his client would object to the Council including a maintenance
clause that would require replacement of a tree that died. He questioned the survivability of a small
replacement tree due to the high tree canopy.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson advised the closed record review on the rezone was a quasi judicial matter. The parties
of record are Mr. Shapiro, representatives of WNS Property Investment and Tamara Ancona who
submitted an email. Only Mr. Shapiro is present. He invited Councilmembers to make any disclosures
with regard to those parties of record.
Councilmember Wambolt disclosed he received a small contribution from one of the owners of Firdale
Village.
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed one of the owners sent him a campaign donation which he returned.
Council President Wilson commented he had been extensively involved in the zone rewrite for the past
four months. He had not received any political donations from any of the parities. He asked whether he
needed to recuse himself due to his involvement in the zoning rewrite. Mr. Snyder responded Council
President Wilson’s involvement in a legislative process did not disqualify him from participation. The
only reason for disqualification was if he had communications that were not summarized in the last
process or that he had already made up his mind about the action, pre-judgmental bias. Council President
Wilson recused himself because of the perception that he may have prejudged the matter. Council
President Wilson left the dais and the room.
Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmember Wambolt and Councilmember Plunkett whether they were able
to review and make a fair decision on the matter. Both answered they could. Mayor Haakenson asked
whether Mr. Shapiro had any objection to Councilmembers Plunkett or Wambolt participating in the
closed record review. Mr. Shapiro responded he did not object to their participation.
Ms. Coccia advised Exhibit 1, the staff report, includes an analysis of the rezone criteria as well as the
ordinance establishing the FVMU Zone. Mr. Snyder explained the Council would be making a
conceptual approval; when a development agreement in a suitable format with the NGPE is recorded,
staff would schedule the ordinance rezoning the property from Neighborhood Business (BN) to FVMU
on a future Council’s agenda.
Mayor Haakenson observed the FVMU zone and corresponding design standards were approved by the
Council on October 6 and the ordinance adopted on October 27. This is a continuation of that process.
Ms. Coccia agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board had reviewed the rezone. Ms. Coccia
answered they had; the draft Planning Board minutes were included as Exhibit 2. Only the applicant and
staff spoke at the Planning Board public hearing.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether in the FVMU zone approved on October 6, the language in the
zone would not be changed for five years. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Tony Shapiro referred to Attachment 7 on page 6, Section 16.100.040.A, addresses 25% of the heated
space of the built area must be in commercial. This was included in response to concern expressed by the
community that the development would be entirely residential. The materials provided to the Planning
Board also reviewed how the proposed rezone complies with the six criteria.
Packet Page 128 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 11
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO RETURN WITH AN ORDINANCE ON A FUTURE AGENDA THAT REZONED THE
PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) TO FIRDALE VILLAGE MIXED USE
(FVMU).
Councilmember Bernheim commented he was uncomfortable with some of the language in the zone
particularly the modulated building design allowing for greater building height. However, due to the need
to make progress on neighborhood redevelopment, although it may not be perfect, the City could learn
from any mistakes in future neighborhood developments.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. (Council President Wilson
did not participate in the vote.)
(Council President Wilson returned to the dais.)
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 BUDGET:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS,
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the budget amendment was presented to the Finance
Committee on November 17 and remanded to Council for review.
For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. Hines explained this agenda item contained Exhibits A, B and C and
a General Fund Summary and an Other Fund Summary. Councilmember Bernheim observed the Other
Fund Summary was entitled City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendments 11/17/09. He pointed out the
agenda memo refers to three attachments, 2009 Final Budget Ordinance, 2009 Other Fund Summary and
General Fund Summary. Mr. Hines advised the agenda memo included the General Fund Summary and
the Other Fund Summary. Councilmember Bernheim commented on the difficulty determining which
documents were referred to in the agenda memo when the title of the document was different. Mayor
Haakenson assured staff would label them more appropriately in the future.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that he was unable to adequately review the information
because the attachments were not properly identified in the materials. Mr. Hines commented the
documents had been available to the Council since November 17. He noted he had been unable to
respond to Councilmember Bernheim’s Monday email.
City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested amending Section 1 of the ordinance to state that Exhibit A
consisted of 7 pages. Mr. Hines explained the materials that were historically incorporated into the
ordinance were limited to Exhibit A; the other materials were additional information.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Bernheim that the documents should be labeled
more appropriately. Mr. Hines agreed that would be done in the future.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the General Fund Amendment to Revenues, observing some of the new
revenues were pass-throughs such as the WASPC Grant. He asked how many were pass-throughs versus
new revenue. Mr. Hines referred to Other Revenues Augmentations Offset with Related Expenses, noting
funds were shown in that section as well as in Other Expense Augmentations Offset with Related
Revenues. The amendments to budget expenses include $155,000 to the City Attorney and Eliminating
the A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December. Mr. Hines explained the
A-Found Contribution; each fund is required to contribute to the Equipment Reserve Fund. Due to
vacancies and expenditure reductions, the Equipment Reserve Fund is able to maintain an adequate
balance through yearend; therefore, contributions from the other funds are not necessary resulting in a
reduction in the expense.
Packet Page 129 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 12
Council President Wilson echoed previous statements regarding the importance of accurately labeling
documents. He asked why water, sewer and stormwater utility revenue was higher. Mr. Hines answered
all the utilities were increased from 6% to 10% in January 2009. The water utility tax increased from
10% to 18.7% in August 2009 and stormwater rates increased by 6.82% in July 2009. The City budgeted
conservatively for those increases. He summarized the increase was due to both the rate increase and
higher usage due to the dry summer.
Council President Wilson asked when a projection regarding EMS transport fees would be available. Mr.
Hines responded he planned to prepare that information during the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that the format of Exhibit A in Agenda Item 8 did not
match format in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 9; Exhibit A for 2009 has fund numbers and Exhibit A for
2010 does not and some of the funds have different names. Mayor Haakenson commented the only
difference was the 2010 budget identified REET I and II rather than Park Acquisition/Improvement and
Special Capital Fund. Mr. Hines clarified REET I, Park Acquisition/Improvement, was Fund 125 and
REET II, Special Capital Fund, was Fund 126. Councilmember Bernheim reiterated his concern that the
differences made it difficult for him to review the information.
Council President Wilson shared Councilmember Bernheim’s frustration. He commented Mr. Hines was
doing a good job but did not have enough staff. It was reasonable for a Councilmember to ask a question
after reviewing the Council packet and expect an answer prior to the Council meeting. He remarked this
issue was more sensitive because the City’s financial situation was of increased interest to the Council,
staff and citizens.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the materials were reviewed by the Finance Committee who are
accustomed to the fund titles, etc.
Councilmember Orvis referred to a breakdown of the increased City Attorney costs and asked the reason
for the increased expenditures such as the Edmonds GMA. Mr. Snyder responded the Council has been
approaching litigation from a contingency point of view rather than appropriating litigation costs at the
level they have been historically. The total amount is not greater than it has been in prior years. He
explained the GMA appeal was very complex; briefings in response to the approximately 40 points Ms.
Petso raised with the Growth Management Hearings Board were 50-100 pages each. Another large
expenditure was the LUPA appeal of engineering requirements.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the Breske litigation. Mr. Snyder explained it was resolved in the
City’s favor; a lot sold to a property owner burdened by a stormwater retention system. The owner
wanted to develop the lot and felt the City had an obligation to move the system. Councilmember Orvis
observed that matter cost the City $30,000. Mr. Snyder advised the Alderwood Water Agreement was a
40-year agreement; the Transportation Benefit District was another large one-time project. All other
items on the list were defense cases; the City did not initiate any of the matters. He has periodically
reported to the Council in Executive Session as well as provided detailed monthly billings.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the ending cash balance in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 8, the 2009
budget, did not match the beginning cash balance in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 9, the 2010 budget.
Mayor Haakenson suggested he pose that question during Agenda Item 9.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, questioned why the REET revenue in Fund 126 was only $369,000 when she
learned that REET revenue through September was over $450,000. She anticipated through yearend
Packet Page 130 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 13
REET revenue would be at least $600,000 particularly when real estate sales increased substantially in
November, possibly even as high as $700,000. She questioned the legal effect of a 2009 yearend budget
amendment that understates REET revenue. She questioned why the Council would adopt a yearend
budget amendment that did not reflect year-to-date receipts.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the Council review the cost and product of professional services.
He pointed out the budget for the City Attorney through September 30 was $510,000 and expenditures
were $415,000; he assumed the remainder would be expended before yearend. He questioned whether
the unused amounts in other funds would be carried over into 2010. He questioned the $3 million in
revenue and the $3 million in expenditures in the Multimodal Fund and the $339,000 expenditure and a
$22,000 interfund transfer reflected in the September 30 report.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether Exhibit A included fourth quarter REET revenue. Mr. Hines responded
it included the last estimate made with regard to REET. This budget amendment reflects only a $5,000
change to the REET funds. If the revenues need to be amended to reflect additional activity, those
amendments will be made in the first quarter of 2010. No amendment is deemed necessary at this time
because REET revenues receipts are similar to projections.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this represents the third quarter budget amendment. The Finance
Committee reviewed the amendment at their November 10 meeting; it should have been reviewed at the
October Finance Committee meeting which was cancelled due to the meeting with Fire District 1. Mr.
Hines explained these are changes to the spending plan approved by the Council in 2008. Staff presented
adjustments to that spending plan in October and this represents another adjustment. Amendments are
necessary to reflect higher expenditures to provide additional spending authority to address the costs. For
example, without the amendments, he did not have the spending authority to address the City Attorney’s
November or December bills or any other unanticipated legal costs.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mr. Hertrich could meet with Mr. Hines to review the
expenditures for professional service, City Attorney expenditures, and in the multimodal fund. Mr. Hines
agreed he could.
Mr. Hines explained the budget establishes the level at which revenues can be collected and funds
expended. A budget amendment is required to change those levels. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s
comment regarding the Multimodal Fund, Mr. Hines explained there was revenue authority to collect $3.1
million and authority to spend $3.1 million. The reality is approximately $761,000 has been expended
from the Multimodal Fund in 2009 and $807,000 has been collected. The third quarter report reflects
those figures.
Mayor Haakenson explained in response to Council questions, detail regarding the additional $150,000 in
City Attorney fees had been provided. He encouraged Councilmembers to share that information with
constituents who inquire. With regard to the Multimodal Fund, he explained a full report was prepared in
response to Finis Tupper’s public record request for an itemization of all Edmonds Crossing expenditures.
He suggested Mr. Hertrich obtain that information from Mr. Tupper.
Councilmember Orvis commented his understanding was the budget was a cap on the expenditures for
each fund and not necessarily a cap on revenue collected. Mr. Hines answered the cap was on revenue
collected as well as expenditures. Councilmember Orvis asked why the ending cash balance in 2009 did
not match the beginning cash for 2010. Mr. Hines explained the 2010 budget was developed in 2008
along with the 2009 budget. Initial amendments were being made to the 2010 budget and he would return
to the Council with additional amendments following his analysis to true up the 2009 budget to the 2010
Packet Page 131 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 14
budget. Councilmember Orvis observed the next agenda item was to provide enough expenditure and
revenue authority to function. Mr. Hines agreed, noting the intent in 2010 was to provide a budget
amendment every quarter if needed.
Councilmember Wambolt advised the REET projection provided at the December Finance Committee
meeting is $548,000. As only one month remains to receive REET revenue, he did not anticipate it would
reach $750,000. The 2010 REET revenue is projected at a higher amount because that reflects the
amount budgeted in the original 2009/2010 budget. Mr. Hines commented that would likely be adjusted
when he completed his analysis of the 2009 ending fund balance.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3770, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hines’ clarifying comments. He recalled the
adopted 2009/2010 budget included a note that the Council would pursue a levy because the Council was
concerned with the 2009/2010 budget without a fix such as a levy. However, the Council did not foresee
the Fire District 1 contract. Those two changes were so important to this budget that before he could
approve the amendments, he needed to spend more time reviewing the implications of the 2009 budget on
2010 as well as have a Council-driven conversation about the 2010 finances. For that reason he planned
to vote against the motion.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MID-BIENNIAL BUDGET REVIEW AND MODIFICATION:
ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN
ORDINANCE NO. 3711.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained this was the introduction to the 2010 fiscal year. This
represents the 2010 budget passed as part of the biennial budget approved in 2008 with two adjustments,
1) a $12,000 reduction in property taxes and 2) to reflect the Fire District 1 savings of $1.9 million.
When staff completes their analysis of the 2009 actuals, he will return with an amendment if necessary for
2010 during the first quarter of 2010. Mayor Haakenson asked if the changes in revenue and expenditures
made last spring in the 2009 budget were included. Mr. Hines answered they were not. Mayor
Haakenson pointed out for example the REET revenue had not been adjusted based on the adjustments
made in 2009. He advised the changes made to the 2009 budget would be reflected in the 2010 budget
via an amendment in the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why those amendments had not yet been made. Mr. Hines responded
because 2009 had not yet concluded. In order to make substantive changes, the prior fiscal year must be
completed to allow a complete analysis of revenues and expenditures. Councilmember Plunkett
questioned why the cuts made in spring 2009 had not been factored into the 2010 budget. Mayor
Haakenson answered the cuts made in spring 2009 such as eliminating funding of Yost Pool were not in
the 2010 budget. In addition, there were no furloughs in the 2010 budget.
Council President Wilson asked whether the revenues from the sale of assets to Fire District 1 were
placed into the General Fund for general operations. Mr. Hines answered yes.
Councilmember Bernheim asked why the 2009 ending balance in Fund 001, General Fund, of $1,052,000
did not match the 2010 beginning General Fund balance of $1,273,000. Mr. Hines answered the General
Packet Page 132 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 15
Fund beginning balance in the 2010 budget was developed and approved in late 2008 and has not yet been
adjusted for activity in 2009. That figure will be adjusted during the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the 2009 ending balance in Fund 125, REET II, of $450,000 which
does not match the 2010 beginning balance. Mayor Haakenson explained the 2010 beginning balance for
Fund 125 reflected the number in the 2009/2010 budget when it was adopted in 2008. That number
would be adjusted, likely to the amount in the 2009 budget during the first quarter of 2010. This was the
starting point in the 2010 budget approved by the Council in 2008.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Council was considering the 2010 budget. Mr. Hines advised
State law requires a biennial review.
Council President Wilson commented the Council adopted the 2009/2010 budget and had the authority to
amend the budget at any time. He asked whether the Council had the legal authority to amend the 2010
budget during 2009. Mr. Hines agreed the Council could amend 2010 budget but it would not be prudent
because there was no data to substantiate amendments to the 2010 budget. Council President Wilson
asked whether for policy planning purposes, it would be appropriate whenever an ending cash balance
adjustment was made to 2009, it would automatically make a change to the beginning cash of 2010. Mr.
Snyder read the provisions in RCW 35A.34.130 that require a mid-biennial review no sooner than eight
months and no later than the conclusion of the first year. He acknowledged the numbers were soft and
would likely require adjustment in the first quarter of 2010.
Council President Wilson commented the RCW required the biennial review by the end of the year but it
did not require it be done with the prior year’s numbers. Mr. Snyder agreed the best numbers available
should be used. Council President Wilson concluded the policy question was what were the best
numbers; in his opinion the best numbers available were not those approved in November 2008.
Councilmember Peterson commented although the 2010 numbers were not good, the current 2009 ending
cash numbers were only slightly better. The Council will be amending the 2010 numbers in the first
quarter. He anticipated that using the original 2010 numbers provided a better picture than if incremental
adjustments had been made to the 2010 budget throughout 2009.
Council President Wilson agreed with Councilmember Peterson, clarifying although the 2010 numbers
were not very good, the 2009 numbers were not perfect and a budget amendment would be required in the
first quarter of 2010. However, he preferred to take the time to ensure the numbers were good and risk
being out of compliance with the State’s biennial review requirement.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the State statute required that the mid-biennial review be a public
hearing. Mr. Snyder answered a public hearing was required. He advised the biennial budget process
included a series of reviews and adjustment over that two year period.
Mayor Haakenson advised these were good numbers, they were the numbers adopted by the Council in
the 2009/2010 budget. They simply had not been adjusted yet but would be during the first quarter of
2010.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, reiterated her question why the Council would approve a REET revenue budget
of $369,000 when year-to-date receipts exceeded that amount. She noted that contributed to a false
number at the end of 2009 that would require adjustment to the beginning balance of 2010. She advised
the information regarding the 2009 REET revenue was provided by staff in response to her public record
request. She assured she would not sue the City for using budget numbers that later turned out to be
Packet Page 133 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 16
wrong even if she disagreed that they were reasonable. However, she preferred the City use actual
numbers when the actual dollars have been received. She questioned the benefit of not including accurate
numbers other than potentially misinforming the public.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his question about the Multimodal Fund, the $361,000
expenditure, the availability of $339,000 in professional services and the $22,395 interfund transfer. He
expressed concern that his question was avoided and he was referred to Mr. Tupper for information.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s inquiry regarding the Multimodal Fund, Mr. Hines offered to provide Mr.
Hertrich with a copy of staff’s response to Mr. Tupper’s public records request that explains how all
moneys in the Multimodal Fund were received and expended.
In response to Ms. Petso’s questions, Mr. Hines explained in his professional opinion the 2010 numbers
should not be adjusted until further data from 2009 was available. The proposed amendments were ones
that could be made based on the data available.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Council President Wilson asked if the REET Fund should be updated as stated by Ms. Petso. Mr. Hines
responded he was not aware of the information Ms. Petso obtained via her public records request.
Council President Wilson anticipated the information Ms. Petso obtained was from the Finance Office.
He inquired about the amount of REET collections to date. Mr. Hines answered he did not have that
information available to him tonight. Council President Wilson was frustrated with voting on REET
amounts that he did not have 100% confidence in. Mr. Hines reiterated the numbers could be adjusted in
the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the REET collections were a matter of timing. He agreed it would
be preferable to have updated amounts for the REET fund for 2010. The $369,000 Ms. Petso referred to
was from the 3rd Quarter Report which did not include REET funds collected in the 4th quarter.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3771, MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE IN ORDINANCE NO. 3711, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Council President Wilson referenced concerns he had expressed previously and added it was a mistake for
corporations, households or a municipal government to place proceeds from the sale of assets into an
operating fund. He was concerned with adopting this ordinance when there was a 25% variance between
the 2009 ending cash balance and the 2010 beginning cash balance. He did not support the motion.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Council previously approved placing the sale of the Fire Department
assets into the General Fund. Council President Wilson reiterated his disagreement with that policy.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Packet Page 134 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 17
10. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF ORDINANCE NO. 3717, THE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED 2001 PARKS, RECREATION &
OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S REPORT RELATED TO THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE
OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITY.
THE 2008 PLAN REVISES AND UPDATES THE CITY'S PARK LAND INVENTORY TO
REFLECT ACQUISITIONS AND DELETE EXPIRED OR TERMINATED INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENTS.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained with two exceptions the Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board found the City's unanimous decision to adopt the 2008 Parks Plan
valid and within the Council's legislative discretion. In response to the Board's Final Decision and Order,
the City was remanded to, 1) conduct an additional public hearing regarding changes to the Parks Plan
which was accomplished October 20, 2009, and 2) appear before the Hearing Examiner regarding the
consistency of the Parks Plan with the City Comprehensive Plan Policy B, page 2, in regard to park
abandonment.
A hearing was conducted before the Hearing Examiner on November 19, 2009 and the Advisory Report
to City Council outlines the Hearing Examiner's conclusions that the City has demonstrated consistency
with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s recommendation is to accept the Hearing Examiner's
Advisory Report and Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks
Plan and a resolution terminating the 1997 Interlocal Agreement (ILA).
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether accepting the Hearing Examiner's Advisory Report and
Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks Plan and a resolution
terminating the 1997 ILA eliminated the Council’s ability to purchase the land west of Hickman Park.
City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it did not.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if the ILA for the property expired according to its terms. Mr. Snyder
answered there were two ILAs, one expired on its own terms and the other that addressed the City’s
obligation to maintain a playfield and use School District property was terminated by the other two
parties, the School District and Snohomish County. The Council’s vote to terminate the ILA ended in a
3-3 tie and did not pass. The Council vote occurred prior to the purchase of the half the property by the
City. Councilmember Bernheim asked the contract term of the second ILA. Mr. Snyder answered it was
indefinite.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the answers provided to the Council questions were not entirely
correct and she urged the Council not to take action tonight to allow her time to research the Council
questions. She explained the Council was ordered to follow the Comprehensive Plan which requires a
public hearing before abandoning property. The GMHB agreed with her that by writing the park out of
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan it appeared the City was trying to abandon the property. The Hearing
Examiner hearing was not properly noticed and several participants including Mr. Hertrich and she did
not know if they were supposed to address the ILAs or consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She
observed the Hearing Examiner noted in connection with Comprehensive Plan consistency that on page
62 of the Comprehensive Plan all feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces,
land that would have unique suitability for further recreational uses both passive and active. The Hearing
Examiner also found this property was uniquely suitable for recreation. She pointed out abandonment of
Packet Page 135 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 18
a park was consistent with doing everything feasible to preserve it. She recalled Mr. McIntosh citing the
need for playfields numerous times and that there are no large undeveloped parcels suitable for fields.
Ms. Petso urged the Council not to reaffirm the 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment and instead pass a
motion stating they did not want to abandon the park and planned to amend the Park Plan to restore
potential acquisition of the park to the plan and to list the playfield in the field inventory. She disagreed
with the finding that staff’s recommendation that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan would not impact the
appropriate balance of land uses in the City, pointing out it converted much-needed full size playfields in
unneeded housing. She expressed concern with the second ordinance that terminates the 1997 ILA for
Madrona playfields via approval of the 2008 Park Plan, pointing out the 1997 ILA covered both
Sherwood Park and Madrona. She referred to the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan to do
everything feasible, pointing out it was feasible to put the park back into the plan. To Councilmember
Bernheim’s question, she pointed out the 1997 ILA did not expire on its own terms, it has a 10 year
minimum term and cannot be terminated without the same formalities used to put it into place, approval
by the three legislative bodies.
Colin Southcoat Want, Edmonds, urged the Council not to terminate the ILAs that provide for playfield
usage at the Old Woodway Elementary School. He pointed out when the development company
purchased the property, they knew they were buying playfields and the property description listed the
ILAs. He recalled a few years ago the Council voted not to terminate the ILAs. He urged the Council to
take a stand to do something special for future generations. To remove the ILAs that protect this prime
playfield property from development would be a travesty. He recommended the Council retain the ILAs
and the option to purchase the land. He commented on the lack of playfields in the City.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this public hearing was not on the Hearing Examiner’s
recommendation on the ILA but the GMHB’s finding that there was improper notice and consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan abandonment policy. He pointed out the Hearing Examiner provided a review
and recommendation regarding termination of the ILA; however, it was advertised as a decision on
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The notices were later corrected to reference abandonment.
He recalled asking the Hearing Examiner whether the topic was abandonment or the ILA; she did not
answer his question and made a decision on the ILA. He summarized the notices were incorrect and the
Hearing Examiner mixed and matched the subject which invalidated her determination.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the GMHB’s order was that the Council complete its actions by
December 15 and report to the Board. To fill a need in a neighborhood, the City Council purchased a 5+
acre park to replace the temporary arrangement for the use of two playfields. The Council unanimously
approved a Comprehensive Park Plan amendment that confirms that. The GMHB ruled that two steps
needed to be done and the plan was returned to the Council for confirmation. He requested the Council
identify any changes at the October 20 public hearing to allow readvertising; no changes were requested.
With regard to a park or playfield, he explained the hearing was advertised with regard to the City’s
interest which was two ILAs. A decision was made not to request reconsideration of the GMHB’s
decision. He summarized the notice accurately portrayed the City’s interest; it would have been
confusing if the notice stated abandonment of a park where no parks exists.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the plan could be amended to reference potential acquisition of
land west of Hickman Park. Mr. Snyder responded a motion could be made to schedule that for next year.
If the Council wanted to amend the plan, public notification would be required. He explained the Park
Plan, Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Plan must be internally consistent and it was too late to
make piecemeal amendments this year.
Packet Page 136 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 19
Councilmember Plunkett observed any amendments to the Park Plan would require another public
hearing. Mr. Snyder responded if the Council wanted to amend the plan, they should direct him to
petition the GMHB for additional time. Councilmember Plunkett asked what happened if the Council did
not act tonight. Mr. Snyder responded the Council would be in violation of the GMHB’s order and he
would need to petition the Board for additional time to hold an additional public hearing. The alternative
would be to consider amendments next year.
Council President Wilson observed the appeal to the GMHB upheld 2 of the 50 counts. The GMHB
required an appropriately noticed public hearing and reaffirmation of the Park Plan. The Council
previously took the position that adoption of the Park Plan also terminated the ILA but the GMHB was
now requesting specific action to terminate the ILA. Mr. Snyder clarified that because there was no
record of the substitution of the park for the ILAs, the Hearing Examiner’s review and recommendation
was required.
Council President Wilson commented in reviewing the Hearing Examiner recommendation it appeared
that because it was no longer public property, it could not be used for playfields unless the City purchased
it and because the City did not own it, the City could not maintain it and should not have an ILA for that
responsibility and should terminate the ILA. Mr. Snyder clarified assuming abandonment had occurred
by the wording in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the question was whether abandonment was consistent
with the Parks Plan. The Hearing Examiner’s analysis determined it was that because the playfields had
been replaced with a park, and agreements with other agencies were provided for in the Comprehensive
Plan. The GMHB previously confirmed that was within the Council’s legislative discretion and the way
the Plan was established, that the City did not obligate itself to purchasing specific parcels.
If the Council affirmed the 2008 Plan, Council President Wilson observed the Council should also
terminate the ILA. If the Council made any changes to the Park Plan such as returning the property to the
list of potential acquisitions, it was still not appropriate to retain the ILA because the City was no longer
maintaining the property. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the School District and Snohomish County were
no longer involved so there was no one to have an ILA with.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about maintenance of the Madrona fields if this ILA were terminated.
Mr. McIntosh explained the ILA with the School District was for both the old Woodway Elementary and
the Madrona sites. The City still maintains and schedules the Madrona property.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the issue of terminating the ILA was not presented to the Council
prior the sale of the property. When the Council made a decision not to purchase all the property and did
not consider whether to terminate the ILA, it raised the problem of the property had been sold by the
School District but the ILA was never formally terminated. Mr. Snyder pointed out the ILA was
terminated by the other two parties; the City received a resolution from the School District surplusing the
property. The City entered into applications for grant funds with Snohomish County and negotiations
with the School District to purchase the site. He pointed out the assumption that because the City only
purchased 5+ acres it was not preserving open space; staff viewed it as replacing permissive use of
playfields owned by the School District with a 5+ acre park.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed interest in acquiring the remaining property but preferred that be
done via amendment to the Park Plan versus refusing to terminate the ILA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1215 TERMINATING A 1997 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AND ACKNOWLEDGING EXPIRATION OF A 1999 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Bernheim proposed a friendly amendment to keep the ILA in place for Madrona School.
Packet Page 137 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 20
Councilmember Plunkett recalled he was in the minor opinion with regard to purchasing the park
property; he preferred to purchase the entire 10 acres. Although it may be easier do next year, he
preferred to state the Council’s interest in acquiring the property via the ILA. Therefore, he would not
support the motion.
Mr. Snyder suggested the friendly amendment revise the language in Section 1, line 2 of the resolution
“accepts termination of the 1997 ILA as to the old Woodway Elementary site.”
Mr. Snyder advised the School District had already terminated the ILA. He suggested initiating
discussion with the School District regarding a new ILA for the Madrona. Mr. McIntosh offered to
confer with the Edmonds School District regarding whether the ILA for Madrona School had been
terminated along with the ILA for old Woodway Elementary School. Mayor Haakenson summarized if
the ILA for Madrona had been terminated, staff would initiate a new ILA.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3772, REAFFIRMING
THE ADOPTION OF THE 2008 PARK PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
ORVIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE
FOR 2010-2015 TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE
CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS,
UPGRADES OR EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION,
PARKS, STORMWATER, SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC
FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
INCORPORATES PROJECTS FROM THE RECENTLY UPDATED TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKS PLAN ELEMENTS; ADDS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH EXTEND
BEYOND 2015, AND SEPARATES THE MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND
PRESERVATION PROJECTS FROM THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT AND
INTO A SEPARATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was required by the GMA
to identify and plan for capital projects that support the City’s plans to accommodate growth.
Planning Manager Rob Chave provided historical context, explaining the Edmonds’ CIP (Capital
Improvements Program) dates from 1973. The GMA-required CFP dates from the 1995 Comprehensive
Plan. Although the terms CIP and CFP have been used interchangeably, the reasons for doing them – and
the requirements – are different
With regard to the CIP, Mr. Chave explained the CIP identifies improvements tied to a 5-year project and
funding schedule. It is a budgeting tool intended to tie budget decisions to 5-year project needs. The CIP
includes capital and maintenance items related to various utility and special funds. The CFP dates from
City’s first GMA Comprehensive Plan which was completed in 1995. The CFP identifies improvements
tied to a 6-year project and funding plan and is in response to a GMA mandate. Since City already had 5-
year CIP, the “easy” solution was to add another year and adopt the CIP as the GMA-mandated CFP.
Packet Page 138 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 21
Mr. Chave identified components found only in the CIP (6-year maintenance projects with funding
sources), only in the CFP (long range [20 year] capital needs, and in both the CIP and CFP (6-year capital
projects with funding sources.
He provided a comparison of the CIP to the CFP:
CIP CFP
Mandate? None GMA
Reason? Budget GMA
Time Frame? 6-year 6-year, 20-year
Include Capital? Yes Yes
Include Maintenance Yes No
With regard to what’s different this year, Mr. Miller explained in the past, the CFP was equal to the CIP.
This year the CFP is being separated to simply address GMA requirements. The CFP now includes long-
range capital projects in addition to the required 6-year capital funding list. Preservation and maintenance
projects are not part of the CFP, but are still part of the CIP.
He explained the change was necessary because the GMA Capital Facilities Plan procedures are
restrictive and provide less flexibility (e.g. amend only once per year or with budget amendment). The
GMA only requires updating the CFP biennially (WAC 365-195-315). The CIP is a financial budgeting
tool and logically should not be tied to a land use/GMA schedule.
Mr. Miller reviewed the ideal annual plan coordination schedule that includes the City Council retreat,
update of the Strategic Plan, budget, CIP, Transportation Benefit District (TBD), CFP and
Comprehensive Plan.
He summarized the CFP element can be amended on an ongoing basis throughout the year as part of an
amendment to the City’s budget or an update to other Comprehensive Plan elements. He relayed the City
Attorney’s recommendation to adopt the CFP update tonight to make it consistent with the changes made
in the Transportation Plan element approved in October 2009 and the Parks Comprehensive Plan update
approved December 2008. He advised the Council could address any unresolved concerns next year as
part of the next update cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett commented in order to include the Skipper’s site, the old Safeway property and
the land west of Hickman Park in the CFP, they must be in the Park Plan. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the
Park Plan already identifies the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Mr. Snyder clarified there was a
starburst on the map that identified a need in that area; specific sites were not identified. Councilmember
Plunkett commented the area west of Hickman Park was not identified in the Park Plan or the CFP. Mr.
McIntosh agreed. Councilmember Plunkett observed projects could be incorporated into the CFP via a
budget amendment in 2010.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was enough time to add projects to the CFP if the Council
wanted to ask the voters to increase the TBD vehicle license fee. Mr. Snyder advised all the plans needed
to be consistent and there was not enough time this year to amend the plans.
Because the CFP referenced the TBD, Council President Wilson asked whether a similar plan needed to
be adopted at the TBD level. Mr. Snyder answered no; the TBD adopted a project plan for street
maintenance items that are not on the CFP.
Council President Wilson asked whether the TBD had bonding capacity. Mr. Snyder answered it did.
Council President Wilson commented although there were no plans for a TBD bond, were there any
Packet Page 139 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 22
projects in the CFP items that could be funded via a bond. Mr. Snyder answered the TBD would need to
be reconstituted as capital projects were not its current purpose. He explained TBDs were originally
envisioned to fund large projects.
Councilmember Bernheim observed a roundabout at Five Corners in the amount of $1.9 million was
included in the CFP. Observing there may be projects other than the roundabout that he would rather
fund during the next 5-10 years, he asked whether staff would object to removing the roundabout from the
CFP. Mr. Miller answered the Transportation Plan update also included the roundabout; if it were
removed from the CFP, the plans would not be consistent. He pointed out the roundabout project was
scheduled in 2015 thus there was adequate time for the Council to reassess its project priorities.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how a project could be removed from any of the plans without the plans
being inconsistent. Mr. Miller suggested beginning the process by review of the TBD funding
mechanism next year with the Transportation Committee to develop a list of prioritized projects. If the
public approved an increase in the TBD vehicle license fee, the Transportation Plan and the CFP could be
updated to reflect the changes.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton commented if the Council
planned to consider any zoning changes that would intensify development at the Five Corner intersection,
the roundabout was a primary traffic mitigation feature and will be used to allow traffic to flow more
smoothly as development intensified.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Fiene, Edmonds, member of the Transportation Committee, commented the CIP/CFP was the most
important plan Engineering prepared. As a primarily built out city, attention needed to be given to the
aging infrastructure. He urged the Council to consider the CFP mid-year so that it could be considered
along with the budget. He reiterated the comments made by members of the Transportation Committee
last week that the Council needed to develop a transportation funding plan whether it was a TBD or other
mechanism. He expressed concern with the overlay cycle and the lack of sidewalks near schools,
commenting Edmonds could not consider itself sustainable if people in certain areas had to drive to leave
their neighborhood such as Meadowdale and Seaview. With regard to stormwater, he referred to two
projects that had been designed but were not being constructed due to a lack of funding. He summarized
water, sewer, stormwater and transportation are services residents depended on daily. Over the last 30
years the City has been doing regular water line replacement; this has not been done for the past 2 years.
With 130 miles of water line with a life expectancy of 100 years, the City needed to replace 1.3 miles
every year. He reiterated the need for funding for these programs and making capital improvements a
priority.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the Council was being told if they made any changes to the CFP, it
would be inconsistent with the previously adopted plans; however, she felt unless the Council made
changes to the CFP it would be inconsistent with previously adopted plans. For example, the Park Plan
has line items for miscellaneous park acquisition and waterfront acquisition; there is no such project in the
CFP. She pointed out a project could not be funded with REET funds unless it was included in the CFP.
She recalled assurance from Parks staff during the GMHB hearings that the City would acquire parks;
however, if the Council adopted the CFP with no park acquisition, it appeared the City was not planning
to acquire parks. The CFP also needed a needs assessment or a facilities inventory and recommended the
CFP adopted the other plans as part of the CFP so that the missing elements were provided. She referred
to the existing Capital Facilities Element in the Comprehensive Plan that included policies regarding
essential public facilities and hoped the proposed list of projects would not replace the existing element.
She was also concerned with stormwater projects, noting one of the projects on 238th appeared to dump
the water into the new facility under Hickman Park and she suspected the overflow would be Woodway
Meadows. She commented the new stormwater system in that area was not working well.
Packet Page 140 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 23
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that park acquisition was not included in the CFP. He
commented the “purple starburst” identifying the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center did not
adequately describe the boundaries of that area. He expressed concern with several projects in the CFP
including the roundabout at Five Corners, signals at 9th & Walnut, 9th & Main and 9th & Caspers, the cost
range for the aquatics center, and the estimated cost of the civic center playfield. He recommended the
City work with the School District to identify the old Woodway High School as a possible site for an
aquatics center.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Ms. Petso’s comment regarding inconsistency between the CFP and the Parks Plan, Mr.
Snyder explained the City has aspirational goals with regard to park acquisition and identified general
areas/needs. The CFP identifies specific funding projects. The GMHB found that was not inconsistent as
there was nothing in the GMA that requires a city to identify targeted parks; a city can take advantage of
opportunities as they arise. He agreed if the Council wanted to purchase property, the CFP would need to
be amended to add that property as well has have a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
With regard to the stormwater concerns, Mr. Miller explained the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan was
currently being updated and he anticipated it would be presented to the Council for review by the end of
first quarter 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if staff had investigated the 238th stormwater system. Mr. Miller offered
to check the system during the next heavy rain.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment that the purple starburst was not defined, Mr. McIntosh agreed it
was not defined in the Parks Plan but it was defined in the Comprehensive Plan as the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center. He commented the City had been aggressive about obtaining properties in
the past few years including property in Shell Creek, Old Mill Town, and Hickman Park. When
opportunities arise, the Council has the opportunity to make purchases if adequate resources or grant
funds are available. For example, the City received $1.7 million in grant funds to assist with the purchase
of Hickman Park, a record amount for a neighborhood park. The emphasis in the Parks Plan, identified
via surveys, the advisory group and recent trends in parks and recreation, is to partner with other entities
primarily the School District to improve existing properties.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson observed the CFP budgeted funds in 2012 for a signal 88th/196th Street
intersection although the consultant stated it did not meet the State’s warrants. Mr. Miller responded if
the intersection did not meet the warrants by 2012 other projects would be considered if adequate funding
was available. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained the intersection was identified as a
level of service F and an existing concurrency project. Therefore staff will continue to check whether the
intersection meets the warrants in future years.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES UPDATE.
Councilmember Bernheim explained he would support adoption but planned to review the plan more
closely next year in an effort to prioritize projects, tie them to available funds and include other projects
such as parks. He summarized the projects that he had concerns with were far enough in the future that
there was time to stop them if necessary.
Packet Page 141 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 24
Planning Manager Rob Chave encouraged the Council to conduct a strategic planning process at the
retreat.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson commented he had a number of reservations about the CFP. There were policy
implications in the CFP that the Council had not fully vetted. There was no mention of Yost Pool but
there was mention of a new pool. There was a $150,000 expenditure next year for 4th Avenue when those
funds could be spent on sidewalks. He suggested the Council’s review of the CFP occur earlier next year.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010-2015.
City Engineer Rob English explained this ordinance adopts the Capital Facilities Plan the Council
approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3773, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE
THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010 - 2015 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mike Cooper, Edmonds, explained four days ago he received a letter from a wireless company stating
their plan to replace a utility pole with an 88-foot pole that includes 3 antennas and possibly 1 microwave.
He displayed an aerial photograph identifying the location of his home and the location of the pole. He
was told that the same installation was attempted approximately ten years ago at a nearby church property
and was moved to a more appropriate location atop a water tower. He relayed his neighbors’ and his
concerns that the installation would lower property values, that it was more appropriate for a commercial
or multi family zone where the height of the pole would be more suitable, and health risks of the RF
signal in the microwave. He referred to an east-west easement on his property along the driveway for a
pipe, advising the proposed installation included a 13x7 foot underground vault. He suggested, 1) the
City revisit the existing codes with regard to installation of antennas in single family residential areas, and
2) the proposed pole be relocated to another area.
Mayor Haakenson explained Clearwire proposed to replace a 70-foot PUD pole with a wood pole as
required by the code. Clearwire is holding a neighborhood meeting on December 21, also a requirement
in the City’s Code. Mayor Haakenson clarified the City could regulate the type of pole (wood), the height
of the pole and the size of the equipment on the top of the pole and the equipment on the ground. He
suggested the neighbors attend the December 21 meeting and request the pole be installed elsewhere.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained federal law prohibited the City from regulating health aspects.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their work and commitment to the issues of the budget,
parks, and the CFP; it was clear the public’s concerns had gotten through and there appeared to be an
intent to address their concerns. She echoed the request of the Council to review the CFP earlier in the
year. She was frustrated the GMHB issued a requirement that the Council obtain a recommendation from
the Hearing Examiner; the Hearing Examiner gave a recommendation and the Council was not allowed to
consider it tonight. She reiterated her question regarding how the Capital Facilities Plan affected the
existing Capital Facilities element. She was hopeful the plan was simply added to the existing element.
Packet Page 142 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 25
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Petso’s comments about the irregularities with regard to the
Hearing Examiner. He thanked Mr. Clifton for providing him an answer regarding the $361,000 in the
Multimodal Fund.
14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 8, 2009
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee was provided a briefing on homeless shelters, an issue the
Council discussed on tonight’s agenda. Next the Committee continued its discussion on bikini barista
stands. The Committee discussed dogs and Sunset Beach and determined a person on the beach would
have had to illegally cross the tracks; no action was taken on this item. The Committee also discussed
removing colored utility markings; the Committee will continue to research this matter. Staff provided
the Committee an update on the Stormwater Code. Next steps include State review and SEPA review
before it is presented to the Council in 2010.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee was provided the Third Quarter Budget Report for 2009
as well as the General Fund Report for the month of November. Staff presented the 2010 Non-
Represented Employee Pay Schedule; after conducting a salary survey, it was determined no changes
were necessary. Staff also presented the 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title and Wage; after
conducting a salary survey, several positions were downgraded.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee reviewed several end-of-year housekeeping contracts
that were approved on the Consent Agenda including the 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention
Agreement with the City of Lynnwood, Kenneling Services Contract between Adix Bed and Bath for
Dogs and the City, Contract for Fleet Services with Snohomish County Fire District 1, and Subscriber
Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Service Years 2010-2012. Fire staff reviewed Fire
Department transition issues with the Committee. The Committee also discussed the City’s current
ordinance on barking dogs and whether to reduce the number of complainants from three to two. It was
agreed to leave the number at three and residents were encouraged to call 911 to report a barking dog as
dispatchers prioritize calls.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Wambolt for his service and wished him
well.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson echoed Mayor Haakenson’s comments to Councilmember Wambolt. Next, he
commented that after requesting information from Human Resources regarding total compensation, he
learned the City provides a 7.5% of salary contribution to their pension fund. He suggested the amount of
the contribution be discussed during the budget process next year. He also expressed his appreciation for
the opportunity to serve as Council President and for the Council’s work on sustainability that has made
Edmonds a leader. He looked forward to sustainability being a continued part of next year’s agenda. He
commented the Council had also been successful at elevating the City’s financial situation to the public.
That will continue next year and he anticipated a return to an annual budget may be considered.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated his thanks to Councilmember Wambolt and his appreciation for his
hard work which was an example to all. He wished the Council and the public a Happy Holiday and
Packet Page 143 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 26
looked forward to a successful 2010 with the Council and the Edmonds community. He emphasized the
importance of homeless shelters and urged the public to reflect on those less fortunate.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for his service and wished everyone a Merry
Christmas.
Councilmember Plunkett wished everyone Season Greetings and commented he would sincerely miss
meeting with Councilmember Wambolt.
Councilmember Bernheim echoed his earlier comments to Councilmember Wambolt. He thanked
Council President Wilson for his service as Council President, particularly his work organizing the levy
and creating the Economic Development Commission. Both had required a great deal of time and were
very valuable at raising the public’s awareness of the City’s financial issues.
Councilmember Wambolt thanked everyone for their kind comments, noting he would miss serving on
the Council. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Healthy and Successful 2010.
Mayor Haakenson also wished everyone Happy Holidays.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Packet Page 144 of 236
AM-2769 5.
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3775 - Amending Title 20 ECDC, Review
Criteria and Procedures
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3775 - Amending Title 20 ECDC, Review Criteria
and Procedures, to expand opportunities for closed record administrative appeals.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the updated interim zoning ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
City Council approved interim zoning ordinance #3775 on January 5, 2010.
Narrative
On January 5, 2010, the City Council approved interim zoning ordinance #3775 amending ECDC
Title 20 to expand opportunities for closed record appeals by essentially re-instating the City's
appeals processes to what they had been prior to the passage of ordinance #3736 in June of 2009.
Subsequent to the Council action of January 5th, staff has identified certain changes that should be
made (see attached memo, Exhibit 2).
The original ordinance #3775 passed on January 5th is contained in Exhibit 3; the Council minutes
from January 5th are contained in Exhibit 4.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed updated ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2: Staff memo describing proposed ordinance updates
Link: Exhibit 3: Ordinance #3775
Link: Exhibit 4: City Council minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 02:59 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/28/2010 03:14 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 03:24 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob Started On: 01/28/2010 02:20
Packet Page 145 of 236
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 01/28/2010 02:20
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 146 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
BFP/WSS
01/04/10
R:1/28/10gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3775
AND TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED
RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Title 20 ECDC was recently amended; and
WHEREAS, during said recent amendment, closed record administrative appeals
before the City Council on quasi judicial matters were limited; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to afford the opportunity for closed record
appeals on quasi judicial matters as it did before the aforementioned amendment; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3775, the
City Council deems it to be in the public interest to correct certain references in Title 20 to
achieve consistency and restore or clarify provisions eliminated in the original code amendment
and relevant to the amendments of Interim Ordinance No. 3775; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the findings as set forth in
the “WHEREAS” clauses, which are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference in
support of this interim Ordinance.
Packet Page 147 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 2 -
Section 2. Amended. Interim Ordinance 3775 and subsection ECDC
20.01.003(A) of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
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 formal
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
Preliminary
planned
residential
development
Architectural
design board
review
Final planned
residential
development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide zoning
map amendments
Permitted uses
not requiring
site plan review
Home
occupation
permit
Site plan/major
amendments to
site plans
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Comprehensive
plan amendments
Special use
permits
Accessory
dwelling unit
Conditional
use
Annexations
Minor
amendments to
planned
residential
development
SEPA
determinations
General
variances and
sign permit
variances
Development
regulations
Minor
preliminary
plat
amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Draft
environmental
impact
statement
Master plan
Staff design
review
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
formal plats
Packet Page 148 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 3 -
Sign permits Preliminary
short plats
Final short
plats
Land clearing /
grading
Section 3. Amended. Subsection 17.50.090(A)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Applications for a conditional use permit, or an appeal of a
staff decision approving or denying a one-year extension thereof shall
be reviewed by the hearing examiner under the same terms and
conditions as any conditional use permit utilizing the criteria contained
in Chapter 20.05 ECDC and under the procedural requirements
contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. An application for a two-year
extension of a conditional use permit for a temporary parking lot shall
be processed in the same manner as an initial application for a
conditional use permit for a temporary parking lot and new or changed
conditions may be imposed in the course of that process. Decisions of
the hearing examiner on granting or extending conditional use permits
for temporary parking lots shall be appealable to the city council under
the process contained in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
Section 4. Amended. Interim Ordinance 3775 and Section 17.70.010, Other
temporary buildings., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
17.70.010 Other temporary buildings.
Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030, a conditional use permit shall
be required to construct a temporary building in any zone. The permit
shall be administratively reviewed by staff and shall be valid for a
period of one year; provided, however, that said permit may be
extended by the development services director for a single one-year
extension upon submittal of a written application prior to the
expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of the zoning
district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision granting or
denying such a permit or extension shall be reviewed by the hearing
examiner in accordance with the requirements for any other
conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC,
Packet Page 149 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 4 -
Section 5. Amended. Section 17.75.020, Primary uses requiring a conditional use
permit., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining shall be a primary use requiring a conditional use
permit in the BN – neighborhood business zone, BC – community
business zone, BD – downtown business zone, CW – commercial
waterfront zone, and CG – general commercial zone, for outdoor
seating which exceeds 10 percent of the existing interior seating in the
establishment or more than eight seats, whichever is greater. This use
shall be established and maintained only in accordance with the terms
of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a
Type III-B decision under the procedural requirements contained in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for
imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on
operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buffering of
the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All
seating permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be
located outside of public rights-of-way. If outdoor seating is approved
under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required
for the outdoor dining.
Section 6. Amended. Subsection 17.100.030(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Decisions to approve, condition, deny, review or decline to
renew a CUP shall be a Type III-B decision.
Section 7. Amended. Section 20.05.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on
conditional use permit applications as Type III-B decisions as set forth
in ECDC 20.01.003.
B. Appeals. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decisions shall be
to the city council in accordance with Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if
no building permit is required, substantially commences the use
Packet Page 150 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 5 -
allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use
permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension before the expiration date and the city
approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any
extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development
director as a Type II decision.
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property
for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other
property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if
the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the required findings can be
made.
Section 8. Amended. Section 20.19.010, Conditional use permit required., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.19.010 Conditional use permit required.
When a conditional use permit is required by the provisions of Title 16
ECDC relating to the zoning districts, conditional use permit
applications for operation of a mini day-care shall be processed as a
Type III-B decision utilizing the criteria set forth in this chapter. In
addition to the specific criteria set forth herein, the hearing examiner
and city council on appeal shall also review the application under the
criteria and required findings set forth in Chapter 20.05 ECDC relating
to conditional use permits in order to establish that the proposed
facility is not deleterious to the immediately surrounding
neighborhood nor constitutes a public nuisance. The hearing examiner,
or the city council on appeal, may impose reasonable conditions on the
approval of the conditional use permit for mini day-care facilities in
order to ensure that the criteria of ECDC 20.19.020 are met and that
the facility is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The city
council’s decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 9. Amended. Section 20.19.050, Appeal., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Page 151 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 6 -
20.19.050 Appeal.
Appeals may be taken from the hearing examiner’s decision to the city
council under the provisions of Chapter 20.07 ECDC. An appellant
may challenge the imposition of conditions or may elect to challenge a
later determination as to whether those conditions have been met. The
city council’s decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 10. Amended. Subsection 20.20.010(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the
requirements of subsection A of this section may be approved as a
conditional use permit (Type III-B decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05
ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC, if the
home occupation:
Section 11. Amended. Section 20.55.030, Review., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.55.030 Review.
The hearing examiner shall review and issue decisions on shoreline
permits as a Type III-B decision, using the criteria contained in the
city shoreline master program, Chapter 23.10 ECDC, the policies of
the Shoreline Act and of Chapter 173-14 WAC, or as the same may be
amended.
Section 12. Amended. Subsection 20.75.065(D) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall
review a formal subdivision as a Type III-B decision in accordance
with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 13. Amended. Section 20.75.070, Formal subdivision - Time limit., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.75.070 Formal subdivision – Time limit.
A decision on preliminary plats of a proposed formal subdivision shall
be made within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant
Packet Page 152 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 7 -
agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to
prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be
included within said 90 days.
Section 14. Amended. Section 20.85.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-B
decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
B. Appeals. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decisions shall be to
the city council in accordance with Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner
within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire
and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an
extension before the expiration and the city approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension
of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a
Type II decision (Staff Decision – Notice Required).
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has
been approved and may not be transferred to any other property.
Section 15. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as
a Type III-B decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance
applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based
on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance
criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
Packet Page 153 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 8 -
Section 16. Interim Ordinance 3775 and the Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 20.100 Miscellaneous Review is hereby amended by the addition of a new section
20.100.030 Return of Appeal Fee to read as follows:
If an appeal to the City Council is upheld, the appeal fee shall be
returned to the appellant. In the event an appeal is upheld in an
administrative hearing conducted under the appeal processes
provided for in ECDC 20.110.040(B) or (C), including appeals
from the order of the building official, zoning official, or code
enforcement officer, the appeal fee shall also be returned.
Section 17. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.106, this interim Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development as required by law.
Section 18. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this interim Ordinance.
Section 19. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 154 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 9 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 155 of 236
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 10 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
INTERIM ORDINANCE 3775 AND TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 156 of 236
City of Edmonds Planning Division
Date: January 28, 2010
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject: Updates to the Interim Zoning Ordinance 3775, amending Title 20 Review
Criteria and Procedures
The City Council adopted Ordinance #3775 on January 5, 2010. In reviewing that ordinance, I
believe there are a couple of corrections that need to be made while the ordinance is in effect.
These are:
Ordinance Section 2, page 2
Change: in Table A, under Type I decisions, add “Final short plats” to the list. Also, change
the references to “long plat” under III-A and IV-B to “formal plat” to be consistent with the
terminology used in ECDC 20.75.
Reason: This process has been in effect for many years and was not changed by the 2009
Title 20 amendments. Short plats (both preliminary and final approvals) are a staff decision,
with the preliminary approval being appealable to the Hearing Examiner. The final approval
is a ministerial approval of the recording documents.
Ordinance Section 2, page 2
Change: in Table A, under Type IV-A decisions, “Final plats” should be changed to “Final
formal plats.”
Reason: To be consistent, as indicated above.
Ordinance Section 2, page 3
Change: 17.70.010 Other temporary buildings. I believe the last clause in this paragraph,
“with the decision being appealable to the city council under the proecedures applicable to
any other conditional use permit,” should be deleted.
Reason: As a staff decision, this can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, but can’t
subsequently be appealed to the City Council. Only one appeal of a staff decision on a project
permit application is allowed by state law.
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 157 of 236
Ordinance Section 16, p. 7.;
Change: Add a new provision, ECDC 20.100.030 Return of Appeal, which says:
If an appeal to the City Council is upheld, the appeal fee shall be returned to the appellant. In
the event an appeal is upheld in an administrative hearing conducted under the appeal
processes provided for in ECDC 20.110.040(B) or (C), including appeals from the order of
the building official, zoning official, or code enforcement officer, the appeal fee shall also be
returned.
Reason: When Council appeals were eliminated, Section 20.105.045 was repealed. With the
restoration of appeals to Council, these provisions should be reinstated. Staff concurs with
recent citizen comments that successful appeals in the civil enforcement process should also
receive the appeal fees.
Packet Page 158 of 236
Packet Page 159 of 236
Packet Page 160 of 236
Packet Page 161 of 236
Packet Page 162 of 236
Packet Page 163 of 236
Packet Page 164 of 236
Packet Page 165 of 236
Packet Page 166 of 236
Packet Page 167 of 236
Packet Page 168 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 5, 2010
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
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
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. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Councilmember Plunkett advised this was the beginning of his fourth term, his twelfth year on the
Council. He introduced his fiancée Patty Corbin and his daughter, Megan Elder. His daughter
administered the oath of office to Michael Plunkett.
Maria Montalvo, Councilmember Peterson’s wife, administered the oath of office to Strom Peterson.
Judge Stephen Dwyer administered the oath of office to Adrienne Fraley Monillas. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas recognized several guests in the audience including her sister, mother, aunts, cousins,
brothers, son and his father, Snohomish County Council Member Mike Cooper, Representative Marilyn
Chase and several friends.
2. RECEPTION IN HONOR OF NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS
At 7:10 p.m. Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a reception in honor of the newly elected
officials.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of two items to the agenda: “Resolution Opposing Commercial
Air Passenger and Other Incompatible Air Service at Paine Field Located Within Snohomish County” as
Agenda Item 18B, and “Interim Ordinance Amending Title 20 ECDC Review Criteria and Procedures to
Expand Opportunities for Closed Record Administrative Appeals” as Agenda Item 18C. It was the
consensus of the Council to add the “Resolution Opposing Commercial Air Passenger and Other
Incompatible Air Service at Paine Field” to the Consent Agenda as Item 4J.
Packet Page 169 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
With regard to the Council minutes, Agenda Item 4B, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained he sent the
Council a memo regarding the Reaffirmation of the 2008 Park Plan, that noted the dates he cited when the
City closed on the 5.5 acre park and the date the Council did not vote to affirm the revocation of the
Interlocal Agreement were incorrect. He also confirmed the Council vote was via a 3-4 vote, not a 3-3
vote. The minutes correctly reflect what was stated.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Consent Agenda Item 4J, Resolution Opposing Commercial Air Passenger
and Other Incompatible Air Service at Paine Field Located Within Snohomish County, explaining the
Council has reaffirmed this resolution every year for the past 3-4 years. At a public hearing last night at
Meadowdale High School on the environmental impact findings related to commercial air service at Paine
Field, an Edmonds citizen stated the City Council was railroaded into passing the resolution several years
ago and it did not reflect the current Council’s position. Therefore, the resolution was placed on tonight’s
agenda to reaffirm the Council’s position.
Mayor Haakenson advised the FAA/Snohomish County has scheduled three public hearings on the EIS,
last night’s meeting at Meadowdale High School, tonight in Everett and the third public hearing,
originally scheduled at the Lynnwood Convention Center on January 21, has been relocated to Kamiak
High School in Mukilteo.
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115937 THROUGH #116129 DATED DECEMBER
17, 2009 FOR $855,651.44, #116130 THROUGH #116169 DATED DECEMBER 22, 2009
FOR $141,316.01, AND #116170 THROUGH #116196 DATED DECEMBER 30, 2009 FOR
$327,839.29. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48955
THROUGH #48988 FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 15,
2009 FOR $820,485.52.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SECURITY
CONTRACTOR SERVICES ($1,775.28), FIDALGO PAVING & CONSTRUCTION
($60,215.94), BOB AND WENDY CHAFFEE ($144.66), PENNY J. EVERS ($165.56), AND
BRANDON M. JOHNSON ($158.67).
F. APPROVAL OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION 2010 CULTURAL TOURISM
PROMOTION AWARDS CONTRACTS TO PROMOTE CULTURAL EVENTS THAT
BRING VISITORS TO EDMONDS.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 WITH
PERTEET, INC. FOR THE 2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECT.
Packet Page 170 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 24
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the legislature was required to fund the LEOFF 1 medical
liability, recognizing they had neglected to fund it adequately in the past 3-4 years. Mr. Doubleday
agreed it was their obligation but they had not addressed it in recent years and likely would not during this
legislative session. He agreed it would become an issue eventually because there was a huge liability.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was her understanding Senator Keiser planned to propose
a bill this session because PERS 1 was also underfunded.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Bernheim pointed out the State Legislative Agenda could be amended at any time.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE – CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER WEB PAGES
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO TABLE ITEM 17. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TIED (3-
3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON
OPPOSED. TO BREAK THE TIE, MAYOR HAAKENSON VOTE IN OPPOSITION. MOTION
FAILED.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
POSTPONE AGENDA ITEM 17 SUBJECT TO SCHEDULING BY THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Bernheim advised this item would be rescheduled within a short period of time.
18. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER DJ WILSON FOR HIS
SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
Council President Bernheim read Resolution 1216 thanking Councilmember Wilson for his service as
Council President from January through December, 2009. He also presented him with a plaque that
expressed appreciation for his service.
18B. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
Councilmember Orvis explained the amendments to Title 20 approved by the Council removed Council
appeals for certain types of land use decisions including Conditional Use Permits, general variances and
preliminary plats. There was a close vote on this issue at the time and he anticipated the balance of the
Council had changed on that issue. The interim ordinance would restore Council appeals for those
decisions. The interim ordinance requires a public hearing within a short period of time.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3775 AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.
Councilmember Peterson expressed concern that this item was not included on the agenda. He
anticipated a public outcry if an interim ordinance were added to the agenda to reduce the public’s input;
that same outcry would be legitimate in this instance. He preferred not to schedule an interim ordinance
as the last item at the end of a lengthy agenda. He did not support the motion.
Packet Page 171 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 25
Councilmember Wilson echoed Councilmember Peterson’s concern with regard to process, noting the
public had not had an opportunity to review the interim ordinance. There were a number of items in the
interim ordinance he did not support and Planning Manager Rob Chave had identified a number of
discrepancies in the proposed ordinance. He preferred to postpone adoption of the interim ordinance.
Councilmember Orvis explained he requested on December 16 that this item be added to the agenda and
was uncertain why it had not been included. If there was a delay implementing the ordinance,
applications could vest under the old rules. He supported the public’s right to appeal bad Hearing
Examiner decisions, noting the cost of an appeal to court was too high.
Councilmember Wilson recalled his preference as Council President in December was to schedule this on
the January 19 agenda to allow both new Councilmembers to vote. He asked whether appeals on an
application submitted today would be to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council. City Attorney Scott
Snyder answered any pending application would be heard under existing rules. If the Council passed the
interim ordinance, any completed application would be subject to the new appeal rules; if the new
ordinance were not passed, the application would be subject to the existing requirements.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether someone submitting an application vested to the appeal process in
place at that time. Mr. Snyder answered an application vested to the ordinances as they exist on the date
the application is deemed complete and the fees paid. Mayor Haakenson remarked people were not
beating down the door to submit permit applications.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 19. MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE ALL APPEALS TO COME TO COUNCIL IN
WRITING RATHER THAN ORALLY.
Mr. Snyder explained a public hearing would be required within 60 days. Council President Bernheim
has raised a number of technical issues and Mr. Chave has also raised a number of issues. He suggested
addressing those issues and any others at the public hearing.
Councilmember Peterson asked the impact of an applicant vesting under an ordinance with
inconsistencies and possibly incorrect language. Mr. Snyder agreed there was potential for confusion on
those applications. Councilmember Peterson recognized the fear was if the Council did not pass the
interim ordinance tonight, applicants would attempt to vest under the old Title 20. If the Council passed a
bad document, there was an equal chance that applicants would vest under bad language. He did not
support the interim ordinance because it was not well written and could cause as many problems as
waiting for two weeks.
Councilmember Orvis expressed concern that the amendment would restrict public comment during an
appeal, emphasizing the importance of oral argument during an appeal. Requiring all appeals to be in
writing would also be impractical as he would make a motion every time to allow public comments.
Councilmember Wilson appreciated Councilmember Orvis’ passion, commenting no court of appeal or
appeal process allowed new evidence to be heard. The issue was not shutting out the public, noting the
public did not have a role in the appeal process. The appellant and the applicant must only address
material previously presented to the court of first jurisdiction. Allowing the parties to provide oral
argument presented opportunity to accidentally add new information that could color the appeal process.
The parties would have the opportunity to provide information in writing which limited the liability
Packet Page 172 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 26
caused by presentation of new information and restricted information to facts presented in the court of
first jurisdiction.
Councilmember Orvis commented Councilmember Wilson’s amendment would shut out people that
might create a liability and would stop everyone from providing oral testimony. He commented there had
never been liability created by the public during oral testimony as speakers obeyed the rules. He
disagreed there was an issue of liability.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the history of the Council suggested those who spoke at closed
record hearings spoke to the record and if they did not, the City had a good track record of preventing
their comments. He learned as much or more from the oral argument and needed to hear the public’s
inflection and passion. He summarized it was good public policy to include the public in the process.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND
PETERSON VOTING YES. .
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND
PETERSON VOTING NO.
19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson provided a reminder that on January 21 at Kamiak High School in Mukilteo, the FAA,
the consultants hired by the FAA, Snohomish County Council, and County Executive will accept public
comment on the EIS on proposed commercial air service at Paine Field.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim thanked the Council for electing him Council President.
Councilmember Wilson reported Mayor Haakenson and he attended a ceremony at Fire District 1
headquarters welcoming Edmonds. He distributed Fire District 1 sweatshirts to Councilmembers.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was very nervous tonight and thanked the audience and
Councilmembers for helping her to do her job.
Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy New Year and congratulated Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas.
Councilmember Plunkett welcomed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and congratulated Council
President Bernheim and Student Representative Marmion, remarking Mr. Marmion was a third generation
Edmonds resident.
Student Representative Marmion remarked the Council meeting was not as boring as everyone said it
would be.
21. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m.
Packet Page 173 of 236
AM-2762 6.
Public Hearing to Establish the Process to Surplus Assets
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:10 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing to establish the process to surplus a Public Works Department utility vehicle,
three (3) pump station emergency power generators and various water and wastewater
utility equipment.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Adopt the resolution declaring listed assets, originally acquired for utility purposes, to be
surplussed to the needs of the City and authorizing the Public Works Director to sell such surplus
assets.
Previous Council Action
On November 17, 2009, City Council authorized staff to surplus one (1) sewer TV truck utilizing
a sealed bid process.
Narrative
The City currently owns certain assets that were originally acquired for utility purposes and that
have been determined by the Public Works Director to be no longer required for providing
continued public utility service. RCW 35.94.040 provides that the City may, by resolution of its
legislative body after a public hearing, declare such assets surplus and thereafter cause such assets
to be leased, sold, or conveyed. Staff plans to contract with James G. Murphy to auction all
equipment that is accepted for auction and to use a sealed bid process to sell the Sewer T.V. truck.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Resolution
Link: Exhibit A - Surplus Assets
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 10:02 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/28/2010 11:20 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 02:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim Started On: 01/27/2010 04:15
Packet Page 174 of 236
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 01/27/2010 04:15
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/28/2010
Packet Page 175 of 236
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DECLARING CERTAIN
ASSETS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED FOR UTILITY
PURPOSES TO BE SURPLUS TO THE NEEDS OF THE
CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR TO SELL SUCH SURPLUS ASSETS.
WHEREAS, the City currently owns certain assets that were originally acquired
for utility purposes and that have been determined by the Public Works Director to be no longer
required for providing continued public utility service, and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 provides that the City may, by resolution of its
legislative body after a public hearing, declare such assets surplus and thereafter cause such
assets to be leased, sold, or conveyed, and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing on such surplus
assets on and, after considering any and all testimony received, determined
to enact this resolution declaring the assets surplus and authorizing their sale, now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Assets Declared Surplus. That certain assets described on Exhibit
A to this resolution, which were originally acquired for utility purposes, are no longer required
for providing continued public utility service and are hereby declared to be surplus to the City’s
needs.
Section 2. Authority of Public Works Director. The Public Works Director
of the City of Edmonds is hereby authorized and directed to sell the assets described on Exhibit
{BFP760362.DOC;1\00006.900175\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 176 of 236
{BFP760362.DOC;1\00006.900175\ } - 2 -
A in any commercially reasonable manner of his/her choosing, including without limitation
sealed bid, auction, or private sale, so long as the City receives, in return for each item sold, no
less than fair market value as listed on Exhibit A. Every sale made pursuant to this resolution
shall be on an “as is” basis and shall include an express disclaimer by the City of any and all
warranties or liability.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2010.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 177 of 236
EXHIBIT A
{BFP760366.DOC;1/00006.900175/ }
Surplus Assets
I. EQUIPMENT
Quantity Equipment Model Number Estimated Salvage
Value (Min. Fair
Market Value)
2 Marlow 3” Diaphragm Pump 302B $50. /each
1 Homelite Generator EH-2500 $50.
4 Homelite 3HP Blowers 111B $20. /each
1 Hersey 3” Meter Tester $50.
1 Icon-o-lite Aluminum shoring system
$250.
3 Tren-shore aluminum vertical shores
$200. /each
1 Hammonds Chlorinator M# HTS-800 S# 6011 $1,000.
1 Aluminum Shoring Trailer with
Duralite shoring system
$500.
1 Electrical Generator 20 KW – 1.100 Hrs. Natural Gas/ONAN $1,500.
1 Electrical Generator 35 KW – 400 Hrs. Natural Gas/Olympian $1,500.
1 Electrical Generator 30 KW – 800 Hrs. Natural Gas/ONAN $1,500.
1 Lamson blower w/ base & 300 hp motor 869-0-0-0-0-1-8-AD $1,000.
1 Dorr Oliver ODS pump 4E $300.
1 US Filter – Purelab Plus water filter D-56235 $400.
II. VEHICLES
Unit # Dept. Description Serial Number License
No.
Salvage Value
(Min. Fair
Market Value)
16 SWR 1994 Chevrolet Cube Van 1GBKH32K9P3314793 1411D $15,000.00
Packet Page 178 of 236
AM-2773 8.
Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Robert English Time:60 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Review Committee:Community/Development Services
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Discuss proposed amendments and schedule a public hearing for the February 16th Council
Meeting.
Previous Council Action
On September 8, 2009, the CS/DS Council Committee discussed possible amendments to the Title
18 procedures.
Narrative
Attached is a memorandum and supporting information from the City Attorney regarding
proposed amendments to the procedures in Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: City Attorney Memo
Link: Table
Link: Section Discussion
Link: Draft Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 01/29/2010 08:47 AM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 01/29/2010 09:16 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 09:56 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/29/2010 09:57 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 10:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Robert
English
Started On: 01/29/2010 08:30
AM
Final Approval Date: 01/29/2010
Packet Page 179 of 236
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS761819.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 28, 2010
TO: Edmonds City Council
Rob English, City Engineer
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Title 18 Changes
As you are aware, both staff, and in a report to the Community Services Committee and the
Hearing Examiner, have noted the need to clarify the procedures contained in ECDC 18.00.020.
These are the appeal procedures generally applicable to Title 18. Title 18 contains various
engineering processes such as utility connections, rockery enforcement and other ministerial
duties. Ministerial duties are non-discretionary functions of the City where the engineering
department applies a set of specific criteria in specific situations. For that reason, appeal
procedures in this area are typically limited to the applicant and notice is not typically provided
to abutting property owners. These provisions are similar to the building permit process. The
provisions of Title 18 are also specifically excluded from the general procedural processes of
Title 20. See ECDC 20.01.040(B).
When the Title 20 revisions were under way, staff utilized a word search to identify references to
Title 20. While this found most cross-references, it did not pick up those code sections where no
appeal process was referenced. Accordingly, many provisions of Title 18 either lack specific
appeal processes or were not clear about what process is available. In one case, a criminal
remedy was referenced but no specific “crime” exists. Accordingly, we have gone through Title
18 section by section in an attempt to clarify existing requirements. The changes contained in
the draft ordinance and shown on the attached chart attempt to confirm existing practice, except
in one instance.1
1 Additional notice is provided for street slope waivers under Section 18.80.070.
Packet Page 180 of 236
Edmonds City Council
Rob English, City Engineer
Page 2
{WSS761819.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
In discussions with the Community Services Committee, Council Member Orvis raised a number
of concerns and we recognize that Council Members may wish to change or expand the appeal
processes. Therefore, we bring these changes to you for your direction prior to holding a
scheduled public hearing on February 19.
WSS/gjz
Packet Page 181 of 236
TI
T
L
E
1
8
A
P
P
E
A
L
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Su
b
j
e
c
t
M
a
t
t
e
r
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
M
a
k
e
r
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ap
p
e
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Code Change?
18
.
0
0
.
0
2
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
(
u
n
l
e
s
s
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
)
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
On
A
p
p
e
a
l
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
-
N
o
t
i
c
e
t
o
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
a
p
p
e
l
l
a
n
t
an
d
p
a
r
t
y
w
h
o
h
a
s
ma
d
e
a
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
re
q
u
e
s
t
.
(A) Correct Reference to acknowledge other processes.
18
.
0
5
.
0
4
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
W
i
r
e
-
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
On
A
p
p
e
a
l
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
Current
18
.
1
0
.
0
1
0
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
u
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
No
(A) Type V - Add Reference
18
.
1
0
.
0
3
0
Un
l
a
w
f
u
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
1)
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
se
m
i
n
a
r
o
n
vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
2)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
h
a
r
g
e
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
No
n
o
t
i
c
e
.
Add Hearing and Procedure. Increase charge?
18
.
3
0
.
0
6
5
St
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
On
A
p
p
e
a
l
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
(A) Correct Reference
18
.
3
0
.
0
8
0
St
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
1
1
0
Ci
v
i
l
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(A) Correct Reference
18
.
3
0
.
1
3
0
St
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
1
1
0
Ci
v
i
l
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(A) Correct Reference
18
.
4
0
.
1
2
0
Ro
c
k
e
r
y
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
1
1
0
Ci
v
i
l
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(A) Clarify Enforcement Process
18
.
4
5
.
0
6
0
La
n
d
C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
On
a
p
p
e
a
l
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
0
6
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
No Change
{W
S
S
7
5
4
7
2
2
.
D
O
C
;
1
\
0
0
0
0
6
.
9
0
0
0
0
0
\
}
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
2
of
23
6
{W
S
S
7
5
4
7
2
2
.
D
O
C
;
1
\
0
0
0
0
6
.
9
0
0
0
0
0
\
}
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Su
b
j
e
c
t
M
a
t
t
e
r
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
M
a
k
e
r
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ap
p
e
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Change Code
18
.
4
5
.
0
7
0
La
n
d
C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
-
f
i
n
e
Ap
p
e
a
l
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
1
1
0
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
Ci
v
i
l
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(A) Clarify Enforcement Provision
18
.
5
0
.
0
3
0
St
r
e
e
t
M
a
p
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
*
*i
f
s
t
a
n
d
-
a
l
o
n
e
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
No
No Change
18
.
6
0
RO
W
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
(A
)
P
W
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
or
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
No
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
General Appeal 18.00.020
18
.
7
0
St
r
e
e
t
U
s
e
/
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
(A
)
P
W
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
,
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
or
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
-
Re
c
o
f
A
D
B
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
AP
B
-
M
a
r
q
u
e
e
/
S
i
g
n
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
e
n
d
o
r
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(A) Add Appeal Type II - 20.06
18
.
8
0
.
0
6
0
St
r
e
e
t
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
-
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
C
u
r
b
C
u
t
s
(
S
l
o
p
e
W
a
i
v
e
r
f
r
o
m
1
4
%
t
o
2
0
%
)
PW
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
No
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
(A) Add Reference
18
.
8
0
.
0
7
0
St
r
e
e
t
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
-
S
t
e
e
p
S
l
o
p
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
No
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ty
p
e
I
I
(
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
no
t
i
c
e
-
3
0
0
f
t
)
(A) Add Reference
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
ee
DS
S
t
a
f
f
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ye
s
1
8
.
8
2
.
0
7
0
to
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
No Notice Unless Underlying Permit
18
.
8
2
Fe
e
R
a
t
e
s
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
No
No Notice Unless Underlying Permit
18
.
8
5
.
0
6
0
St
r
e
e
t
Tr
e
e
s
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
B
l
o
c
k
a
g
e
(A
)
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
pr
o
c
e
s
s
-
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
Ne
e
d
s
o
f
f
e
n
s
e
i
n
B
“
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
…
”
,
e
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
o
r
Ju
d
g
e
o
f
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
u
r
t
(A
)
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
0
.
1
1
0
or
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
(A) Criminal Prosecution & Civil Enforcement Clarified
18
.
9
5
.
0
3
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
G
r
a
d
e
W
a
i
v
e
r
Ci
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Ap
p
e
a
l
W
i
t
h
Pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
p
e
r
m
i
t
(A) - Applicable as Part of Permit Process
NO
T
E
:
(
A
)
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
18
3
of
23
6
SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS
18.00.020 Review. This section contains the general hearing process. It provides for Type
II review with notice to the appellant/applicant and any person who has requested notice of the
hearing. Appeal to the Hearing Examiner as a Type II appeal is currently provided for by the
section. This section is being amended to clarify that other processes exist and that this general
provision controls unless another process is provided for elsewhere.
18.10.010 Requirement of Future Connections.
No change in this process is recommended, but the section does add a reference to the Type V
procedure -- that is, the City Council hearing and decision process.
18.10.030 Unlawful Connections.
This section contains two different processes. In the event of a violation, the Public Works
Director issues a Notice of Violation and an administrative hearing is provided for before the
Hearing Examiner. A reference has been added to specify that the administrative hearing before
the Hearing Examiner is a Type II procedure.
In addition, in subsection (C), a City Code currently provides for an additional utility connection
charge of $1.00 a month where individuals are maintaining unlawful connections. This amount
was originally intended to provide a payment to the utility to compensate it for the costs of an
unlawful connection. The $1.00 charge has been in effect since 1980. Staff believes that this
amount should be increased to at least $5.00 and perhaps higher to fully compensate the utility
for the costs of the unlawful connection.
18.30.065 Exceptions to Minimum Requirements
This section provides for exceptions to the minimum ESC (Erosion and Sediment Control) and
SQC (Stormwater Quality Control) requirements. This is the provision which originally sparked
the Hearing Examiner’s questions and relates to the Jorgenson permit application recently
questioned in communications to City Council. As Mr. Miller’s letter to the Jorgensons (cited by
the communicator) indicated, this is not an appeal but a process requirement. As such, it has
been subject to the general appeal procedures referenced in ECDC 18.00.020(C).
18.30.080 Enforcement Action.
The suggested change clarifies that civil penalties will be enforced in accordance with Chapter
20.110, the City’s Civil Enforcement Process.
18.30.130 Maintenance Enforcement
This section provides a civil penalty for failure to maintain stormwater control facilities. Again,
the process is being cross-referenced to the civil enforcement process, Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
{WSS761833.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
Packet Page 184 of 236
18.40.020 Prohibited Rockeries
This section deals with prohibited rockeries. The proposed amendments clarify that rockeries
within the right of way are subject to the enforcement by the Public Works Director while
rockeries on private property are subject to abatement by order of the Building Official. The
changes also clarify that the construction of a prohibited rockery is punishable either as a
misdemeanor under the provisions of Chapter 5.50 of the Edmond City Code or through the civil
enforcement procedures of Chapter 20.110 ECDC. The current code provision fails to contain a
reference to the misdemeanor fine provisions of Chapter 5.50 but already references the civil
enforcement procedures of Chapter 20.110.
18.45.070 Violations of Penalties
This chapter contains the City’s land clearing and tree cutting provisions. The changes to the
referenced section add a reference to Chapter 5.50 of the City Code (misdemeanor violations)
and clarifies that the fines referenced in subparagraph B will be collected utilizing the procedures
set forth in Chapter 20.110 (civil enforcement process).
18.60.050 Decision of Appeal
This chapter provides for the issuance of right of way construction permits and the proposed
changes add this section to provide for an appeal under the general appeal review provisions of
18.00.020.
18.70.030 Review
This chapter provides for street use and encroachment permits and the change to this section
establishes an appeal to the City’s Hearing Examiner is a Type II procedure.
18.80.060 Driveway and Curb Cut Requirements
This section provides a process for driveway slopes to exceed 14% to a maximum of 20%. A
change is recommended in subsection D (4) to provide a project permit review process similar to
that established under subsection C of the same section. Project permit applications are
appealable as provided in Chapter 20.01 ECDC.
18.80.070 Street Slope Requirement
This section in the street standards chapter provides that street slopes will not exceed 12%
without specific authorization, limiting them to a maximum slope of 15%. Because of the
potential interest of neighbors, this is one section that staff recommends be changed to provide
notice to property owners within 300 feet of the street section proposed for the slope waiver and
provide an appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
{WSS761833.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
Packet Page 185 of 236
{WSS761833.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
18.85.060 Visibility Blockage
This section provides for criminal and civil penalties where property owners fail to prune trees or
take other appropriate to prevent visibility blockage on City streets. The section currently states
that individuals are subject to prosecution but does not specify under what code section. The
proposed amendment inserts references to the general misdemeanor provisions of Chapter 5.50.
The current language also provides for the levying of a civil fine but does not specify the
process. References are added to the civil enforcement provisions of ECDC 20.110.040.
18.95.030 Tandem Parking Prohibited
This section authorizes approval of tandem parking in limited circumstances. No appeal process
is specified and a referenced to the general appeal procedures of Section 18.00.020 has been
added.
WSS/gjz
Packet Page 186 of 236
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
12/28/09
R:1/27/10gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, COORDINATING THE PROVISIONS OF
TITLE 18 AND TITLE 20 BY AMENDING ECDC SECTION
18.00.020(C); AMENDING 18.10.010 SEWER CONNECTIONS,
SECTION E HEARING; AMENDING 18.10.030 UNLAWFUL
CONNECTIONS; AMENDING 18.30.065 EXCEPTIONS TO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING 18.30.080
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, (C) CIVIL PENALTY;
AMENDING 18.30.130(C); AMENDING 18.40.120
PROHIBITED ROCKERIES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (B)
AND (C) AND ADDING A NEW SECTION (D); AMENDING
SECTION 18.45.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 18.60 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW
SECTION 18.60.050 DECISION AND APPEAL; AMENDING
SECTION 18.70.030 TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION (G);
AMENDING SECTION 18.80.060 DRIVEWAY AND CURB
CUT REQUIREMENTS, BY AMENDING SECTION (D) AND
ADDING A NEW SECTION (E) APPEALS; SECTION
18.80.070 STREET SLOPE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION
18.85.060 VISIBILITY BLOCKAGE, (B) ENFORCEMENT;
SECTION 18.95.030 TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION (C), AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted new procedural provisions in Title 20
of the Edmonds Community Development Code, and
WHEREAS, the procedures of Title 20 are generally not applicable to the public
works requirements of Title 18, and
WHEREAS, Title 18 contains a variety of administrative hearing and procedures,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify the application of the requirements
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 187 of 236
of Title 20 to Title 18, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Section 18.00.020
Review, Section C, Decision hereby amended to read as follows:
18.00.020 Review.
…
C. Decision. The Public Works Director or his designee shall
decide whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application, based on staff analysis and comments from other
departments. The decision shall be in writing, and unless another
appeal procedure is specifically identified in the provisions of this
title, shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided to the applicant and/or appellant and any other
party who has requested notice in writing or provided written
notice during the application process. Such notice shall be
provided in writing at least five (5) business days prior to the
hearing. No application may be approved that conflicts with any
portion of the Community Development Code unless that portion
is specifically subject to waiver or variance.
…
Section 2. The provisions of Chapter 18.10.010 Sewer Connections, Section E
Hearing, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.10.010 Sewer Connections.
. . .
E. Hearing. The City Clerk shall notify the owner of each
property in the same manner as notice is provided in a local
improvement district of each proposed assessment. The City
Council shall hold a hearing under the procedures applicable to a
Type V procedure in compliance with the provisions of Chapter
2.03. The City Council shall, by ordinance after the hearing,
assess the cost of making the connection against the property
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 188 of 236
connected. The assessment shall become a lien against each
property, shall be collected in the manner provided by law for the
collection of local improvement assessments, and shall bear
interest at the rate of interest established by ordinance from the
date of the approval of the assessment.
. . .
Section 3. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Section 18.10.030
Unlawful connections is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.10.030 Unlawful connections.
A. Notice. If any land or structure contains an unauthorized
connection to the sewerage system as prohibited by this Chapter,
such connection or the maintenance of such connection shall
constitute a misdemeanor subject to the penalties provided for in
Chapter 5.50 ECC. In addition, and not by way of limitation, the
Public Works Director or his designee may send notice to correct
such violation to the owner of the premises addressed to the street
address of the premises. Where the records of the water/sewer
utility show a different address for the owner, a copy of the notice
shall be mailed to that street address shown for billing purposes.
B. Administrative Hearing. The property owner may request
an administrative hearing regarding the unauthorized connection,
the maintenance of the connection and/or the property owner’s
failure to connect to the sewerage system (hereinafter
“Condition”). Such request may be made in writing within thirty
(30) days of the date of the mailed notice specified in paragraph A
above. Such hearing shall be conducted before the Hearing
Examiner as a Type II procedure pursuant to the procedures set
forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
C. Charge. If the Condition has not been corrected within the
period specified by the Public Works Director, not less than sixty
(60) days from the date of mailing of the notice, there shall be
added to the utility bill prescribed by the Edmonds City Code for
such premises an additional utility charge of $1.00 per month for
each month of violation after the expiration of the specified period.
The additional is not a fine or penalty but rather is reflective of the
additional burdens placed on the City’s utility system and is
assessed as a utility charge. The additional charge shall continue
and be collected along with the full sewerage rate until such time
as the owner of the premises corrects such Condition. Upon
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
Packet Page 189 of 236
correction, the additional utility charge of $1.00 per month shall
cease. [Should this be increased to $5.00 a month? It has been
in place since 1980 without amendment.]
Section 4. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.30.065
Exceptions to minimum requirements, introductory section is amended to read as follows:
18.30.065 Exceptions to minimum requirements.
Exceptions to the ESC and SQC minimum requirements may be
granted prior to permit approval and construction. An exception
may be granted in accordance with the procedures set forth in
ECDC 18.00.020(C). Such exception may be granted only if all
the following criteria for approval have been met:
. . .
Section 5. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.30.080
Enforcement action, Section C Civil Penalty is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.30.080 Enforcement action.
…
C. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the
requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an approval
or order issued, who undertakes new development without first
obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a stop work order
issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty
levied in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
Section 6. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.30.130
Maintenance enforcement, Section C. Civil Penalty, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.30.130 Maintenance enforcement.
…
C. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter or fails to conform to the terms of an
approval or order issued shall be subject to the civil enforcement
procedures outlined in Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
Packet Page 190 of 236
…
Section 7. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.40.120
Prohibited rockeries, is hereby amended by the amendment of Sections B and C and the addition
of a new Section D, to read as follows:
18.40.120 Prohibited rockeries.
…
B. No person shall construct a prohibited rockery in the City
of Edmonds. The violation of any of the provisions of this section
shall be punishable as a misdemeanor in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 5.50 of the Edmonds City Code. It shall be a
separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during
which any violation of any provisions of this section is committed
or be allowed to continue. Construction of a rockery prior to
October 1, 2007 shall be an affirmative defense to an enforcement
action for violation of this section.
C. In addition to the preceding criminal remedy, the
construction of a prohibited rockery after October 1, 2007 is
hereby declared to be a nuisance and shall be subject to abatement
in accordance with the civil enforcement procedures of Chapter
20.110 ECDC.
D. Rockeries on public right of way or other public properties
shall be the subject of an abatement order by the Public Works
Director or his designee. Rockeries located on private property
shall be subject to the abatement order of the Building Official.
Rockeries located in part on public property or a public right of
way and private property may be abated by either the Public
Works Director or his designee, or the Building Official.
Section 8. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.45.070
Violations and penalties is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.45.070 Violations and penalties.
A. A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall
constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in
Chapter 5.50 of the Edmonds City Code. Each and every day or
portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 -
Packet Page 191 of 236
of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall
constitute a separate offense.
B. Any person found to be in violation of the provisions of
this Chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $1,000 per day and/or $500 per tree. This civil fine shall
be in addition to any criminal, civil, or injunctive remedy available
to the City. The Planning Division Manager shall utilize the
procedures outlined in Chapter 20.110 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code in order to notify an individual of violation,
provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a
notice of civil violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040(B) and
be subject to an appeal as provided in ECDC 20.110.040(C).
C. The fines established in subsection B of this section shall
be tripled to $3,000 per day and/or $1,500 per tree for clearing
which occurs within any critical area or critical area buffer, in any
earth subsidence or landslide hazard area, any Native Growth
Protection Easement or in any area which is designated for transfer
or dedication to public use upon final approval of a subdivision,
planned residential development or other development permit.
Section 9. Chapter 18.60 is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section
18.60.050 Decision and appeal to read as follows:
18.60.050 Decision and appeal.
Permits shall be processed and appealable in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC 18.00.020.
Section 10. Section 18.70.030 Review is hereby amended to add a new
subsection G to read as follows:
.18.70.030 Review.
…
G. The decision of the Development Services Director or City
Engineer shall be appealable to the City Hearing Examiner as a
Type II review pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC
Chapter 20.06. Notice of the hearing shall be provided to the
applicant, appellant and any person who has requested notice or
provided written comments during the process. Such notice shall
be provided in writing at least five (5) business days in advance of
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 6 -
Packet Page 192 of 236
the hearing.
Section 11. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.80.060
Driveway and Curb Cut Requirements is hereby amended by the amendment of Section D
Driveway Slopes, and the addition of a new Section E, Appeals, to read as follows:
18.80.060 Driveway and curb cut requirements.
…
D. Driveway slopes.
1. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 14% unless authorized by
the Public Works Director in accordance with the criteria set forth
below. The decision of the Public Works Director shall be made
only after notice as a Type II project permit application and
decision. (See Chapter 20.01 ECDC)
2. The Public Works Director may authorize driveway slopes
to exceed 14% up to a maximum of 20% if he determines that:
a. The driveway is the only economical and environmentally
reasonable alternative;
b. The driveway will not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle
or safety hazard or otherwise negatively impact public safety;
c. The police and fire chief concur in allowing the increased
driveway slope; and
d. The public health, safety and general welfare will not be
adversely affected.
3. The decision of the Public Works Director shall be in
writing and placed in the appropriate City file pursuant to a signed,
written statement of finding and conclusions for authorizing the
driveway slope to exceed 14%. The statement shall also contain
the maximum slope authorized up to 20%
4. The decision of the Public Works Director shall be
processed as a project permit application (See Chapter 20.01
ECDC)
Section 12. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.80.070
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 7 -
Packet Page 193 of 236
Street slope requirements is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.80.070 Street slope requirements.
A. Street slopes shall not exceed 12% unless authorized by the
Public Works Director. Such decision shall be made only after
notice as a Type II project permit application and decision. (See
Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
B. The Public Works Director may authorize street slopes to
exceed 12%, up to a maximum of 15%, if the Director determines
that:
1. The street proposed is the only economical and
environmentally reasonable alternative;
2. The street proposed will not create a traffic,
pedestrian, or bicycle hazard or otherwise negatively impact public
safety;
3. The police and fire chiefs concur in the increased
street slopes; and
4. The public health, safety and general welfare will
not be adversely affected.
The decision of the Public Works Director shall be in writing and
placed in the appropriate City file in the form of a signed and
written statement of findings and conclusions for authorizing the
street slope to exceed 12%. This statement shall also contain the
maximum slope authorized up to 15%.
D. The decision of the Public Works Director shall be
appealable as a Type II appeal pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC provided that notice shall be provided to all
property owners with three hundred (300) feet of the street section
proposed for a street slope exceeding 12%. .
Section 13. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.85.060
Visibility Blockage Section B Enforcement, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.85.060 Visibility blockage.
…
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 8 -
Packet Page 194 of 236
B. Enforcement.
1. If any property owner fails to prune or take other
appropriate action in order to prevent visibility blockage or restore
visibility as set forth in paragraph A above, and the Director of
Public Works has actual knowledge of the condition, then the
Director of Public works may, by written notice, order such person
to prune or take other appropriate action with respect to such trees
or vegetation within fourteen (14) days after written notice is sent.
Notice shall be sent, postage paid, in the US Mail and presumed
received two days following such mailing. The notice shall
specify the action to be taken and inform the property owner(s)
that failure to comply is subject to criminal prosecution as a
misdemeanor in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5.50
ECDC or as a civil violation pursuant to the provisions of ECDC
Chapter 20.110.
2. If a person to whom notice is sent does not comply within
the time specified in the written notice, in addition to any other
action which the City may take, the Director of Public Works may
effectuate the pruning of the trees or other vegetation and take any
other appropriate action to correct the view blockage. The cost of
such action shall be recorded and reported to the Hearing Examiner
as provided below. The Director of Public Works, in his sole
discretion, may then take the actions set forth in paragraph 3.
below.
3. The Director of Public Works may:
a. Refer the matter to the City’s Prosecutor for prosecution as
a misdemeanor. Failure to correct in accordance with the
provisions of written notice within the time specified shall
constitute a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 5.50 ECC. Each and every day in which the
property fails to take corrective action shall be considered a
separate day of violation.
b. At his option, the Director of Public Works may utilize the
civil enforcement procedures of Chapter 20.110, provided, that the
notice provided herein shall constitute the notice required under
ECDC 20.110.040(A). The enforcement process shall therefore
begin with the notice of civil violation in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC 20.110.040(B) appealable pursuant to the
provisions of subsection of said section. In addition to the fines
provided for by Chapter 20.110 ECDC, the Hearing Examiner
shall also assess the reasonable costs incurred in connection with
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 9 -
Packet Page 195 of 236
Section 2 above.
Section 14. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.95.030
Tandem parking prohibited is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection C to read as
follows:
18.95.030 Tandem parking prohibited.
…
C. An application to provide additional parking spaces as set
forth above shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 18.00.020.
Section 15. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 10 -
Packet Page 196 of 236
{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }{WSS756541.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 11 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, COORDINATING THE
PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 AND TITLE 20 BY AMENDING ECDC SECTION 18.00.020(C);
AMENDING 18.10.010 SEWER CONNECTIONS, SECTION E HEARING; AMENDING
18.10.030 UNLAWFUL CONNECTIONS; AMENDING 18.30.065 EXCEPTIONS TO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING 18.30.080 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, (C)
CIVIL PENALTY; AMENDING 18.30.130(C); AMENDING 18.40.120 PROHIBITED
ROCKERIES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (B) AND (C) AND ADDING A NEW SECTION
(D); AMENDING SECTION 18.45.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES; AMENDING
CHAPTER 18.60 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 18.60.050 DECISION AND
APPEAL; AMENDING SECTION 18.70.030 TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION (G);
AMENDING SECTION 18.80.060 DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS, BY
AMENDING SECTION (D) AND ADDING A NEW SECTION (E) APPEALS; SECTION
18.80.070 STREET SLOPE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION 18.85.060 VISIBILITY
BLOCKAGE, (B) ENFORCEMENT; SECTION 18.95.030 TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION
(C), AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 197 of 236
AM-2771 9.
Firdale Village NGPE
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/02/2010
Submitted By:Gina Coccia
Submitted For:City Attorney Time:15 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Firdale Village Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) - staff direction on proposed
revisions.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Please provide staff direction on the proposed revisions to the Firdale Village NGPE.
Previous Council Action
Please refer to Exhibit 6 - 12/15/2009 Council meeting.
Narrative
Please refer to Exhibit 1 - a memo from the City Attorney's Office, as well as Exhibit 5 - a memo
from Associate Planner Kernen Lien.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Memo from City Attorney's Office
Link: Exhibit 2 - Revised NGPE
Link: Exhibit 3 - Original NGPE
Link: Exhibit 4 - Tree Survey
Link: Exhibit 5 - Memo from Kernen Lien
Link: Exhibit 6 - 12/15/2009 Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/28/2010 04:33 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/29/2010 08:56 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/29/2010 09:12 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gina
Coccia
Started On: 01/28/2010 02:39
PM
Final Approval Date: 01/29/2010
Packet Page 198 of 236
{WSS761964.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 28, 2010
TO: Edmonds City Council
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Firdale Village - Native Growth Protection Easement
At the City Council’s meeting of December 15, 2009, the Edmonds City Council approved a
Development Agreement and Rezone for Firdale Village. The Development Agreement was
contingent on recording an approved Native Growth Protection Easement and the rezone was
conditioned upon satisfaction of the Development Agreement. During the Council’s discussion,
Mr. Orvis expressed dissatisfaction with the City’s obligation to maintain the Native Growth
Protection Easement rather than the developer. Mr. Shaprio, the developer’s representative,
indicated his willingness to make that change. Accordingly, I have been working with Mr.
Shapiro’s attorney, Glenn Amster, to revise the Native Growth Protection Easement to address
Mr. Orvis’ concern.
In the process, Mr. Shapiro requested a change to permit the use of soil nails and tensioning rods
below the surface as a temporary construction matter. These devices go below grade and
according to Mr. Shapiro, should not affect the health of the trees. The language in the
agreement provides that those devices could be used if a certified arborist determines that they
will not affect the native vegetation. The easement also provides that if trees are damaged by the
use of the soil nails or die within one year of their use, they will be replaced at a three to one
ratio and that if a large tree (with a caliper of greater than 18 inches) dies, a fine of $5,000 per
tree will be paid to the City’s park fund.
Staff has reviewed the tree survey and indicates that the significant trees are covered by the 18
inch caliper distinction. See attached staff report from Kernen Lien.
The purpose for our discussion is to request Council direction regarding whether it considers
these changes to be within the scope of the original approval (i.e., not significant) or are of
Packet Page 199 of 236
Edmonds City Council
January 28, 2010
Page Two
{WSS761964.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
significance and require an additional public hearing and reconsideration of the Native Growth
Protection Easement, development agreement and rezone.
WSS/gjz
Attachment
Packet Page 200 of 236
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
1
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
HE GRANTOR, WNS Property Investment, Inc., a Washington Corporation, for and in
his easement is established in order to preserve native vegetation within the NGPE Area for all
rantor shall maintain the NGPE Area in a substantially natural state. With the exception of the
1. Plant three (3) trees for each tree that dies or is damaged; and
2. For any tree with a caliper of 18 inches or greater that is damaged or dies as
his easement and the conditions thereof shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be
othing in this easement shall obligate the City of Edmonds to perform any activity or to utilize the
rantor hereby warrants that it is the owner of the above-described property and has the authority to
convey such easement.
T
consideration of the adoption of a Development Agreement approved by the Edmonds City Council,
hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal
corporation, its successors and assigns, a perpetual native growth protection easement in, on, upon,
over, under, across, along and through the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (“NGPE Area” herein).
T
purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including controlled surface water
erosion, visual and aural buffering, protection of plant and animal habitat, replanting and restocking
of plants or animal habitat, and any other actions deemed necessary by the Grantee to preserve and
protect the native vegetation within the NGPE Area.
G
removal of vegetation that is dead, diseased or hazardous, as determined by a licensed or certified
arborist in a report to be submitted to and, except in an emergency, approved by Grantee, no
clearing, grading, filling, building, fence construction, or road construction of any kind shall occur
within the NGPE Area; provided, however, Grantor may install soil nails or tiebacks under the
surface of the NGPE Area to provide temporary shoring in connection with the development of its
adjacent property so long as a licensed or certified arborist determines such shoring system will not
affect the native vegetation within the NGPE Area. If any tree existing at the time of installation of
such shoring is damaged by the soil nails or tiebacks, or dies within twelve (12) months of such
installation by other than an Act of God, Grantor shall:
provided above, pay to Grantee a fine of $5,000.
T
binding on the successors, heirs and assigns of the owners of the land. The Grantee, its successors
and assigns, shall have the right but not the obligation without prior institution of any suits or
proceeding of law, at any time as may be deemed necessary by the Grantee, to enter upon said
easement for the purpose of protecting and preserving the Native Growth Protection Easement area.
N
easement for any purpose.
G
Packet Page 201 of 236
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
2
ignat
Dated this _________ day of _____________________, 2010.
[S ures on Following Page]
GRANTOR
WNS Property Investment, Inc.
y:
B
s: ____________________________
GRANTEE
It
City of Edmonds
y:
B
s: ____________________________
pproved as to Form by the City Attorney:
TATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
OUNTY OF ____________ )
idence that ___________________________ is
me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to
xecute the instrument and acknowledged it as _____________________________ of
It
A
_____________________________
S
C
I certify that I know or have satisfactory ev
the person who appeared before
e
_________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for
the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:
(Signature)
Packet Page 202 of 236
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
3
(Print Name)
pires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment ex
TATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
OUNTY OF ___________ )
ave satisfactory evidence that ___________________________ is
aid person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to
edged it as _____________________________ of
________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for
e use
S
C
I certify that I know or h
the person who appeared before me, and s
execute the instrument and acknowl
_
th s and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:
e)
(Signatur
(Print Name)
pires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment ex
Packet Page 203 of 236
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
4
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Native Gr th Protection Easement Area
ow
HAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13 AND 14, FORSHEE’S FIRDALE VILLAGE AS
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6 , FIRDALE VILLAGE NO.5 AS
T
PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 14, PAGE 27, SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 20 OF PLATS, PAGE 45 RECORDS OF KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON: THENCE N88°26'52'W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF
A DISTANCE OF 75.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7 SAID FIRDALE
VILLAGE NO.5: THENCE S01°33'10W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET: THENCE
N72°21'54"W A DISTANCE OF 108.30 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FIRDALE
VILLAGE NO.5: THENCE N88°26'50"W A DISTANCE OF 226.56 FEET TO THE SOUTH
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PLAT: THENCE S44°12'30"E A DISTANCE OF 28.67 FEET
TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS 20.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT: THENCE S88°26'50"E ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF
203.20 FEET: THENCE S72°21'54"E A DISTANCE OF 132.06 FEET: THENCE
N01°33'10"E A DISTANCE OF 24.58 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS 32.00 FEET
SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT: THENCE
S88°26'52"E ALONG SAID LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2 FIRDALE VILLAGE AS
PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 27 RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY: THENCE N01°43'07"E ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 32.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Packet Page 204 of 236
EXHIBIT C
{WSS742191.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
1
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
THE GRANTOR, -___________________________________________, for and in consideration
of the adoption of a Development Agreement approved by the Edmonds City Council, hereby
grants and conveys to the Grantee, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, its
successors and assigns, a perpetual native growth protection easement in, on, upon, over, under,
across, along and through the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
This easement is established in order to preserve native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the
public health, safety and welfare, including controlled surface water erosion, visual and aural
buffering, protection of plant and animal habitat, replanting and restocking of plants or animal
habitat, and any other actions deemed necessary by the Grantee to preserve and protect the native
growth protection area, including, but not limited to, construction of water flow devices or other
facilities.
The area described on Exhibit A shall remain in a substantially natural state. With the exception of
the removal of vegetation which is dead, diseased or hazardous as determined by the Grantee, no
clearing, grading, filling, building, construction replacement, fence construction, or road
construction of any kind shall occur within or under this area.
This easement and the conditions thereof shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be
binding on the successors, heirs and assigns of the owners of the land. The Grantee, its successors
and assigns, shall have the right but not the obligation without prior institution of any suits or
proceeding of law, at any time as may be deemed necessary by the Grantee, to enter upon said
easement for the purpose of protecting and preserving the native growth protection area.
Nothing in this easement shall obligate the City of Edmonds to perform any activity or to utilize the
easement for any purpose.
Grantor hereby warrants that it is the owner of the above-described property and has the authority to
convey such easement.
Dated this _________ day of _____________________, 2009.
Grantor Grantor
Packet Page 205 of 236
EXHIBIT C
{WSS742191.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
2
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ___________________________ is
the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to
execute the instrument and acknowledged it as _____________________________ of
_________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for
the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:
(Signature)
(Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________ )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ___________________________ is
the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to
execute the instrument and acknowledged it as _____________________________ of
_________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for
the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:
(Signature)
(Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment expires:
Packet Page 206 of 236
Packet Page 207 of 236
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 28, 2010
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Subject: Firdale Significant Trees
________________________________________________________________________
City of Edmonds code does not define a “significant tree.” Lake Forest Parks Municipal
Code 16.14.030 defines a significant tree as any healthy tree six inches or greater in
diameter. This is essentially Edmonds definition of a tree in ECDC 18.45.040 which is
“any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and
having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi-stemmed trunk system with a
definitely formed crown.” A tree’s significance really depends on its setting. A
significant tree within the forest might not be the same as a significant tree within an
urban environment. In order to determine which trees might be considered significant at
Firdale Village, I would suggest looking at the specific trees associated with the site.
According to the tree inventory submitted by Group Four for the Firdale Village there are
89 trees on site. The species and number distribution is characterized in Chart 1 below.
City of Edmonds
Packet Page 208 of 236
Chart 1: Tree Species Distribution at Firdale Village
Number of trees
19
48
15
4 2 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
cherry fir cedar maple madrona alder
Species
Nu
m
b
e
r
Number of trees
The cherry trees are largely ornamental and mostly located along Firdale Avenue. The
two madrona and one alder tree are under story trees mixed in with the trees along the
northern property boundary.
In considering the significant trees on site, I would look at the fir, cedar, and maple trees
because of the size they can reach and the amount of time it takes to reach a certain size.
There are 67 fir, cedar, and maple trees on site. Of the fir, cedar, and maple trees 16 trees
(11 fir, 4 cedar, and 2 maple) are greater than or equal to 18 inches in diameter at breast
height (dbh). See Table 2 below. It is reasonable to consider trees with a dbh of 20 or
greater as the significant trees on this site given the amount of time it takes for these trees
to reach this size (and thus time it would take replacement trees to reach this size) and the
potential impacts of removing such trees. If trees of at least 18 inches dbh are considered
the significant trees on this site, this would represent a total 19% of all the trees at Firdale
Village.
The location of the signification trees are highlight on the attached tree survey.
Packet Page 209 of 236
Table 2: Diameter Distribution of maple, cedar, and fir trees
Diameter Distribution of the maple, cedar, and fir trees
32
11
7
13
1
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
6-10 11-14 15-17 18-24 25-29 >30
dbh
co
u
n
t
Packet Page 210 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 15, 2009
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council interviewed the following candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission and Planning Board: John Dewhirst, Lois Broadway and Todd Cloutier. Mayor Haakenson,
and Councilmembers Plunkett, Bernheim, Orvis and Wambolt were present at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson arrived at 6:50 p.m.
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 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
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Wilson requested Item O be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember
Plunkett requested Item R be removed, and Councilmember Wambolt requested Item U be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
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 DECEMBER 1, 2009.
Packet Page 211 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 2, 2009.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115584 THROUGH #115605 DATED NOVEMBER
24, 2009 FOR $42,169.66, #115606 THROUGH #115801 DATED DECEMBER 3, 2009 FOR
$628,698.00 AND #115802 THROUGH #115936 DATED DECEMBER 10, 2009 FOR
$577,575.76. APPROVAL OF KELLY DAY BUY BACK CHECKS #48790 THROUGH
#48820 DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2009 FOR $33,005.84, AND APPROVAL OF HOLIDAY
BUY BACK CHECKS #48821 THROUGH #48913 DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2009 FOR
$224,035.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48914
THROUGH #48954 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30,
2009 FOR $914,791.67.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ERIC THUESEN
CUSTOM HOMES ($47,393.00), AND ELEANOR CORNER ($588.00).
F. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
DECEMBER 2009.
G. REAPPOINTMENT OF LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
2010.
H. LIST OF RETIRING BOARD MEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS, AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE SEASHORE
TRANSPORTATION FORUM.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 4 WITH
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
UPGRADES WITH RESPECT TO THE BNSF DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT.
K. 2010 HOURLY POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE, TITLE AND WAGE.
L. 2010 NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE.
M. 2010 ADDENDUM TO PRISONER DETENTION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
LYNNWOOD.
N. KENNELING SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN ADIX'S BED AND BATH AND THE
CITY OF EDMONDS.
P. SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING, INC. FOR SERVICE
YEARS 2010 – 2012.
Q. 2009-2010 FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN UPDATE #1.
S. ORDINANCE NO. 3766 – ADOPTING A NEW COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT.
T. ORDINANCE NO. 3767 - AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND THE
INCORPORATED WALKWAY AND BIKEWAY PLANS.
V. RESOLUTION NO. 1212 - THANKING COUNCILMEMBER RON WAMBOLT FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL
Packet Page 212 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 3
W. CONFIRMATION OF NEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBER.
ITEM O: WOODWAY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES.
Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon explained after forwarding the contract to the City Attorney, they
advised Ogden Murphy Wallace represents both Edmonds and Woodway. The contract was then
reviewed and approved as to form by the law firm Weed Graafstra & Benson. ACOP Gannon read
Section 7 which was added to the contract after it was reviewed by the Council Committee, “Pursuant to
RCW 39.34.040, this agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor or alternatively listed
by subject on the website of either party hereto or on other electronically retrievable public source.”
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE ITEM O. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM R: ORDINANCE NO. 3765 – AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
UPDATE THE “EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN.”
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this was an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City
Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Comprehensive Plan included several separate elements; the
Council typically amended the Comprehensive Plan element by element.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM R.
ITEM U: ORDINANCE NO. 3768 – CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8)
ALONG A PORTION OF 215TH STREET SW.
Councilmember Wambolt explained he pulled this item to vote against it.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM U. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT VOTING
NO.
3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO COUNCILMEMBER RON WAMBOLT, FOLLOWED
BY A RECEPTION.
Council President Wilson read a resolution commending, thanking and recognizing Councilmember
Wambolt for his service on the City Council from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009. He also
presented him a plaque in recognition of his service.
Councilmember Wambolt commented his four years on the Council had been a very good education. A
few years before joining the Council he did not know what issues were the responsibilities of the Mayor
and which were the Council’s responsibilities. He found the committees he served on very rewarding and
planned to remain on the Downtown Parking Committee, the Hwy. 99 Task Force and the Community
Technical Advisory Committee. He will miss working with the Council, City staff, Port staff and
Commissioners, as well as the interaction with citizens.
Councilmember Plunkett commented all Councilmembers bring a certain skill set to the Council;
Councilmember Wambolt was an excellent example of hard work and diligence. He recognized
Councilmember Wambolt for his ability to work with other Councilmembers as well as the ability to
Packet Page 213 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 4
debate and kid with him. He had enjoyed working with Councilmember Wambolt due to both his spirit
and his work habits.
Councilmember Peterson commented it had been a pleasure to work with Councilmember Wambolt; his
work ethic was without parallel. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s excellent sense of
humor, remarking he would be deeply missed. He looked forward to Councilmember Wambolt’s
continued involvement in the community.
Council President Wilson commented Councilmember Wambolt had been a tremendous resource and
asset to him and he appreciated his wisdom and guidance.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled Councilmember Wambolt’s and his initial contact was on a citizens
group. He looked forward to the role Councilmember Wambolt would continue to play in the
community.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for bringing sanity to the Council, recalling he
challenged the incumbent and his election allowed the Council to keep lower heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Wambolt’s willingness to change his
mind on an issue. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt’s preparation for Council meetings.
Although Councilmember Wambolt and he had not always agreed on issues, he had the utmost respect for
him and would welcome him back on the Council at any time.
Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a brief reception in Councilmember Wambolt’s honor.
4. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND DIRECTION REGARDING
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THIS
MATTER.
Council President Wilson explained at the Community Services/Development Services Committee
meeting Councilmember Orvis and he spoke with staff regarding the lack of a process in the current code
for permitting a temporary homeless shelter, whether a few days in a church or a tent city. They agreed
an interim ordinance would be appropriate to establish a process followed by further review and
discussion by the Planning Board and staff. He explained the intent of the resolution was to provide
direction to staff regarding the Council’s values to assist in developing a permanent process. He
explained the resolution was developed with the assistance of homeless shelter advocates in South
Snohomish County. He summarized the interim ordinance was not perfect but a starting point.
Charlotte Lawson explained she had been volunteering at a homeless shelter for approximately two
years. She explained homeless people exist everywhere and they often arrive at the shelter cold and
without adequate coats, gloves, hats. During the past 11 days when they offered shelter, the Edmonds
Police Department called four times to inform her of people they discovered living in their cars. She
described the importance of providing shelter for the homeless during emergency weather situations. She
commented on how easily people can become homeless through circumstances beyond their control.
Reverend Barry Keating, Maplewood Presbyterian Church, requested the Council allow churches
freedom from the ordinance that requires churches to have a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm
system. He commented groups of 100+ people are at the church each day without a sprinkler or
monitored fire alarm system. As written, the ordinance would not allow him to bring someone inside the
church that he found sleeping in front of the church on a frigid night. During the current economic
climate when it was difficult for government to provide these services, a group of volunteers and warm
buildings were available to provide emergency shelter. The ordinance seemed to indicate it was better for
Packet Page 214 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 5
the homeless to remain outside in frigid temperatures than take the risk of being inside a building that
lacked a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm. He assured there were homeless people in the
Edmonds/Lynnwood area, remarking it would have been difficult during last year’s four weeks of frigid
weather to obey the City’s ordinance. He urged the Council to consider waiving the ordinance for
churches.
Reverend Eileen Hanson, Trinity Lutheran Church, explained the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter
Network was a grass-roots coalition. Last year they provided 474 beds over 34 nights; this year they
provided 200 beds during the recent 11 days of cold weather. She commented on the diversity of their
guests; they include veterans, youth and pregnant women. The Shelter Network is a coalition of seven
faith communities with tremendous community involvement from approximately 200 volunteers. She
encouraged Council to look at this issue not from a stereotypical point of view but understanding the
diversity among the homeless and the under-housed (living in RVs and cars).
Catherine Roper, Lynnwood, an elder in the Maplewood Presbyterian Church, thanked Edmonds for
their concern about the safety of people in churches. She commented on the importance of community
shelters to provide safe, warm and dry emergency accommodations. Until communities are able to
provide shelter and/or employment conditions improve making emergency shelters unnecessary, churches
are providing a piecemeal, minimal temporary shelter. Until Edmonds was able to provide shelter, she
requested the temporary ordinance waive the requirement for sprinklers and a monitored fire alarm
system. She planned to also urge the Lynnwood City Council to provide temporary emergency housing.
Bill Ellis, Edmonds, representing Edmonds United Methodist Church and accompanied by two church
elders, commented although many believe Edmonds is a prosperous city, there are various types of low
cost housing and a wide mix of income levels. Snohomish County’s 10% unemployment rate is higher
than the State or national rate. The consequences of high unemployment are evident at the food bank; the
food bank served nearly twice the number of people this year compared to last year. Today they served
425 families which represent approximately 2,000 people; their recent toy shop distributed 1,060 toys.
Homelessness is one aspect of the economic crisis and results from unemployment, loss of insurance, and
severe physical and psychological suffering. He commented the homeless includes the near homeless,
people who are living in a car or van or stay with a neighbor or friend. The temperature that activates the
Emergency Cold Weather Shelter Network is 33 degrees. He summarized although there were not huge
numbers of homeless people in South Snohomish County, there were very few facilities. The coalition of
churches is striving to fill that need.
Brooke Burdick, Edmonds, explained he had became involved with the Cold Weather Shelter as a result
of his son’s Eagle Scout Project to collect food, cash and equipment donations to provide for those in
need this winter. Many of the people he met at the shelter while volunteering were not the stereotypical
person staying at a shelter. His son and he attended last week’s Lynnwood City Council meeting and
were discouraged because they were not interested in participating in a solution. He encouraged the
Edmonds City Council to show leadership in Snohomish County by acting swiftly to help the community
provide shelter for the homeless this winter.
Marilyn Nadeau, Edmonds, requested the Council’s support for the ordinance or any other action to
facilitate a shelter in Edmonds. A co-founder of the South Snohomish County Shelter for the Homeless
that was started at Trinity Lutheran, she enlisted the help of several other churches in the area. Their
criteria is 33 degrees or below for 4 hours or more. They only seek to offer a safe, warm environment for
the homeless who include men, women and children. This year they have been open for 10 nights and
housed approximately 200 people including several women. They expect to continue this somehow,
somewhere. She invited Councilmembers to visit the shelter the next time it is open.
Packet Page 215 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 6
Council President Wilson explained he learned by talking with homeless advocates that Edmonds has the
stigma of thinking no homeless people exist in Edmonds and if there were any homeless in Edmonds,
they would be promptly sent out of town. He assured that did not reflect the Council or the community’s
values. Although there are legitimate reasons some buildings could not be allowed to house homeless
people such as if they do not meet the State building code that requires sprinklers, there is a federal law
that allows the land use of religious facilities to override the State Building Code. He anticipated this
would be one of the only Council votes that would save lives. The resolution directs staff to be as flexible
and as aggressive as possible in waiving certain requirements to adhere to federal law.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City has taken two steps already, 1) the City for years has had a
reasonable accommodation process that provides for a waiver of any land use provisions to prevent full
use of property by disabled persons and the homeless community contains a large number of disabled
persons, and 2) the City adopted Ordinance 3730 that adopted the exemption process permitted under the
State Building Code. He explained the City was obligated to enforce the State Building Code and could
not amend the substantive provisions of the State Building Code without the State Building Council’s
approval, a process that takes 6-8 months. The provision for sprinklers is in the State Building Code. Via
adoption of Ordinance 3730, the City exempted existing buildings that would be used for indigent
emergency shelter from change in use requirements such as installing sprinklers. The State Statute
requires that code deficiencies that are exempted pose no threat to human health or safety and the
proposed emergency temporary housing must be less hazardous than the existing use.
Passing the interim ordinance will remove all impediments in the City’s zoning code in addition to the
previous adoption of the State’s Building Code provision and the reasonable accommodation process.
The Fire Marshal community’s position is exempting any use from the sprinkler requirement poses a
threat to health and safety. As attorney Bio Park discussed with the Council committee, that raises legal
issues. Washington State Constitution is broader than the Federal Constitution and Federal statutory
provision and requires, 1) the City’s enforcement of building codes and other requirements be flexible,
and 2) consider reasonable alternatives. He recommended continuing to explore what could be done
within the context of the State law and to assess the risks.
Councilmember Wambolt commended all the speakers for their work on this issue. He acknowledged
there was a problem and the citizens involved in that effort need the City’s assistance. He suggested
consideration be given to using the Senior Center for temporary emergency shelter.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked everyone involved in this effort. He described his past involvement
with the food bank and looked forward to the Council’s effort with regard to this matter.
Councilmember Peterson commented this resolution was the most important page in tonight’s 1,036 page
Council packet. He thanked Council President Wilson for bringing this issue to the Council. The
resolution and interim ordinance are important steps toward raising awareness of the problem in South
Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson thanked everyone involved in providing emergency shelter for the homeless.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1213 REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND
DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND
ENCAMPMENTS
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the intent of the ordinance was to remove all doubt that homeless
shelters were a permitted use in the City’s zones. The interim ordinance will be in effect for six months
while the Planning Board considers the matter and a public hearing is required within 60 days.
Packet Page 216 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3769 RELATED TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND ENCAMPMENTS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION ON RENAMING KAIREZ DRIVE.
Council President Wilson explained the Vista Del Mar Homeowner’s association President contacted him
with a request to rename Kairez Drive. There are two processes, one that costs thousands of dollars and a
second virtually no cost option where Council can direct staff to rename the street.
Ross Marturano, President, Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association, identified five residents of Vista
Del Mar in the audience. He explained there are nine existing homes in Vista Del Mar, two pending sales
and several undeveloped lots. Of the 15 lots, 13 voted in favor of the name change, 1 abstained and 1
voted no. He explained the name Kairez has negative connotations in the neighborhood particularly with
the Police Department. The street was originally known as 92nd Place West and changed to Kairez; the
plat is known as Vista Del Mar. A vote was taken in accordance with the Vista Del Mar Homeowner
Association’s CC&Rs and they are petitioning the Council to change the name. There is no implication
with the title company other than the City must file the name change with Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson inquired about a private road versus public road. Mr. Marturano replied they
are willing to have the road public or private. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this only initiated the
process and set the public hearing. Staff will provide a response by the public hearing regarding the
public versus private road issue. He requested a copy of the Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association
CC&Rs.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1214 INITIATING THE PROCESS TO RENAME KAIREZ
DRIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS “FIRDALE
VILLAGE” FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" (BN) TO THE “FIRDALE VILLAGE
MIXED USE” (FVMU) ZONE AND ESTABLISH A TREE RETENTION BUFFER.
Planner Gina Coccia explained Firdale Village is located at 9617 Firdale Avenue, contains 3.2 acres and 8
parcels. The buildings were constructed in 1942, annexed into the City in 1997 and the site is currently
zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The City received one public comment that is included in Exhibit 1
of Attachment 10. No public testimony was provided at the Planning Board public hearing.
She explained this item included a rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board
recommended approval of both the rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board’s draft
minutes are attached in Exhibit 2. In 2006 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to add goals and
policies for this neighborhood. A code amendment establishing a Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone
(FVMU) and corresponding design standards was approved in October 2009.
Ms. Coccia explained this was two separate actions, 1) a public hearing on the proposed development
agreement and 2) a closed record review of the proposed change in zoning from BN to FVMU. The
application requires compliance with ECDC 20.01 Types of Development, 20.08 Development
Agreements, 20.40 Rezones as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained the development
agreement is a Type V legislative application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public
hearing and forwards a recommendation to the Council for final decision. The City Council may hold its
Packet Page 217 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 8
own public hearing. The rezone is a Type IVB application; the Planning Board conducts an open record
public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. The Council
holds a closed record review which is being done tonight.
Ms. Coccia referred to Exhibit 3, the development agreement, explaining the City recently adopted a
development agreement process, ECDC 20.08, which functions similar to a contract rezone process where
the property owner deliberately enters into an agreement offering mitigation for the zone change. In this
case, the owner has offered to retain a large stand of mature trees along the north property line which
would ease the transition between the single family neighborhood to the north and the proposed mixed
use site at Firdale Village.
Factors for the Council to consider in a rezone are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning
consistency, relationship of the rezone to nearby property, changes in the surrounding area or policy,
economic and physical suitability, and the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared
to the potential increase/decrease in value to the property owners,
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would first hold the public hearing on the development agreement
followed by the closed record review.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Tony Shapiro was the applicant for both the development
agreement and the rezone. Ms. Coccia answered he was.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Exhibit C which is referred to in the development agreement as the
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) which refers to an Exhibit A. Ms. Coccia answered Exhibit
A refers to the site map attached to the development agreement. She explained the NGPE is the setback
along the north side of the property. Councilmember Orvis observed the development agreement did not
specifically refer to a NGPE on a map. Ms. Coccia advised the NGPE was also identified on Exhibit C.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the development agreement indicates a document in substantially
the form shown needs to be recorded within 60 days or the agreement is not valid. The developer needs
to return with a signed copy ready for recording and at that time a legal description would be provided
that matched the map so that the recorded document would have its own Exhibit A that identifies the
NGPE. Councilmember Orvis observed the Council was voting on a NGPE that was not identified. Mr.
Snyder explained if the Council approved the rezone ordinance, before it is placed on the Consent Agenda
for approval, staff would have a recorded document that matched the exhibit. Ms. Coccia displayed
Exhibit A and identified the location of the NGPE.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was any legal obligation to replace a tree that fell in the
NGPE. Mr. Snyder answered there was no replacement requirement; a provision requiring replacement
could be added. Councilmember Orvis responded he would like to include such a provision.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, urged the Council not to vote on the development agreement until it was in its
final form. The development agreement failed to require that commercial development accompany
residential and feared the result would be residential development similar to Pt. Edwards. She anticipated
the developer would develop the residential portion and then say the commercial was not feasible which
would result in the loss of a neighborhood business district. She questioned whether the development
agreement was a mechanism to avoid SEPA. She recalled being told in October that the traffic,
intersection level of service, would be addressed in the SEPA review. However, the same SEPA used
earlier in the process was being used for the rezone and development agreement. She cited answers to
questions in the SEPA checklist: what percentage of the site would be covered with impervious surface -
Packet Page 218 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 9
none; will any structures be demolished - no; how many parking spaces will be created or eliminated -
unknown; and how many vehicle trips per day will be generated - unknown. She urged the Council not to
adopt the development agreement.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Wilson recalled the development agreement was deemed the best mechanism for
retaining the trees. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining the initial ordinance imposing a tree buffer did not
comply with recent Washington case law; there was no legislative record that established the need and
why the tree buffer was the appropriate amount. He suggested retaining the trees via establishing a NGPE
in a development agreement.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder explained the property owner can remove dead or diseased trees in
the NGPE and the City has the right but not the obligation to replant and restock plants or animal habitat
or any other actions appropriate for preservation. The Council could require the property owner to replant
and restock.
With regard to SEPA, Mr. Chave explained this was not the end of the process. The project level SEPA
would occur later in the process at the time of design review.
Councilmember Orvis recalled during the development of the code to create the zone, there were
stepbacks incorporated on portions of the site where there was no buffer. He observed the stepbacks were
not required in the area where the trees would be retained. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent of the
development agreement was to ensure the trees were retained in the buffer. The zone specifies stepbacks
in the areas where the buffer does not exist.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Council President Wilson explained this put in place the zoning criteria and the design standards the
Council adopted via a 6-1 vote in October and this was the appropriate next step to retain the trees on the
site.
Councilmember Orvis recalled he voted against the zone, commenting the buffer was the key piece and
allowed the Council to approve a 50-foot building within 20 feet of a residential zone. He was not
convinced the development agreement would establish a NGPE because there was no map that identified
the area and it put the onerous on the City to plant the trees. He preferred the developer be required to
replace and maintain the trees in the buffer. He did not support the development agreement.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the applicant whether the developer would take responsibility for the
trees. Tony Shapiro responded a survey was done of the site that shows the exact location and size of the
trees. The trees are substantial firs that range from 50 to 100 feet tall and are 50+ years old. He assured
20 feet was more than enough to protect the trees and the criteria require that no construction occur under
the trees. The trees are located at the top of a bank; the site slopes from the north property line to Firdale
Avenue and much of the grade change occurs at the north property line. The 20 foot area where the trees
are located is essentially a plateau and there is a rockery in some areas that drops away 12 feet or more
where the construction would occur.
Mr. Shapiro disagreed that a 50-foot building would be located adjacent to the setback because the height
calculation is based on the average grade from the four corners. This takes into account the lower portion
of the site and results in a 2-3 story building adjacent to the single family development. He noted there
were no zones in the city that required more than a 15-foot rear-yard setback; they proposed 20 feet to
Packet Page 219 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 10
protect the trees. He did not anticipate his client would object to the Council including a maintenance
clause that would require replacement of a tree that died. He questioned the survivability of a small
replacement tree due to the high tree canopy.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson advised the closed record review on the rezone was a quasi judicial matter. The parties
of record are Mr. Shapiro, representatives of WNS Property Investment and Tamara Ancona who
submitted an email. Only Mr. Shapiro is present. He invited Councilmembers to make any disclosures
with regard to those parties of record.
Councilmember Wambolt disclosed he received a small contribution from one of the owners of Firdale
Village.
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed one of the owners sent him a campaign donation which he returned.
Council President Wilson commented he had been extensively involved in the zone rewrite for the past
four months. He had not received any political donations from any of the parities. He asked whether he
needed to recuse himself due to his involvement in the zoning rewrite. Mr. Snyder responded Council
President Wilson’s involvement in a legislative process did not disqualify him from participation. The
only reason for disqualification was if he had communications that were not summarized in the last
process or that he had already made up his mind about the action, pre-judgmental bias. Council President
Wilson recused himself because of the perception that he may have prejudged the matter. Council
President Wilson left the dais and the room.
Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmember Wambolt and Councilmember Plunkett whether they were able
to review and make a fair decision on the matter. Both answered they could. Mayor Haakenson asked
whether Mr. Shapiro had any objection to Councilmembers Plunkett or Wambolt participating in the
closed record review. Mr. Shapiro responded he did not object to their participation.
Ms. Coccia advised Exhibit 1, the staff report, includes an analysis of the rezone criteria as well as the
ordinance establishing the FVMU Zone. Mr. Snyder explained the Council would be making a
conceptual approval; when a development agreement in a suitable format with the NGPE is recorded,
staff would schedule the ordinance rezoning the property from Neighborhood Business (BN) to FVMU
on a future Council’s agenda.
Mayor Haakenson observed the FVMU zone and corresponding design standards were approved by the
Council on October 6 and the ordinance adopted on October 27. This is a continuation of that process.
Ms. Coccia agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board had reviewed the rezone. Ms. Coccia
answered they had; the draft Planning Board minutes were included as Exhibit 2. Only the applicant and
staff spoke at the Planning Board public hearing.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether in the FVMU zone approved on October 6, the language in the
zone would not be changed for five years. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Tony Shapiro referred to Attachment 7 on page 6, Section 16.100.040.A, addresses 25% of the heated
space of the built area must be in commercial. This was included in response to concern expressed by the
community that the development would be entirely residential. The materials provided to the Planning
Board also reviewed how the proposed rezone complies with the six criteria.
Packet Page 220 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 11
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO RETURN WITH AN ORDINANCE ON A FUTURE AGENDA THAT REZONED THE
PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) TO FIRDALE VILLAGE MIXED USE
(FVMU).
Councilmember Bernheim commented he was uncomfortable with some of the language in the zone
particularly the modulated building design allowing for greater building height. However, due to the need
to make progress on neighborhood redevelopment, although it may not be perfect, the City could learn
from any mistakes in future neighborhood developments.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. (Council President Wilson
did not participate in the vote.)
(Council President Wilson returned to the dais.)
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 BUDGET:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS,
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the budget amendment was presented to the Finance
Committee on November 17 and remanded to Council for review.
For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. Hines explained this agenda item contained Exhibits A, B and C and
a General Fund Summary and an Other Fund Summary. Councilmember Bernheim observed the Other
Fund Summary was entitled City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendments 11/17/09. He pointed out the
agenda memo refers to three attachments, 2009 Final Budget Ordinance, 2009 Other Fund Summary and
General Fund Summary. Mr. Hines advised the agenda memo included the General Fund Summary and
the Other Fund Summary. Councilmember Bernheim commented on the difficulty determining which
documents were referred to in the agenda memo when the title of the document was different. Mayor
Haakenson assured staff would label them more appropriately in the future.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that he was unable to adequately review the information
because the attachments were not properly identified in the materials. Mr. Hines commented the
documents had been available to the Council since November 17. He noted he had been unable to
respond to Councilmember Bernheim’s Monday email.
City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested amending Section 1 of the ordinance to state that Exhibit A
consisted of 7 pages. Mr. Hines explained the materials that were historically incorporated into the
ordinance were limited to Exhibit A; the other materials were additional information.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Bernheim that the documents should be labeled
more appropriately. Mr. Hines agreed that would be done in the future.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the General Fund Amendment to Revenues, observing some of the new
revenues were pass-throughs such as the WASPC Grant. He asked how many were pass-throughs versus
new revenue. Mr. Hines referred to Other Revenues Augmentations Offset with Related Expenses, noting
funds were shown in that section as well as in Other Expense Augmentations Offset with Related
Revenues. The amendments to budget expenses include $155,000 to the City Attorney and Eliminating
the A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December. Mr. Hines explained the
A-Found Contribution; each fund is required to contribute to the Equipment Reserve Fund. Due to
vacancies and expenditure reductions, the Equipment Reserve Fund is able to maintain an adequate
balance through yearend; therefore, contributions from the other funds are not necessary resulting in a
reduction in the expense.
Packet Page 221 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 12
Council President Wilson echoed previous statements regarding the importance of accurately labeling
documents. He asked why water, sewer and stormwater utility revenue was higher. Mr. Hines answered
all the utilities were increased from 6% to 10% in January 2009. The water utility tax increased from
10% to 18.7% in August 2009 and stormwater rates increased by 6.82% in July 2009. The City budgeted
conservatively for those increases. He summarized the increase was due to both the rate increase and
higher usage due to the dry summer.
Council President Wilson asked when a projection regarding EMS transport fees would be available. Mr.
Hines responded he planned to prepare that information during the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that the format of Exhibit A in Agenda Item 8 did not
match format in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 9; Exhibit A for 2009 has fund numbers and Exhibit A for
2010 does not and some of the funds have different names. Mayor Haakenson commented the only
difference was the 2010 budget identified REET I and II rather than Park Acquisition/Improvement and
Special Capital Fund. Mr. Hines clarified REET I, Park Acquisition/Improvement, was Fund 125 and
REET II, Special Capital Fund, was Fund 126. Councilmember Bernheim reiterated his concern that the
differences made it difficult for him to review the information.
Council President Wilson shared Councilmember Bernheim’s frustration. He commented Mr. Hines was
doing a good job but did not have enough staff. It was reasonable for a Councilmember to ask a question
after reviewing the Council packet and expect an answer prior to the Council meeting. He remarked this
issue was more sensitive because the City’s financial situation was of increased interest to the Council,
staff and citizens.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the materials were reviewed by the Finance Committee who are
accustomed to the fund titles, etc.
Councilmember Orvis referred to a breakdown of the increased City Attorney costs and asked the reason
for the increased expenditures such as the Edmonds GMA. Mr. Snyder responded the Council has been
approaching litigation from a contingency point of view rather than appropriating litigation costs at the
level they have been historically. The total amount is not greater than it has been in prior years. He
explained the GMA appeal was very complex; briefings in response to the approximately 40 points Ms.
Petso raised with the Growth Management Hearings Board were 50-100 pages each. Another large
expenditure was the LUPA appeal of engineering requirements.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the Breske litigation. Mr. Snyder explained it was resolved in the
City’s favor; a lot sold to a property owner burdened by a stormwater retention system. The owner
wanted to develop the lot and felt the City had an obligation to move the system. Councilmember Orvis
observed that matter cost the City $30,000. Mr. Snyder advised the Alderwood Water Agreement was a
40-year agreement; the Transportation Benefit District was another large one-time project. All other
items on the list were defense cases; the City did not initiate any of the matters. He has periodically
reported to the Council in Executive Session as well as provided detailed monthly billings.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the ending cash balance in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 8, the 2009
budget, did not match the beginning cash balance in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 9, the 2010 budget.
Mayor Haakenson suggested he pose that question during Agenda Item 9.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, questioned why the REET revenue in Fund 126 was only $369,000 when she
learned that REET revenue through September was over $450,000. She anticipated through yearend
Packet Page 222 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 13
REET revenue would be at least $600,000 particularly when real estate sales increased substantially in
November, possibly even as high as $700,000. She questioned the legal effect of a 2009 yearend budget
amendment that understates REET revenue. She questioned why the Council would adopt a yearend
budget amendment that did not reflect year-to-date receipts.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the Council review the cost and product of professional services.
He pointed out the budget for the City Attorney through September 30 was $510,000 and expenditures
were $415,000; he assumed the remainder would be expended before yearend. He questioned whether
the unused amounts in other funds would be carried over into 2010. He questioned the $3 million in
revenue and the $3 million in expenditures in the Multimodal Fund and the $339,000 expenditure and a
$22,000 interfund transfer reflected in the September 30 report.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether Exhibit A included fourth quarter REET revenue. Mr. Hines responded
it included the last estimate made with regard to REET. This budget amendment reflects only a $5,000
change to the REET funds. If the revenues need to be amended to reflect additional activity, those
amendments will be made in the first quarter of 2010. No amendment is deemed necessary at this time
because REET revenues receipts are similar to projections.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this represents the third quarter budget amendment. The Finance
Committee reviewed the amendment at their November 10 meeting; it should have been reviewed at the
October Finance Committee meeting which was cancelled due to the meeting with Fire District 1. Mr.
Hines explained these are changes to the spending plan approved by the Council in 2008. Staff presented
adjustments to that spending plan in October and this represents another adjustment. Amendments are
necessary to reflect higher expenditures to provide additional spending authority to address the costs. For
example, without the amendments, he did not have the spending authority to address the City Attorney’s
November or December bills or any other unanticipated legal costs.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mr. Hertrich could meet with Mr. Hines to review the
expenditures for professional service, City Attorney expenditures, and in the multimodal fund. Mr. Hines
agreed he could.
Mr. Hines explained the budget establishes the level at which revenues can be collected and funds
expended. A budget amendment is required to change those levels. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s
comment regarding the Multimodal Fund, Mr. Hines explained there was revenue authority to collect $3.1
million and authority to spend $3.1 million. The reality is approximately $761,000 has been expended
from the Multimodal Fund in 2009 and $807,000 has been collected. The third quarter report reflects
those figures.
Mayor Haakenson explained in response to Council questions, detail regarding the additional $150,000 in
City Attorney fees had been provided. He encouraged Councilmembers to share that information with
constituents who inquire. With regard to the Multimodal Fund, he explained a full report was prepared in
response to Finis Tupper’s public record request for an itemization of all Edmonds Crossing expenditures.
He suggested Mr. Hertrich obtain that information from Mr. Tupper.
Councilmember Orvis commented his understanding was the budget was a cap on the expenditures for
each fund and not necessarily a cap on revenue collected. Mr. Hines answered the cap was on revenue
collected as well as expenditures. Councilmember Orvis asked why the ending cash balance in 2009 did
not match the beginning cash for 2010. Mr. Hines explained the 2010 budget was developed in 2008
along with the 2009 budget. Initial amendments were being made to the 2010 budget and he would return
to the Council with additional amendments following his analysis to true up the 2009 budget to the 2010
Packet Page 223 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 14
budget. Councilmember Orvis observed the next agenda item was to provide enough expenditure and
revenue authority to function. Mr. Hines agreed, noting the intent in 2010 was to provide a budget
amendment every quarter if needed.
Councilmember Wambolt advised the REET projection provided at the December Finance Committee
meeting is $548,000. As only one month remains to receive REET revenue, he did not anticipate it would
reach $750,000. The 2010 REET revenue is projected at a higher amount because that reflects the
amount budgeted in the original 2009/2010 budget. Mr. Hines commented that would likely be adjusted
when he completed his analysis of the 2009 ending fund balance.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3770, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hines’ clarifying comments. He recalled the
adopted 2009/2010 budget included a note that the Council would pursue a levy because the Council was
concerned with the 2009/2010 budget without a fix such as a levy. However, the Council did not foresee
the Fire District 1 contract. Those two changes were so important to this budget that before he could
approve the amendments, he needed to spend more time reviewing the implications of the 2009 budget on
2010 as well as have a Council-driven conversation about the 2010 finances. For that reason he planned
to vote against the motion.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MID-BIENNIAL BUDGET REVIEW AND MODIFICATION:
ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN
ORDINANCE NO. 3711.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained this was the introduction to the 2010 fiscal year. This
represents the 2010 budget passed as part of the biennial budget approved in 2008 with two adjustments,
1) a $12,000 reduction in property taxes and 2) to reflect the Fire District 1 savings of $1.9 million.
When staff completes their analysis of the 2009 actuals, he will return with an amendment if necessary for
2010 during the first quarter of 2010. Mayor Haakenson asked if the changes in revenue and expenditures
made last spring in the 2009 budget were included. Mr. Hines answered they were not. Mayor
Haakenson pointed out for example the REET revenue had not been adjusted based on the adjustments
made in 2009. He advised the changes made to the 2009 budget would be reflected in the 2010 budget
via an amendment in the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why those amendments had not yet been made. Mr. Hines responded
because 2009 had not yet concluded. In order to make substantive changes, the prior fiscal year must be
completed to allow a complete analysis of revenues and expenditures. Councilmember Plunkett
questioned why the cuts made in spring 2009 had not been factored into the 2010 budget. Mayor
Haakenson answered the cuts made in spring 2009 such as eliminating funding of Yost Pool were not in
the 2010 budget. In addition, there were no furloughs in the 2010 budget.
Council President Wilson asked whether the revenues from the sale of assets to Fire District 1 were
placed into the General Fund for general operations. Mr. Hines answered yes.
Councilmember Bernheim asked why the 2009 ending balance in Fund 001, General Fund, of $1,052,000
did not match the 2010 beginning General Fund balance of $1,273,000. Mr. Hines answered the General
Packet Page 224 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 15
Fund beginning balance in the 2010 budget was developed and approved in late 2008 and has not yet been
adjusted for activity in 2009. That figure will be adjusted during the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the 2009 ending balance in Fund 125, REET II, of $450,000 which
does not match the 2010 beginning balance. Mayor Haakenson explained the 2010 beginning balance for
Fund 125 reflected the number in the 2009/2010 budget when it was adopted in 2008. That number
would be adjusted, likely to the amount in the 2009 budget during the first quarter of 2010. This was the
starting point in the 2010 budget approved by the Council in 2008.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Council was considering the 2010 budget. Mr. Hines advised
State law requires a biennial review.
Council President Wilson commented the Council adopted the 2009/2010 budget and had the authority to
amend the budget at any time. He asked whether the Council had the legal authority to amend the 2010
budget during 2009. Mr. Hines agreed the Council could amend 2010 budget but it would not be prudent
because there was no data to substantiate amendments to the 2010 budget. Council President Wilson
asked whether for policy planning purposes, it would be appropriate whenever an ending cash balance
adjustment was made to 2009, it would automatically make a change to the beginning cash of 2010. Mr.
Snyder read the provisions in RCW 35A.34.130 that require a mid-biennial review no sooner than eight
months and no later than the conclusion of the first year. He acknowledged the numbers were soft and
would likely require adjustment in the first quarter of 2010.
Council President Wilson commented the RCW required the biennial review by the end of the year but it
did not require it be done with the prior year’s numbers. Mr. Snyder agreed the best numbers available
should be used. Council President Wilson concluded the policy question was what were the best
numbers; in his opinion the best numbers available were not those approved in November 2008.
Councilmember Peterson commented although the 2010 numbers were not good, the current 2009 ending
cash numbers were only slightly better. The Council will be amending the 2010 numbers in the first
quarter. He anticipated that using the original 2010 numbers provided a better picture than if incremental
adjustments had been made to the 2010 budget throughout 2009.
Council President Wilson agreed with Councilmember Peterson, clarifying although the 2010 numbers
were not very good, the 2009 numbers were not perfect and a budget amendment would be required in the
first quarter of 2010. However, he preferred to take the time to ensure the numbers were good and risk
being out of compliance with the State’s biennial review requirement.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the State statute required that the mid-biennial review be a public
hearing. Mr. Snyder answered a public hearing was required. He advised the biennial budget process
included a series of reviews and adjustment over that two year period.
Mayor Haakenson advised these were good numbers, they were the numbers adopted by the Council in
the 2009/2010 budget. They simply had not been adjusted yet but would be during the first quarter of
2010.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, reiterated her question why the Council would approve a REET revenue budget
of $369,000 when year-to-date receipts exceeded that amount. She noted that contributed to a false
number at the end of 2009 that would require adjustment to the beginning balance of 2010. She advised
the information regarding the 2009 REET revenue was provided by staff in response to her public record
request. She assured she would not sue the City for using budget numbers that later turned out to be
Packet Page 225 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 16
wrong even if she disagreed that they were reasonable. However, she preferred the City use actual
numbers when the actual dollars have been received. She questioned the benefit of not including accurate
numbers other than potentially misinforming the public.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his question about the Multimodal Fund, the $361,000
expenditure, the availability of $339,000 in professional services and the $22,395 interfund transfer. He
expressed concern that his question was avoided and he was referred to Mr. Tupper for information.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s inquiry regarding the Multimodal Fund, Mr. Hines offered to provide Mr.
Hertrich with a copy of staff’s response to Mr. Tupper’s public records request that explains how all
moneys in the Multimodal Fund were received and expended.
In response to Ms. Petso’s questions, Mr. Hines explained in his professional opinion the 2010 numbers
should not be adjusted until further data from 2009 was available. The proposed amendments were ones
that could be made based on the data available.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Council President Wilson asked if the REET Fund should be updated as stated by Ms. Petso. Mr. Hines
responded he was not aware of the information Ms. Petso obtained via her public records request.
Council President Wilson anticipated the information Ms. Petso obtained was from the Finance Office.
He inquired about the amount of REET collections to date. Mr. Hines answered he did not have that
information available to him tonight. Council President Wilson was frustrated with voting on REET
amounts that he did not have 100% confidence in. Mr. Hines reiterated the numbers could be adjusted in
the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the REET collections were a matter of timing. He agreed it would
be preferable to have updated amounts for the REET fund for 2010. The $369,000 Ms. Petso referred to
was from the 3rd Quarter Report which did not include REET funds collected in the 4th quarter.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3771, MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE IN ORDINANCE NO. 3711, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Council President Wilson referenced concerns he had expressed previously and added it was a mistake for
corporations, households or a municipal government to place proceeds from the sale of assets into an
operating fund. He was concerned with adopting this ordinance when there was a 25% variance between
the 2009 ending cash balance and the 2010 beginning cash balance. He did not support the motion.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Council previously approved placing the sale of the Fire Department
assets into the General Fund. Council President Wilson reiterated his disagreement with that policy.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Packet Page 226 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 17
10. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF ORDINANCE NO. 3717, THE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED 2001 PARKS, RECREATION &
OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S REPORT RELATED TO THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE
OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITY.
THE 2008 PLAN REVISES AND UPDATES THE CITY'S PARK LAND INVENTORY TO
REFLECT ACQUISITIONS AND DELETE EXPIRED OR TERMINATED INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENTS.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained with two exceptions the Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board found the City's unanimous decision to adopt the 2008 Parks Plan
valid and within the Council's legislative discretion. In response to the Board's Final Decision and Order,
the City was remanded to, 1) conduct an additional public hearing regarding changes to the Parks Plan
which was accomplished October 20, 2009, and 2) appear before the Hearing Examiner regarding the
consistency of the Parks Plan with the City Comprehensive Plan Policy B, page 2, in regard to park
abandonment.
A hearing was conducted before the Hearing Examiner on November 19, 2009 and the Advisory Report
to City Council outlines the Hearing Examiner's conclusions that the City has demonstrated consistency
with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s recommendation is to accept the Hearing Examiner's
Advisory Report and Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks
Plan and a resolution terminating the 1997 Interlocal Agreement (ILA).
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether accepting the Hearing Examiner's Advisory Report and
Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks Plan and a resolution
terminating the 1997 ILA eliminated the Council’s ability to purchase the land west of Hickman Park.
City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it did not.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if the ILA for the property expired according to its terms. Mr. Snyder
answered there were two ILAs, one expired on its own terms and the other that addressed the City’s
obligation to maintain a playfield and use School District property was terminated by the other two
parties, the School District and Snohomish County. The Council’s vote to terminate the ILA ended in a
3-3 tie and did not pass. The Council vote occurred prior to the purchase of the half the property by the
City. Councilmember Bernheim asked the contract term of the second ILA. Mr. Snyder answered it was
indefinite.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the answers provided to the Council questions were not entirely
correct and she urged the Council not to take action tonight to allow her time to research the Council
questions. She explained the Council was ordered to follow the Comprehensive Plan which requires a
public hearing before abandoning property. The GMHB agreed with her that by writing the park out of
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan it appeared the City was trying to abandon the property. The Hearing
Examiner hearing was not properly noticed and several participants including Mr. Hertrich and she did
not know if they were supposed to address the ILAs or consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She
observed the Hearing Examiner noted in connection with Comprehensive Plan consistency that on page
62 of the Comprehensive Plan all feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces,
land that would have unique suitability for further recreational uses both passive and active. The Hearing
Examiner also found this property was uniquely suitable for recreation. She pointed out abandonment of
Packet Page 227 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 18
a park was consistent with doing everything feasible to preserve it. She recalled Mr. McIntosh citing the
need for playfields numerous times and that there are no large undeveloped parcels suitable for fields.
Ms. Petso urged the Council not to reaffirm the 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment and instead pass a
motion stating they did not want to abandon the park and planned to amend the Park Plan to restore
potential acquisition of the park to the plan and to list the playfield in the field inventory. She disagreed
with the finding that staff’s recommendation that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan would not impact the
appropriate balance of land uses in the City, pointing out it converted much-needed full size playfields in
unneeded housing. She expressed concern with the second ordinance that terminates the 1997 ILA for
Madrona playfields via approval of the 2008 Park Plan, pointing out the 1997 ILA covered both
Sherwood Park and Madrona. She referred to the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan to do
everything feasible, pointing out it was feasible to put the park back into the plan. To Councilmember
Bernheim’s question, she pointed out the 1997 ILA did not expire on its own terms, it has a 10 year
minimum term and cannot be terminated without the same formalities used to put it into place, approval
by the three legislative bodies.
Colin Southcoat Want, Edmonds, urged the Council not to terminate the ILAs that provide for playfield
usage at the Old Woodway Elementary School. He pointed out when the development company
purchased the property, they knew they were buying playfields and the property description listed the
ILAs. He recalled a few years ago the Council voted not to terminate the ILAs. He urged the Council to
take a stand to do something special for future generations. To remove the ILAs that protect this prime
playfield property from development would be a travesty. He recommended the Council retain the ILAs
and the option to purchase the land. He commented on the lack of playfields in the City.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this public hearing was not on the Hearing Examiner’s
recommendation on the ILA but the GMHB’s finding that there was improper notice and consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan abandonment policy. He pointed out the Hearing Examiner provided a review
and recommendation regarding termination of the ILA; however, it was advertised as a decision on
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The notices were later corrected to reference abandonment.
He recalled asking the Hearing Examiner whether the topic was abandonment or the ILA; she did not
answer his question and made a decision on the ILA. He summarized the notices were incorrect and the
Hearing Examiner mixed and matched the subject which invalidated her determination.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the GMHB’s order was that the Council complete its actions by
December 15 and report to the Board. To fill a need in a neighborhood, the City Council purchased a 5+
acre park to replace the temporary arrangement for the use of two playfields. The Council unanimously
approved a Comprehensive Park Plan amendment that confirms that. The GMHB ruled that two steps
needed to be done and the plan was returned to the Council for confirmation. He requested the Council
identify any changes at the October 20 public hearing to allow readvertising; no changes were requested.
With regard to a park or playfield, he explained the hearing was advertised with regard to the City’s
interest which was two ILAs. A decision was made not to request reconsideration of the GMHB’s
decision. He summarized the notice accurately portrayed the City’s interest; it would have been
confusing if the notice stated abandonment of a park where no parks exists.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the plan could be amended to reference potential acquisition of
land west of Hickman Park. Mr. Snyder responded a motion could be made to schedule that for next year.
If the Council wanted to amend the plan, public notification would be required. He explained the Park
Plan, Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Plan must be internally consistent and it was too late to
make piecemeal amendments this year.
Packet Page 228 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 19
Councilmember Plunkett observed any amendments to the Park Plan would require another public
hearing. Mr. Snyder responded if the Council wanted to amend the plan, they should direct him to
petition the GMHB for additional time. Councilmember Plunkett asked what happened if the Council did
not act tonight. Mr. Snyder responded the Council would be in violation of the GMHB’s order and he
would need to petition the Board for additional time to hold an additional public hearing. The alternative
would be to consider amendments next year.
Council President Wilson observed the appeal to the GMHB upheld 2 of the 50 counts. The GMHB
required an appropriately noticed public hearing and reaffirmation of the Park Plan. The Council
previously took the position that adoption of the Park Plan also terminated the ILA but the GMHB was
now requesting specific action to terminate the ILA. Mr. Snyder clarified that because there was no
record of the substitution of the park for the ILAs, the Hearing Examiner’s review and recommendation
was required.
Council President Wilson commented in reviewing the Hearing Examiner recommendation it appeared
that because it was no longer public property, it could not be used for playfields unless the City purchased
it and because the City did not own it, the City could not maintain it and should not have an ILA for that
responsibility and should terminate the ILA. Mr. Snyder clarified assuming abandonment had occurred
by the wording in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the question was whether abandonment was consistent
with the Parks Plan. The Hearing Examiner’s analysis determined it was that because the playfields had
been replaced with a park, and agreements with other agencies were provided for in the Comprehensive
Plan. The GMHB previously confirmed that was within the Council’s legislative discretion and the way
the Plan was established, that the City did not obligate itself to purchasing specific parcels.
If the Council affirmed the 2008 Plan, Council President Wilson observed the Council should also
terminate the ILA. If the Council made any changes to the Park Plan such as returning the property to the
list of potential acquisitions, it was still not appropriate to retain the ILA because the City was no longer
maintaining the property. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the School District and Snohomish County were
no longer involved so there was no one to have an ILA with.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about maintenance of the Madrona fields if this ILA were terminated.
Mr. McIntosh explained the ILA with the School District was for both the old Woodway Elementary and
the Madrona sites. The City still maintains and schedules the Madrona property.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the issue of terminating the ILA was not presented to the Council
prior the sale of the property. When the Council made a decision not to purchase all the property and did
not consider whether to terminate the ILA, it raised the problem of the property had been sold by the
School District but the ILA was never formally terminated. Mr. Snyder pointed out the ILA was
terminated by the other two parties; the City received a resolution from the School District surplusing the
property. The City entered into applications for grant funds with Snohomish County and negotiations
with the School District to purchase the site. He pointed out the assumption that because the City only
purchased 5+ acres it was not preserving open space; staff viewed it as replacing permissive use of
playfields owned by the School District with a 5+ acre park.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed interest in acquiring the remaining property but preferred that be
done via amendment to the Park Plan versus refusing to terminate the ILA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1215 TERMINATING A 1997 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AND ACKNOWLEDGING EXPIRATION OF A 1999 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Bernheim proposed a friendly amendment to keep the ILA in place for Madrona School.
Packet Page 229 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 20
Councilmember Plunkett recalled he was in the minor opinion with regard to purchasing the park
property; he preferred to purchase the entire 10 acres. Although it may be easier do next year, he
preferred to state the Council’s interest in acquiring the property via the ILA. Therefore, he would not
support the motion.
Mr. Snyder suggested the friendly amendment revise the language in Section 1, line 2 of the resolution
“accepts termination of the 1997 ILA as to the old Woodway Elementary site.”
Mr. Snyder advised the School District had already terminated the ILA. He suggested initiating
discussion with the School District regarding a new ILA for the Madrona. Mr. McIntosh offered to
confer with the Edmonds School District regarding whether the ILA for Madrona School had been
terminated along with the ILA for old Woodway Elementary School. Mayor Haakenson summarized if
the ILA for Madrona had been terminated, staff would initiate a new ILA.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3772, REAFFIRMING
THE ADOPTION OF THE 2008 PARK PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
ORVIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE
FOR 2010-2015 TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE
CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS,
UPGRADES OR EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION,
PARKS, STORMWATER, SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC
FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
INCORPORATES PROJECTS FROM THE RECENTLY UPDATED TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKS PLAN ELEMENTS; ADDS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH EXTEND
BEYOND 2015, AND SEPARATES THE MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND
PRESERVATION PROJECTS FROM THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT AND
INTO A SEPARATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was required by the GMA
to identify and plan for capital projects that support the City’s plans to accommodate growth.
Planning Manager Rob Chave provided historical context, explaining the Edmonds’ CIP (Capital
Improvements Program) dates from 1973. The GMA-required CFP dates from the 1995 Comprehensive
Plan. Although the terms CIP and CFP have been used interchangeably, the reasons for doing them – and
the requirements – are different
With regard to the CIP, Mr. Chave explained the CIP identifies improvements tied to a 5-year project and
funding schedule. It is a budgeting tool intended to tie budget decisions to 5-year project needs. The CIP
includes capital and maintenance items related to various utility and special funds. The CFP dates from
City’s first GMA Comprehensive Plan which was completed in 1995. The CFP identifies improvements
tied to a 6-year project and funding plan and is in response to a GMA mandate. Since City already had 5-
year CIP, the “easy” solution was to add another year and adopt the CIP as the GMA-mandated CFP.
Packet Page 230 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 21
Mr. Chave identified components found only in the CIP (6-year maintenance projects with funding
sources), only in the CFP (long range [20 year] capital needs, and in both the CIP and CFP (6-year capital
projects with funding sources.
He provided a comparison of the CIP to the CFP:
CIP CFP
Mandate? None GMA
Reason? Budget GMA
Time Frame? 6-year 6-year, 20-year
Include Capital? Yes Yes
Include Maintenance Yes No
With regard to what’s different this year, Mr. Miller explained in the past, the CFP was equal to the CIP.
This year the CFP is being separated to simply address GMA requirements. The CFP now includes long-
range capital projects in addition to the required 6-year capital funding list. Preservation and maintenance
projects are not part of the CFP, but are still part of the CIP.
He explained the change was necessary because the GMA Capital Facilities Plan procedures are
restrictive and provide less flexibility (e.g. amend only once per year or with budget amendment). The
GMA only requires updating the CFP biennially (WAC 365-195-315). The CIP is a financial budgeting
tool and logically should not be tied to a land use/GMA schedule.
Mr. Miller reviewed the ideal annual plan coordination schedule that includes the City Council retreat,
update of the Strategic Plan, budget, CIP, Transportation Benefit District (TBD), CFP and
Comprehensive Plan.
He summarized the CFP element can be amended on an ongoing basis throughout the year as part of an
amendment to the City’s budget or an update to other Comprehensive Plan elements. He relayed the City
Attorney’s recommendation to adopt the CFP update tonight to make it consistent with the changes made
in the Transportation Plan element approved in October 2009 and the Parks Comprehensive Plan update
approved December 2008. He advised the Council could address any unresolved concerns next year as
part of the next update cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett commented in order to include the Skipper’s site, the old Safeway property and
the land west of Hickman Park in the CFP, they must be in the Park Plan. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the
Park Plan already identifies the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Mr. Snyder clarified there was a
starburst on the map that identified a need in that area; specific sites were not identified. Councilmember
Plunkett commented the area west of Hickman Park was not identified in the Park Plan or the CFP. Mr.
McIntosh agreed. Councilmember Plunkett observed projects could be incorporated into the CFP via a
budget amendment in 2010.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was enough time to add projects to the CFP if the Council
wanted to ask the voters to increase the TBD vehicle license fee. Mr. Snyder advised all the plans needed
to be consistent and there was not enough time this year to amend the plans.
Because the CFP referenced the TBD, Council President Wilson asked whether a similar plan needed to
be adopted at the TBD level. Mr. Snyder answered no; the TBD adopted a project plan for street
maintenance items that are not on the CFP.
Council President Wilson asked whether the TBD had bonding capacity. Mr. Snyder answered it did.
Council President Wilson commented although there were no plans for a TBD bond, were there any
Packet Page 231 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 22
projects in the CFP items that could be funded via a bond. Mr. Snyder answered the TBD would need to
be reconstituted as capital projects were not its current purpose. He explained TBDs were originally
envisioned to fund large projects.
Councilmember Bernheim observed a roundabout at Five Corners in the amount of $1.9 million was
included in the CFP. Observing there may be projects other than the roundabout that he would rather
fund during the next 5-10 years, he asked whether staff would object to removing the roundabout from the
CFP. Mr. Miller answered the Transportation Plan update also included the roundabout; if it were
removed from the CFP, the plans would not be consistent. He pointed out the roundabout project was
scheduled in 2015 thus there was adequate time for the Council to reassess its project priorities.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how a project could be removed from any of the plans without the plans
being inconsistent. Mr. Miller suggested beginning the process by review of the TBD funding
mechanism next year with the Transportation Committee to develop a list of prioritized projects. If the
public approved an increase in the TBD vehicle license fee, the Transportation Plan and the CFP could be
updated to reflect the changes.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton commented if the Council
planned to consider any zoning changes that would intensify development at the Five Corner intersection,
the roundabout was a primary traffic mitigation feature and will be used to allow traffic to flow more
smoothly as development intensified.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Fiene, Edmonds, member of the Transportation Committee, commented the CIP/CFP was the most
important plan Engineering prepared. As a primarily built out city, attention needed to be given to the
aging infrastructure. He urged the Council to consider the CFP mid-year so that it could be considered
along with the budget. He reiterated the comments made by members of the Transportation Committee
last week that the Council needed to develop a transportation funding plan whether it was a TBD or other
mechanism. He expressed concern with the overlay cycle and the lack of sidewalks near schools,
commenting Edmonds could not consider itself sustainable if people in certain areas had to drive to leave
their neighborhood such as Meadowdale and Seaview. With regard to stormwater, he referred to two
projects that had been designed but were not being constructed due to a lack of funding. He summarized
water, sewer, stormwater and transportation are services residents depended on daily. Over the last 30
years the City has been doing regular water line replacement; this has not been done for the past 2 years.
With 130 miles of water line with a life expectancy of 100 years, the City needed to replace 1.3 miles
every year. He reiterated the need for funding for these programs and making capital improvements a
priority.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the Council was being told if they made any changes to the CFP, it
would be inconsistent with the previously adopted plans; however, she felt unless the Council made
changes to the CFP it would be inconsistent with previously adopted plans. For example, the Park Plan
has line items for miscellaneous park acquisition and waterfront acquisition; there is no such project in the
CFP. She pointed out a project could not be funded with REET funds unless it was included in the CFP.
She recalled assurance from Parks staff during the GMHB hearings that the City would acquire parks;
however, if the Council adopted the CFP with no park acquisition, it appeared the City was not planning
to acquire parks. The CFP also needed a needs assessment or a facilities inventory and recommended the
CFP adopted the other plans as part of the CFP so that the missing elements were provided. She referred
to the existing Capital Facilities Element in the Comprehensive Plan that included policies regarding
essential public facilities and hoped the proposed list of projects would not replace the existing element.
She was also concerned with stormwater projects, noting one of the projects on 238th appeared to dump
the water into the new facility under Hickman Park and she suspected the overflow would be Woodway
Meadows. She commented the new stormwater system in that area was not working well.
Packet Page 232 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 23
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that park acquisition was not included in the CFP. He
commented the “purple starburst” identifying the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center did not
adequately describe the boundaries of that area. He expressed concern with several projects in the CFP
including the roundabout at Five Corners, signals at 9th & Walnut, 9th & Main and 9th & Caspers, the cost
range for the aquatics center, and the estimated cost of the civic center playfield. He recommended the
City work with the School District to identify the old Woodway High School as a possible site for an
aquatics center.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Ms. Petso’s comment regarding inconsistency between the CFP and the Parks Plan, Mr.
Snyder explained the City has aspirational goals with regard to park acquisition and identified general
areas/needs. The CFP identifies specific funding projects. The GMHB found that was not inconsistent as
there was nothing in the GMA that requires a city to identify targeted parks; a city can take advantage of
opportunities as they arise. He agreed if the Council wanted to purchase property, the CFP would need to
be amended to add that property as well has have a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
With regard to the stormwater concerns, Mr. Miller explained the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan was
currently being updated and he anticipated it would be presented to the Council for review by the end of
first quarter 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if staff had investigated the 238th stormwater system. Mr. Miller offered
to check the system during the next heavy rain.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment that the purple starburst was not defined, Mr. McIntosh agreed it
was not defined in the Parks Plan but it was defined in the Comprehensive Plan as the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center. He commented the City had been aggressive about obtaining properties in
the past few years including property in Shell Creek, Old Mill Town, and Hickman Park. When
opportunities arise, the Council has the opportunity to make purchases if adequate resources or grant
funds are available. For example, the City received $1.7 million in grant funds to assist with the purchase
of Hickman Park, a record amount for a neighborhood park. The emphasis in the Parks Plan, identified
via surveys, the advisory group and recent trends in parks and recreation, is to partner with other entities
primarily the School District to improve existing properties.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson observed the CFP budgeted funds in 2012 for a signal 88th/196th Street
intersection although the consultant stated it did not meet the State’s warrants. Mr. Miller responded if
the intersection did not meet the warrants by 2012 other projects would be considered if adequate funding
was available. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained the intersection was identified as a
level of service F and an existing concurrency project. Therefore staff will continue to check whether the
intersection meets the warrants in future years.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES UPDATE.
Councilmember Bernheim explained he would support adoption but planned to review the plan more
closely next year in an effort to prioritize projects, tie them to available funds and include other projects
such as parks. He summarized the projects that he had concerns with were far enough in the future that
there was time to stop them if necessary.
Packet Page 233 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 24
Planning Manager Rob Chave encouraged the Council to conduct a strategic planning process at the
retreat.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson commented he had a number of reservations about the CFP. There were policy
implications in the CFP that the Council had not fully vetted. There was no mention of Yost Pool but
there was mention of a new pool. There was a $150,000 expenditure next year for 4th Avenue when those
funds could be spent on sidewalks. He suggested the Council’s review of the CFP occur earlier next year.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010-2015.
City Engineer Rob English explained this ordinance adopts the Capital Facilities Plan the Council
approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3773, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE
THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010 - 2015 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mike Cooper, Edmonds, explained four days ago he received a letter from a wireless company stating
their plan to replace a utility pole with an 88-foot pole that includes 3 antennas and possibly 1 microwave.
He displayed an aerial photograph identifying the location of his home and the location of the pole. He
was told that the same installation was attempted approximately ten years ago at a nearby church property
and was moved to a more appropriate location atop a water tower. He relayed his neighbors’ and his
concerns that the installation would lower property values, that it was more appropriate for a commercial
or multi family zone where the height of the pole would be more suitable, and health risks of the RF
signal in the microwave. He referred to an east-west easement on his property along the driveway for a
pipe, advising the proposed installation included a 13x7 foot underground vault. He suggested, 1) the
City revisit the existing codes with regard to installation of antennas in single family residential areas, and
2) the proposed pole be relocated to another area.
Mayor Haakenson explained Clearwire proposed to replace a 70-foot PUD pole with a wood pole as
required by the code. Clearwire is holding a neighborhood meeting on December 21, also a requirement
in the City’s Code. Mayor Haakenson clarified the City could regulate the type of pole (wood), the height
of the pole and the size of the equipment on the top of the pole and the equipment on the ground. He
suggested the neighbors attend the December 21 meeting and request the pole be installed elsewhere.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained federal law prohibited the City from regulating health aspects.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their work and commitment to the issues of the budget,
parks, and the CFP; it was clear the public’s concerns had gotten through and there appeared to be an
intent to address their concerns. She echoed the request of the Council to review the CFP earlier in the
year. She was frustrated the GMHB issued a requirement that the Council obtain a recommendation from
the Hearing Examiner; the Hearing Examiner gave a recommendation and the Council was not allowed to
consider it tonight. She reiterated her question regarding how the Capital Facilities Plan affected the
existing Capital Facilities element. She was hopeful the plan was simply added to the existing element.
Packet Page 234 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 25
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Petso’s comments about the irregularities with regard to the
Hearing Examiner. He thanked Mr. Clifton for providing him an answer regarding the $361,000 in the
Multimodal Fund.
14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 8, 2009
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee was provided a briefing on homeless shelters, an issue the
Council discussed on tonight’s agenda. Next the Committee continued its discussion on bikini barista
stands. The Committee discussed dogs and Sunset Beach and determined a person on the beach would
have had to illegally cross the tracks; no action was taken on this item. The Committee also discussed
removing colored utility markings; the Committee will continue to research this matter. Staff provided
the Committee an update on the Stormwater Code. Next steps include State review and SEPA review
before it is presented to the Council in 2010.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee was provided the Third Quarter Budget Report for 2009
as well as the General Fund Report for the month of November. Staff presented the 2010 Non-
Represented Employee Pay Schedule; after conducting a salary survey, it was determined no changes
were necessary. Staff also presented the 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title and Wage; after
conducting a salary survey, several positions were downgraded.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee reviewed several end-of-year housekeeping contracts
that were approved on the Consent Agenda including the 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention
Agreement with the City of Lynnwood, Kenneling Services Contract between Adix Bed and Bath for
Dogs and the City, Contract for Fleet Services with Snohomish County Fire District 1, and Subscriber
Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Service Years 2010-2012. Fire staff reviewed Fire
Department transition issues with the Committee. The Committee also discussed the City’s current
ordinance on barking dogs and whether to reduce the number of complainants from three to two. It was
agreed to leave the number at three and residents were encouraged to call 911 to report a barking dog as
dispatchers prioritize calls.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Wambolt for his service and wished him
well.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson echoed Mayor Haakenson’s comments to Councilmember Wambolt. Next, he
commented that after requesting information from Human Resources regarding total compensation, he
learned the City provides a 7.5% of salary contribution to their pension fund. He suggested the amount of
the contribution be discussed during the budget process next year. He also expressed his appreciation for
the opportunity to serve as Council President and for the Council’s work on sustainability that has made
Edmonds a leader. He looked forward to sustainability being a continued part of next year’s agenda. He
commented the Council had also been successful at elevating the City’s financial situation to the public.
That will continue next year and he anticipated a return to an annual budget may be considered.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated his thanks to Councilmember Wambolt and his appreciation for his
hard work which was an example to all. He wished the Council and the public a Happy Holiday and
Packet Page 235 of 236
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 26
looked forward to a successful 2010 with the Council and the Edmonds community. He emphasized the
importance of homeless shelters and urged the public to reflect on those less fortunate.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for his service and wished everyone a Merry
Christmas.
Councilmember Plunkett wished everyone Season Greetings and commented he would sincerely miss
meeting with Councilmember Wambolt.
Councilmember Bernheim echoed his earlier comments to Councilmember Wambolt. He thanked
Council President Wilson for his service as Council President, particularly his work organizing the levy
and creating the Economic Development Commission. Both had required a great deal of time and were
very valuable at raising the public’s awareness of the City’s financial issues.
Councilmember Wambolt thanked everyone for their kind comments, noting he would miss serving on
the Council. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Healthy and Successful 2010.
Mayor Haakenson also wished everyone Happy Holidays.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Packet Page 236 of 236