The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.03.16 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ MARCH 16, 2010 6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. 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-2901 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010. C. AM-2900 Approval of claim checks #117634 through #117725 dated March 11, 2010 for $409,569.88. D. AM-2863 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Bray Realty ($607.58). E. AM-2888 Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion Agreement granting the Snohomish County Visitor's Bureau $6,000 for tourism promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds. F. AM-2889 Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion Agreement granting the Edmonds Center for the Arts $10,000 to attract visitors to Edmonds through advertising and promoting downtown Edmonds and annual cultural events/festivals in their 2010/2011 season brochure. G. AM-2898 Contract with Orchid Cellmark for DNA testing. H. AM-2904 Approval of 2010 Taxicab Operator's Licenses for Low Fare, Northsound Taxi Inc., and Yellow Cab of Washington, Inc. I. AM-2899 Report on bids opened March 2, 2010 for the BNSF Utilities Upgrade Project and award of contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. ($1,059,341.33). J. AM-2895 Amendment of EMC 5.05.121 and 5.05.123 (Potentially Dangerous Dog) to allow for an appeal process should a dog be declared "Potentially Dangerous." 3. AM-2896 (5 Minutes) Appointment of Mike Popke to the Public Facilities District Board. 4. AM-2897 Public Hearing regarding amending the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Packet Page 1 of 248 4. AM-2897 (20 Minutes) Public Hearing regarding amending the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program in order to add a project: Reconstruction of Dayton Street from the railroad tracks to Sunset and resurfacing of 220th between 84th and Highway 99. 5. AM-2903 (30 Minutes) Public Hearing on proposed Title 18 amendments to allow use of City right-of-way for bistro and outdoor dining and placement of art in City right-of-way. 6.CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2010 - Public hearing on proposed changes to Edmonds City Code 5.05.060: Dogs on Public Grounds. 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-2885 (20 Minutes) Presentation on Planned Residential Developments. 9. AM-2861 (30 Minutes) Public comment on the subject of budget cuts. 10. AM-2852 (30 Minutes) Property tax increase put to voters. 11. AM-2860 (30 Minutes) Proposal for City Council to conduct neighborhood meetings on issues of neighborhood economic development and city-wide "vision." 12. AM-2886 (30 Minutes) Resolution regarding Citizens Economic Development Commission recommended items. 13. AM-2902 (15 Minutes) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of March 9, 2010. 14. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 15. (15 Minutes)Council Comments Adjourn Packet Page 2 of 248 AM-2901 2.B. Approve 03-09-10 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 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 March 9, 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 meeting minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 03-09-10 Draft City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:47 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 12:09 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/11/2010 11:10 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 3 of 248 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES March 9, 2010 At 5:15 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate and also pending and threatened litigation.. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim and Councilmembers Orvis, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were Attorney Grant Weed, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:00 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Mayor Pro Tem Strom Peterson, Council President Pro Tem D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor ALSO PRESENT Graham Marmion, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2010. Packet Page 4 of 248 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 2 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117510 THROUGH 117633 DATED MARCH 4, 2010 FOR $764,749.66, AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49129 THROUGH #49163 FOR THE PAY PERIOD FEBRUARY 16 - FEBRUARY 28, 2010 FOR $638,466.75. 3. PRESENTATION BY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - EDMONDS FERRY PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DESIGN BUILD PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROJECT. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this item was related to the Washington State Ferries (WSF), specifically the WSF parking lot south of the Skippers site and south of Main Street as well as pedestrian connectivity. He introduced Jeff Doyle, Director of Public Private Partnership, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); Fred Tharp, Innovative Contracting Engineer, WSDOT; and Rahim Delli, Project Engineer, WSDOT. Mr. Tharp explained this was an effort to inform the Council of WSF activities, share elements of the project and allow the Council to ask questions. Mr. Doyle explained three years ago the State Legislature provided funding to the Public Private Partnership at WSDOT to analyze all ferry terminal properties to determine which properties had the most potential for joint development; either property that was underutilized or planned construction activities where the participation of a private developer may achieve cost reductions, cost sharing or additional amenities for ferry system passengers. The analysis identified three terminals, the Seattle Coleman Dock, the Bainbridge Island terminal and the Edmonds terminal. He noted for Edmonds it was not necessarily the terminal as two years ago the terminal relocation project was moving forward but rather an opportunity to do something better with the lot across the street from the terminal which is currently operated as a parking lot. With the results of the analysis, last year the Legislature directed his office to pursue a potential partnership at the Edmonds terminal. He clarified although the presentation referred to a project, there actually was no project, no design, no project scope, no funding, and they are not compelled to do anything at the terminal. Instead they have a proposition: if someone, a private or public partner, can provide construction improvements that are of value to the ferry system and its riders in Edmonds, they would be willing to exchange the property for those improvements. That is the nature of the Request for Proposals (RFP). Councilmember Plunkett requested a map of the location of the potential project be displayed. Mr. Doyle explained the property is across from the ferry terminal, approximately 1 acre in size, currently developed with 79 paid parking spaces, adjacent to the Skippers site. Mr. Tharp explained when Mr. Doyle approached him with the need for a project by mid-January, it was clear there were several concurrent efforts. The project description is an infrastructure improvement that has a value equal to or greater than the value of the property. The proposal must address the following: management team, pedestrian capacity, shelter, security, maintenance and operation, aesthetics and community harmony. He noted there was a vision at one time of a pedestrian overcrossing and he identified the potential location, assuring that was not necessarily the project but it provided something for the team to write about in the requirements and specifications. There is no funding for a project; the entire project must be funded solely by the property exchange. Therefore, a project proposal must provide complete project management including quality control that would be acceptable to WSDOT. If no acceptable proposals are submitted, there will not be a project at this time. For example, even if a Packet Page 5 of 248 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 3 developer complies with the requirements of the RFP but the community does not like the project, it will not proceed. Mr. Tharp explained all proposals are due by April 30, 2010. An evaluation process will follow with an announcement regarding best apparent value approximately May 21, 2010 although the dates are subject to change. Mr. Tharp described the design/build process and the importance of engaging with the City. He explained a design/build project was very different from a conventional design/bid/build project because it was all about communications and relationships. Effective communication begins early in the process with WSDOT talking with proposers as they develop their proposals. Risk management is one of the outset factors; risks primarily are the unknowns. Elements of the contract for design and construction services included qualifications and technical requirements. This project has a single proposal document that includes the qualification phase as well as a technical phase. In a conventional design/build project, an instruction to proposers is provided that provides an outline of qualifications sought; if a proposer passes those qualifications, WSDOT will review their technical proposals and evaluate it for the information requested. In a typical proposal development, there are three phases, 1) the proposers gather information and develops strategies and concepts, 2) completes the design to prove out the concept, and 3) pricing. During the proposal process the team has the opportunity to meet with proposers in a one-on-one, confidential setting. He envisioned the City would participate on that team. There is also an alternative technical concepts process where proposers have the opportunity to change the requirements in the RFP. He encouraged the City to participate in that process as well. As changes are made, a series of addendums will be published. Once a proposal is submitted, it cannot be changed. He envisioned the City participating in the evaluation of the proposals. If a number of great ideas are submitted but the actual project is not acceptable, before procurement is cancelled, there will be an opportunity for a best and final offer process. He envisioned the City participating in that process as well. Mr. Delli described the coordination efforts for this project. Mr. Doyle began communication with the City on this project before there was a formal project. Once WSDOT advertised it as a formal project, WSDOT met one-on-one with the City; with the City, Sound Transit and Community Transit; one-on-one with BNSF; and one-on-one with Sound Transit. During the meeting with the City and Sound Transit, it was recommended this project be presented to the City Council and to host an open house. An open house/workshop will be held on March 15 at 5:00 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room to talk about the project. Mr. Delli explained this project is on a fast track. Their conceptual design, in order to get the most benefit for ferry pedestrian traffic, would be a pedestrian overpass over the railroad tracks and Sound Transit tracks to the east side with a landing on Railroad Avenue. He assured this was only a conceptual design; a proposer could propose something else including an over-crossing, under-crossing or at grade crossing. WSDOT envisions a minimum 12 feet wide bridge with two elevators and stairs. Councilmember Wilson expressed appreciation for the innovative effort to swap property for a project that would bring value to ferry commuters and the community. He observed the value of the property owned by WSDOT was the limiting factor to what could be built. Mr. Tharp answered WSDOT could not execute a contract for anything worth less than the appraised value of the property. Councilmember Wilson commented for example, if the value of the property was $2 million, that was the limiting factor. Mr. Tharp agreed, noting that value would be at the lower end. Packet Page 6 of 248 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 4 Councilmember Wilson was frustrated the Council was only being asked now for their vision for this property. If WSDOT had come to the Council and asked to upzone the property to allow additional height which would have increased the value of the property, the project could be very different. That intersection and how the landing would integrate with the Skippers property are critical to the community. He would have preferred to have an opportunity to consider a proposal by WSDOT six months ago for an increase in the height to increase the value of the property which would allow a substantially enhanced pedestrian overpass. He questioned why there was a rush. Mr. Tharp responded WSDOT as a State agency must be somewhat cautious not to be in the land development business and compete with other land developers. If there is an opportunity to increase the value of the property, WSDOT would consider that before any agreement was executed. The rush now is internal and in response to political issues. Either they identify a beneficial project or withdraw the proposals. Councilmember Wilson commented on the possibility of air rights on James Street as a way to add value to a project such as accommodating transit on the first floor with construction above. He hoped the City would have enough time develop its vision for the Skippers property to ensure the landing did not negatively impact development on that site. Mr. Tharp advised their solicitation was open to the City and Port. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim asked who owned the property where the landing would be located on the east side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Tharp believed it was owned by Sound Transit. Councilmember Plunkett observed the intent was to accept ideas/concepts from different proposers for review by the City. Mr. Tharp answered proposals would be reviewed by WSDOT with City’s participation in that evaluation process. Councilmember Plunkett asked who he envisioned would be “the City.” Mr. Tharp answered it would be anyone the Council appointed; to date they have had a very successful relationship with Mr. Clifton. Councilmember Plunkett asked if several people could participate. Mr. Tharp answered they preferred representation; if it was necessary, more than one person could participate. The evaluation team was envisioned to consist of three people. Councilmember Plunkett commented although the Council has extreme confidence in Mr. Clifton, Mr. Tharp was suggesting Mr. Clifton would be the City’s representative who would assist WSDOT in determining which of the 3-4 concepts to pursue. Mr. Tharp answered there are evaluation criteria, although somewhat subjective, that would be applied to all proposals. Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful WSDOT would be open to more than just one staff person participating in that process. Mr. Tharp answered they would entertain any suggestions and have not yet established the ultimate evaluation committee configuration. Councilmember Plunkett assured he did not intend his comment about staff’s involvement in the evaluation committee to be pejorative; he preferred the City’s involvement be broader than one staff person. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim asked if there was any decision required tonight. Mr. Tharp answered their presentation was for information only and an opportunity for the Council to request additional information. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the timing, noting the RFP was issued January 15, 2010 with an April 30 deadline. She commented the RFP did not reference the use of funds available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) or other transit oriented funding sources or grants. PSRC recently made a presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow stating they are on a funds distribution schedule of 2-3 years. Mr. Tharp answered the deadline could be changed; based on their past experience, if a date is not included proposals are often not submitted in a timely manner. Their goal at this point was to introduce the project and work with the City to solicit comments and ideas. The intent of the workshop is to meet Packet Page 7 of 248 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 5 with third party members including proposers, the City, transit agencies, railroads and the public to answer questions in a level playing format. From that point, one-on-one meetings with proposers would be held in confidentiality. If necessary, the dates can be changed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented PSRC stated they have $160 million in annual funding. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether terminal relocation, the Edmonds Crossing project, was no longer a possibility. Mr. Tharp answered that would be outside his authority. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim commented the City’s Comprehensive Plan still includes the Edmonds Crossing project and he was unsure how that would impact this project. Councilmember Wilson commented the City could be a party to the land swap. He asked if a three way swap was a possibility, a design/build firm would build an overpass for $2 million for which they would receive a property of that value owned by the City and the City would receive WSF’s property. Mr. Tharp answered WSDOT was accepting any comments or proposals; a proposal could even be to build a bridge in ten years. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was anything in the vision that would make a public agency more appealing than a private. Mr. Tharp answered that was not part of the consideration. Mr. Clifton explained when WSDOT issued the RFQ/RFP in mid-January, information was provided to the City Council. Immediately following the issuance of the RFQ/RFP, WSDOT asked to meet with WSF staff, Community Transit, Sound Transit and the City to obtain an understanding of the issues related to this type of proposal. In a recent conversation with representatives of Sound Transit, WSF and the City, they agreed it would be good to open a direct dialogue between the City Council and WSF and WSDOT to address issues such as have been raised by the Council tonight. Councilmember Wilson commented it would be helpful to have a general awareness, possibly in Executive Session, of the appraised value of the property as well as what properties the City owns that may be available for surplus for use in a potential swap. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim agreed that could be scheduled. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim expressed the Council’s appreciation for the direct communication with the City Council on this very important issue. 4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim had no report. 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers had no reports. 6. ADJOURN TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to Committee meetings at 7:45 p.m. Packet Page 8 of 248 AM-2900 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent Department:Finance Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #117634 through #117725 dated March 11, 2010 for $409,569.88. 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:$409,569.88 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $409,569.88 Attachments Link: Claim cks 3-11-10 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Finance Lorenzo Hines 03/11/2010 02:31 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:39 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 02:43 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 03:21 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 03/11/2010 10:34 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 9 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117634 3/11/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101346527 M5Z34 CARBON MONOXIDE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 382.03 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.96 Total :437.49 117635 3/11/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4787942 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 29.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.84 Total :32.71 117636 3/11/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4775999 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 62.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.90 Total :67.97 117637 3/11/2010 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH ARNOLD11918 GLASS FUSING GLASS FUSING FOR JEWELRY: 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 159.60 Total :159.60 117638 3/11/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0048048-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,426.65 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 230.53 Total :2,657.18 1Page: Packet Page 10 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117639 3/11/2010 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 49.30 Total :49.30 117640 3/11/2010 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 12470 BURIAL SUPPLIES BURIAL SUPPLIES: ULNESS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES12491 BURIAL SUPPLIES: ALIVERTI 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES12538 BURIAL SUPPLIES: TANNER 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES12681 BURIAL SUPPLIES: HARRISON 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00 Total :1,552.00 117641 3/11/2010 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0210 Background check services Background check services 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 10.00 Total :10.00 117642 3/11/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011396541 Canon 5870 copier lease (4/1 - 4/30/10) Canon 5870 copier lease (4/1 - 4/30/10) 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35 Canon 5870 copier lease (4/1 - 4/30/10) 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32 Canon 5870 copier lease (4/1 - 4/30/10) 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33 Supply charge 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.00 Supply charge 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00 Supply charge 2Page: Packet Page 11 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117642 3/11/2010 (Continued)070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 12.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.99 Total :415.00 117643 3/11/2010 069297 BANK OF AMERICA 1010047689 CUSTOMER # 16-657082 Obligation 26 interest payment Phone 001.000.390.592.730.830.00 205.13 Obligation 26 interest payment Phone 411.000.652.592.391.830.00 16.51 Obligation 26 interest payment Phone 411.000.654.592.391.830.00 47.90 Obligation 26 interest payment Phone 411.000.655.592.391.830.00 29.44 Obligation 26 interest payment Phone 411.000.656.592.391.830.00 42.91 Total :341.89 117644 3/11/2010 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG11904 TAI CHI CLASSES TAI CHI #11904 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 430.50 Total :430.50 117645 3/11/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 792319 INV#792319 EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON PICKET TRAFFIC TEMPLATE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.13 HEAVY WEIGHT HAND TRAINER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.45 KNEE GUARD FLEXIBLE PAD 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 16.65 ELBOW GUARD FLEXIBLE PAD 3Page: Packet Page 12 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117645 3/11/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.75 UNIFORM BELT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.95 DUTY BELT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 45.22 ATAC 8" W/P SIDE ZIP BOOTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 109.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 20.72 Total :238.86 117646 3/11/2010 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK11975 ART FOR KIDZ DOODLE DOTS #11975 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 378.00 MINI MARKERS #11977 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 454.30 Total :832.30 117647 3/11/2010 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINE12022 PLAY TRAINING YOUR DOG PLAY TRAINING YOUR DOG 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.00 Total :168.00 117648 3/11/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN02101021 GYMNASTICS HELIUM RENTAL HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTIES 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 8.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 0.79 Total :9.09 117649 3/11/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11989 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11989 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 39.20 Total :39.20 117650 3/11/2010 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING FEB 2010 DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY 01/10-02/10 EDMONDS 4Page: Packet Page 13 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117650 3/11/2010 (Continued)065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING DRY CLEANING 01/10 - 02/10 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 809.06 Total :809.06 117651 3/11/2010 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER12176 TURTLE TIME TURTLE TIME #12176 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 84.00 Total :84.00 117652 3/11/2010 072189 DATASITE 64895 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS Doc Shred Services City Clerk 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00 Doc Shred Services Finance 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00 Total :50.00 117653 3/11/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY Jen Machuga 3/25/10 Registration for Jen Machuga for Registration for Jen Machuga for 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 75.00 Total :75.00 117654 3/11/2010 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2010020122 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for February, 2010 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 281.82 Total :281.82 117655 3/11/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3080 MINUTETAKER FOR ECONOMIC DEV COMMISSION Minutetaker for Econ Dev Commission for 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 480.00 Total :480.00 117656 3/11/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3079 MINUTE TAKING 3/2 Council Minites 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 240.00 Total :240.00 5Page: Packet Page 14 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117657 3/11/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 19397 SUPPLIES OIL FILTERS 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 23.20 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.20 Total :25.40 117658 3/11/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 19037 2005 WD-40 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 100.67 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.56 Total :110.23 117659 3/11/2010 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 18156 UPS/AM TEST UPS/AM TEST 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 11.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.08 Total :12.42 117660 3/11/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER) 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80 SPRINKLER2-28275 SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80 MINI PARK2-37180 MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 33.13 Total :104.53 117661 3/11/2010 072287 EMI FILTRATION PRODUCTS LLC KENT-44108 EDMCIT 6Page: Packet Page 15 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117661 3/11/2010 (Continued)072287 EMI FILTRATION PRODUCTS LLC CUSTOM SC PLEATS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 429.27 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 61.87 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 46.66 Total :537.80 117662 3/11/2010 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0059886-IN INV#0059886-IN, ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD TIE TACKS, CITIZEN AWARD PINS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 140.00 HANDLING FEE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.86 Total :151.36 117663 3/11/2010 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELIX12017 WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,121.40 Total :1,121.40 117664 3/11/2010 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE SBS 196679 INV# 196679 ODY900JJM EDMONDS PD CREDIT REPORT - SCHEELE 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 10.50 Total :10.50 117665 3/11/2010 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 120769 Voice Data & Network After Hours Service Voice Data & Network After Hours Service 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 248.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 23.60 Total :272.01 117666 3/11/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9187908570 837944131 WIRE CONNECTORS 7Page: Packet Page 16 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117666 3/11/2010 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.86 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.82 Total :9.68 117667 3/11/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 21942 MUNICIPAL STORM POLLUTION PREVENTION E9FG Pmt 3 thru 2/26/10 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 707.14 Total :707.14 117668 3/11/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 30 LEOFF 1 reimbursement LEOFF 1 reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 18.52 Total :18.52 117669 3/11/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7091070 6035322500959949 AUGER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.71 60353225009599497159506 CORDLESS VAC 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 136.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.96 Total :157.49 117670 3/11/2010 067369 HUMANN, JENNIFER 3/9/10 Citizen's Commission door monitoring Citizen's Commission door monitoring 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 24.00 Total :24.00 117671 3/11/2010 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20896 BNSF DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT E8GC/c300 PMT 1 thru 2/27/2010 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 104.67 E8GC/c300 PMT 1 thru 2/27/2010 8Page: Packet Page 17 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117671 3/11/2010 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 104.67 E8GC/c300 PMT 1 thru 2/27/2010 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 104.66 Total :314.00 117672 3/11/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81603440 C/A 467070-1003748A4 Finance Copier Rental 2/22-3/21/2010 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 Per Copy Charge 12/28/09-01/25/10 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 172.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 59.57 Total :686.59 117673 3/11/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81627301 Rent on reception copier from 2/26/10 Rent on reception copier from 2/26/10 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66 Total :30.66 117674 3/11/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5013583500 Meter charges reception copier from Meter charges reception copier from 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 8.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 0.77 Meter charges for large copier from5013668618 Meter charges for large copier from 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 85.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 8.12 Mter charges for Engineering color5013668619 Mter charges for Engineering color 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 565.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 53.70 Total :721.38 9Page: Packet Page 18 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117675 3/11/2010 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2892648 PRESCHOOL INTERNET INTERNET ACCESS FOR MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 Total :15.00 117676 3/11/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 6549218 C/A 768421 PR1-1 City Phone Service thru 2/25/10 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 932.44 Total :932.44 117677 3/11/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 459803 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,137.09 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 298.03 Total :3,435.12 117678 3/11/2010 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3381247 INV#3381247 EDMONDS PD HON PEDESTAL FILE CABINETS 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 558.03 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 43.45 Total :601.48 117679 3/11/2010 073086 KIMMEL ATHLETIC SUPPLY CO 0284673-IN SCOREBOOKS/LINE UP CARDS SCOREBOOKS & LINE UP CARDS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 622.50 Freight 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 61.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 65.00 Total :749.12 117680 3/11/2010 067552 KING CO FINANCE & BUSINESS 55562 1154 BALLINGER PUMP STATION COST 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 80,177.46 BALLINGER PUMP STATION COST 10Page: Packet Page 19 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117680 3/11/2010 (Continued)067552 KING CO FINANCE & BUSINESS 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 36,359.29 Total :116,536.75 117681 3/11/2010 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 359022-001 STAKE CHASERS STAKER CHASERS YELLOW WITH STEEL LOOP 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.18 Total :13.56 117682 3/11/2010 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 358879-001 Misc. engineerin supplies including Misc. engineerin supplies including 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 50.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.80 Total :55.35 117683 3/11/2010 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20100228 INV #1201641-20100228 EDMONDS PD MIN. COMMITMENT BALANCE FEB 10 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 4.75 Total :54.75 117684 3/11/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103692 INV#103692 - EDMONDS PD 3,000 POLICE LETTERHEAD 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 368.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.00 Total :403.40 117685 3/11/2010 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 695783 SUPPLIES THROTTLE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.34 11Page: Packet Page 20 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117685 3/11/2010 (Continued)018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA SUPPLIES696111 WEED EATER LINE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.25 Total :52.93 117686 3/11/2010 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 31 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 4,482.00 Total :4,482.00 117687 3/11/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 48293576 123106800 THREADED PIPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 89.04 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 23.38 12310680048346193 V-BELTS/LIGHT BULBS/GAUGE/SAFETY 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 485.98 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 59.14 12310680048391700 EARPLUG DISPENSER/RESPIRATOR MASK 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 117.57 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 6.54 12310680048500555 HOSE/CLAMP/CABLE TIE HOLDER/MACHINE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 116.26 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.71 12310680048595613 UTILITY KNIFE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 94.44 12Page: Packet Page 21 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117687 3/11/2010 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 30.17 Total :1,029.23 117688 3/11/2010 063773 MICROFLEX 00019190 12/09Tax Audit Program 12/09Tax Audit Program 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 106.08 Total :106.08 117689 3/11/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 103021 WATERJET DRAIN CLEANER YOST POOL WATERJET DRAIN CLEANER 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 55.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 5.22 Total :60.22 117690 3/11/2010 062381 MRSC 3462IN MUNICIPAL CODE HOSTING City Code Hosting 001.000.250.514.300.480.00 350.00 Total :350.00 117691 3/11/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 9348 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,027.60 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 97.62 Total :1,125.22 117692 3/11/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-089990 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 Total :189.87 117693 3/11/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 113 Planning Board Minutes on Feb. 25, 2010. Planning Board Minutes on Feb. 25, 2010. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 448.00 13Page: Packet Page 22 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :448.001176933/11/2010 025690 025690 NOYES, KARIN 117694 3/11/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 650985 INV#650985 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD POST IT FLAT FILING TABS 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 8.34 STAPLES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.92 JUMBO SMOOTH PAPER CLIPS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.66 CATALOGUE ENVELOPES 9x12 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 29.60 TEAR BY HAND TAPE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.88 HEAVY DUTY TAPE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 0.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.62 INV#675596 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD675596 4 SECTION LETTER FOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 63.67 INKJET CARTRIDGE C9396AN 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 32.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.17 Total :202.55 117695 3/11/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 557561 OFFICE SUPPLIES SANITIZER REFILLS 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 33.18 PAPER, PADS, LABELS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 92.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 3.15 9.5% Sales Tax 14Page: Packet Page 23 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117695 3/11/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.76 FILE POCKETS593080 FILE POCKETS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.34 COVER STOCK651097 COVER STOCK 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 20.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.93 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES699186 PRESCHOOL STAPLER & ERASER 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 19.17 MASKING TAPE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 1.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.02 Total :196.06 117696 3/11/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 630438 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 167.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 15.93 Total :183.57 117697 3/11/2010 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Feb-2010 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Feb-10 Emergency Medical Services & 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,375.03 Feb-10 PSEA 1 2 & 3 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 33,406.78 Feb-10 Building Code Fee Account 15Page: Packet Page 24 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117697 3/11/2010 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 83.00 Feb-10 State Patrol Death 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 668.15 Feb-10 Judicial Information Systems 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 4,763.91 Feb-10 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.000.237.200.000.00 180.49 Feb-10 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,575.35 Feb-10 Traumatic Brain Injury Acct 001.000.000.237.260.000.00 489.97 Total :43,542.68 117698 3/11/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 WATER 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 11.88 WATER0001520 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 31.44 WATER0001530 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 13.17 WATER0002930 5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.17 WATER0005060 9803 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.17 Total :82.83 117699 3/11/2010 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICAL CO 58764 PCC10252 WILSON CLAY 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 2,568.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 243.96 16Page: Packet Page 25 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,811.961176993/11/2010 072878 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICAL CO 117700 3/11/2010 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011396538 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.45 Total :158.67 117701 3/11/2010 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH031010 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT CLOROX CLEANING WIPES FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 14.01 L&I TEMPORARY PERMIT 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 44.30 AA BATTERIES 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 8.74 ENTRANCE FEE FOR CONFERENCE OWEN 001.000.640.574.350.490.00 10.00 STAMP PADS FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 5.23 CLEANING SUPPLIES FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 8.75 FLAG FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 53.73 BUSINESS CARDS FOR SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 43.80 STICKERS FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 10.09 Total :198.65 117702 3/11/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 1,293.17 Total :1,293.17 117703 3/11/2010 073140 PUGH, JON AND CARY 3-33945 RE: 100070SF UTILITY REFUND 17Page: Packet Page 26 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117703 3/11/2010 (Continued)073140 PUGH, JON AND CARY RE: 100070sf Utility Refund/3-33945 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 82.44 Total :82.44 117704 3/11/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 106453 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: MEAD 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 INSCRIPTION106454 INSCRIPTION: MUIR 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 Total :160.00 117705 3/11/2010 073141 ROUSE, STEVE AND JUDI 3-03532 RE: #7-1002-003 UTILITY REFUND Re# 7-1002-003 Utility Refund 3-03532 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 73.23 Total :73.23 117706 3/11/2010 073066 SAFARILAND LLC I10-010387 INV#I10-010387 EDMONDS PD RETRACTABLE RIDGE COUNTERS 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 21.74 Freight 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 8.99 Total :30.73 117707 3/11/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 281701 PLANTING MIX PLANTING MIX 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 22.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 2.10 Total :24.17 117708 3/11/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 103501528 2025-7952-0 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 6.61 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.40 18Page: Packet Page 27 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :7.011177083/11/2010 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 117709 3/11/2010 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 701 Q2-2010 SERVICES Q2 2010 Services 001.000.390.528.600.510.00 192,666.26 Q2 2010 Services 411.000.654.534.800.510.00 6,084.20 Q2 2010 Services 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 4,056.13 Total :202,806.59 117710 3/11/2010 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 2/5/10 Mayor Haakenson & L. Carl - 1/20 dinner Mayor Haakenson & L. Carl - 1/20 dinner 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 70.00 Strom Peterson - 1/20 dinner 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 35.00 Total :105.00 117711 3/11/2010 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Feb-2010 FEB-2010 CRIME VICTIMS COURT REMIT Feb-2010 Crime Victims Court Remit 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 918.87 Total :918.87 117712 3/11/2010 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT February 2010 FEBRUARY 2010 SERVICE FOR EDMONDS PD ADMIN FEE FOR EMPLOYEE - 2/4/10 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 20.00 HEP B VACCINE FOR EMPLOYEE - 2/4/10 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 36.00 OFFICE VISIT FOR EMPLOYEE - 2/4/10 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 36.00 Total :92.00 117713 3/11/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-2/28/2010 Summer seasonal pool ads (#10-04 - Summer seasonal pool ads (#10-04 - 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 195.80 Parks Dept. Laborer, #10-11 ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 202.16 19Page: Packet Page 28 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117713 3/11/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY Parks Dept. BPW #10-12 ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 176.08 Total :574.04 117714 3/11/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101415-28/28/2010 NEWSPAPER ADS Council & Plan Bd Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,330.90 NEWSPAPER AD1686002 Ordinance 3784 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.88 NEWSPAPER AD1686811 03/16 Hearing (Title 18) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 55.72 NEWSPAPER AD1686945 03/16 Hearing (ECC 5.05) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 54.04 03/16 Hearing (TIP)1687341 03/16 Hearing (TIP) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 59.08 Total :1,533.62 117715 3/11/2010 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES C/A 042483000 Sewer MW I ad, #10-03 Sewer MW I ad, #10-03 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 66.00 Total :66.00 117716 3/11/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8420674 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES TUBING 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.04 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.69 Total :54.14 117717 3/11/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 20Page: Packet Page 29 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117717 3/11/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.02 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 58.24 Total :101.26 117718 3/11/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 771-5553 03 0210 1014522641 07 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 94.29 03 0210 1079569413 10425 NW1-0060 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.34 03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155 TELEMETRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 217.39 Total :353.02 117719 3/11/2010 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I10006423 INV#I10006423 EDM301 BACKGROUND CHECKS 02/2010 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 211.75 Total :211.75 117720 3/11/2010 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 6036139-2677-4 201-0170717-2677-6 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 4,176.61 Total :4,176.61 117721 3/11/2010 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 15 C/A 4181-01M Feb-2010 Legal Services Conflict 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 2,229.57 Total :2,229.57 117722 3/11/2010 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E 64847 2613 UNIFORM/OLIVER 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 174.65 21Page: Packet Page 30 of 248 03/11/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 10:10:01AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 117722 3/11/2010 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 16.07 Total :190.72 117723 3/11/2010 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 107692 CITYWIDE SUPPLIES CITY WIDE/GRASS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,585.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 150.62 Total :1,736.12 117724 3/11/2010 071631 WILLIAMS, SUE WILLIAMS12033 KNITTING 101 KNITTING 101 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.25 Total :81.25 117725 3/11/2010 045565 WSPCA 2010 SPRING SEMINAR 2010 SPRING SEMINAR REG. FOR MCCLURE CONFERENCE REG. - MCCLURE 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 175.00 Total :175.00 Bank total :409,569.8892 Vouchers for bank code :front 409,569.88Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report92 22Page: Packet Page 31 of 248 AM-2863 2.D. Claim for Damages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Linda Hynd Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Bray Realty ($607.58). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A Claim for Damages was submitted by: Bray Realty 506 West Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 ($607.58) Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Bray Realty Claim for Damages Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2010 02:39 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/03/2010 02:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2010 09:36 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 03/01/2010 10:16 AM Final Approval Date: 03/04/2010 Packet Page 32 of 248 Packet Page 33 of 248 Packet Page 34 of 248 Packet Page 35 of 248 AM-2888 2.E. LTAC Tourism Promotion Agreement/Sno Co Visitor's Bureau Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Cindi Cruz Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Time:Consent Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion Agreement granting the Snohomish County Visitor's Bureau $6,000 for tourism promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the promotion agreement. Previous Council Action Narrative In the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s annual budget review and approval process the Committee allocated funds to the Economic Development Department including $6,000 granted to the Snohomish County Visitor’s Bureau for tourism promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds for the year 2010. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/09/2010 03:57 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/10/2010 07:58 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 03:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 03/09/2010 03:40 PM Final Approval Date: 03/10/2010 Packet Page 36 of 248 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the day of , 20 by and between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Snohomish County Visitor’s Bureau (“Promoter”). RECITALS A. The City established a Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 120 (“Fund”) under Ordinance Number 2010. The proceeds in the Fund are derived from a special excise tax of two percent on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel trailer camp, and granting of any similar license to use real property pursuant to Chapter 3.34 of the Edmonds City Code and Chapter 67.28 RCW. B. The use of the tax is restricted to tourism promotion and acquisition and/or maintenance of tourism-related facilities, including operation of tourism promotion agencies that serve the community C. Under the Ordinance, the Edmonds Lodging Tax Advisory Committee assists in administration of the Fund. D. The Committee has recommended and approved funding to Promoter for promotion of tourism in Edmonds and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds (as described in the attached Exhibit A.) NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Funds. The City grants the amount of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) (“Grant”) to Promoter and Promoter accepts the Grant. The City shall issue a check to Promoter for the Grant within three weeks after the City receives the documented receipts for the work performed as agreed to in Exhibit A of the executed original of this Agreement. See Exhibit A for the payment schedule. 2. Scope of Use. Promoter may only use the Grant for cultural and artistic activities designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in the City and to promote the City. The Promoter may use the Grant for: a) advertising, publicizing or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting visitors and encouraging tourist expansion in the City; b) operating activities at the Visitor Information Center in order to distribute tourism promotional information . 3. Final Reports. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 67.28.1816, an annual report regarding the economic impact of the grants must be made to the Washington State Department of Commerce. As a condition of this Grant, the Promoter shall provide the {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 1 ~ Packet Page 37 of 248 City a draft report (See Exhibit B) by January 15, 2011 for City review, approval and filing with the Department of Commerce by May 1st of the following year. The report shall include: 3.1 The total revenue received by the Promoter pursuant to this Agreement; 3.2 A list of the festivals, special events, or nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization that receives funds under this chapter; 3.3 A list of the festivals, special events or tourism facilities sponsored or owned by the Promoter that receive funds under this chapter; 3.4 The amount of revenue expended on each festival, special event or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; 3.5 The estimated number of tourists, persons traveling over 50 miles to the destination, persons remaining at the destination overnight and lodging stays generated per festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; and 3.6 Any other measurements which the Promoter feels demonstrate the impact of increased tourism attributable to the festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or local jurisdiction. 4. Time of Performance. Promoter shall complete all Promotions of the Event no later than December 31, 2010. “Grant year” shall mean January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. 5. Credit to City. Any publications produced as a result of the Grant will prominently feature the following message: FUNDED IN PART BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX FUND. 6. Intellectual Property Rights. Where activities supported by the Grant produce original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the Promoter may copyright or trademark such materials upon obtaining the prior written approval of the City; provided, that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or use such materials. Where such license is exercised, appropriate acknowledgement of Promoter’s contribution will be made. 7. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment to be executed by both parties. {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 2 ~ Packet Page 38 of 248 8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and records of the Promoter relating to the performance of this Agreement. 9. Hold Harmless. The Promoter shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at its own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Grant, including claims by Promoter's, employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City. 10. Legal Requirements. The Promoter shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws in performing this Agreement; including but not limited to, State, Federal and local laws regarding discrimination. 11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue shall be in an appropriate court in Snohomish County. 12. Termination. (a) If the Promoter breaches any of its obligations under this agreement, and fails to cure the same within five (5) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may terminate this Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall return of the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination. (b) The City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) written days notice to the Promoter for any reason other than that stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which case, the Promoter shall return the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination. 13. Waiver. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of this Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a Waiver thereof or deprive that party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of this Agreement. 14. Assignment. This Agreement is personal in nature and shall not be assigned by the Promoter. 15. Records. The Promoter must maintain adequate records to support its use of the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Resolution. Promoter’s records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after termination of this Agreement. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, or papers and records of the Promoter that are directly related to this Agreement for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts, or transcripts. {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 3 ~ Packet Page 39 of 248 16. Reimbursement. Use of the Grant by the Promoter that is determined not to be in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Ordinance must be reimbursed to the City. The Promoter shall reimburse the requested funds within five (5) business days after the City sends its request for reimbursement. 17. Independent Contractor. Promoter is an Independent Contractor and not an agent, employee or servant of the City. The Promoter is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of the City. Promoter has the right to direct and control its own activities in using the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 18. Recitals. The Recitals of this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference. 19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties executed this Agreement as of the date first shown above. CITY OF EDMONDS PROMOTER _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gary Haakenson, Mayor 121 – 5th Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 ____________________________________ Print Name Print Address Approved as to Form: ____________________________________ W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 4 ~ Packet Page 40 of 248 EXHIBIT A See attached letter from Snohomish County Tourism. Payment Schedule: June 30, 2010 $3,000 upon receipt of invoice December 15, 2010 $3,000 upon receipt of invoice {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 5 ~ Packet Page 41 of 248 EXHIBIT B Event or Tourism Activity Report Worksheet Official Report Form is due: January 15, 2011 NOTE: It is very important that you fill this report out as completely as possible to ensure you are eligible to receive support through Lodging Tax in the future. The City of Edmonds is required to provide this information to the State. Please plan now how you will collect this information. Questions? Call 425-775- 7724 1. Organization __________________________________ 2. This report covers: Event Name: _________________________________ Date: _________________ Tourism Facility: _______________________________ Date: _________________ 3. Total Lodging Tax Funds Allocated to this event of facility $ ____________________ 4. Estimated total event attendance or user count for the facility: _____________________ Describe methodology used to determine this figure 5. Estimated percentage of total attendance for event or facility by: a. Tourists (total number of guests from outside Edmonds) ______% OR # _______ b. Traveled more than 50 miles ______% OR # _______ c. Overnight stays associated with event ______% OR # _______ Describe methodology used to determine this figure 6. Estimated total hotel or B & B room nights generated _________ Describe methodology used to determine this figure (eg: arrangement with hotel to report visitors, surveys of participants, etc.) 7 Any other information that demonstrates the impact of the festival, events or tourism- related facility owned by a non-profit organization or local jurisdiction (please describe, eg: restaurant or shop patronage, etc): {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 6 ~ Packet Page 42 of 248 {WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 7 ~ Submitted by: ____________________________________ Date: _________________ E-mail or phone number: ___________________________________________________ Packet Page 43 of 248 AM-2889 2.F. LTAC Tourism Promotion Agreement/Edmonds Center for the Arts Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Cindi Cruz Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Time:Consent Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion Agreement granting the Edmonds Center for the Arts $10,000 to attract visitors to Edmonds through advertising and promoting downtown Edmonds and annual cultural events/festivals in their 2010/2011 season brochure. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the promotion agreement. Previous Council Action Narrative In the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s annual budget review and approval process the Committee allocated funds to the Economic Development Department including $10,000 granted to the Edmonds Center for the Arts to place advertising in their 2010/2011 season brochure to promote cultural events and lodging in downtown Edmonds. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 08:46 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/10/2010 08:52 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 03:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 03/09/2010 03:58 PM Final Approval Date: 03/10/2010 Packet Page 44 of 248 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the____ day of , 2010 by and between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Edmonds Center for the Arts. (“Promoter”). RECITALS A. The City established a Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 120 (“Fund”) under Ordinance Number 2010. The proceeds in the Fund are derived from a special excise tax of two percent on the sale of or charge made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel, trailer camp, and the granting of any similar license to use real property pursuant to Chapter 3.34 of the Edmonds City Code and Chapter 67.28 RCW. B. The use of the tax is restricted to fund, facilitate, or promote events that will serve to attract visitors to the community. C. Under the Ordinance, the Edmonds Lodging Tax Advisory Committee administers the Fund. D. The Committee has recommended and approved, funding to Promoter for promoting the 2010/11 Season through a brochure that includes information to attract visitors to Edmonds (described in the attached Exhibit A - hereinafter the “Event”) through the following method(s) Printing Season Brochures. (“Promotion”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Funds. The City grants the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars $10,000 (“Grant”) to Promoter and Promoter accepts the Grant. The City shall issue a check to Promoter for the Grant within three weeks after the City receives the documented receipts for the work performed as agreed to in Exhibit A of the executed original of this Agreement. 2. Scope of Use. Promoter may only use the Grant for cultural and artistic activities designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in the City and to promote the Event. The Promoter may use the Grant for: a) advertising, publicizing or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting visitors and encouraging tourist expansion in the City; b) funding Marketing of the Event in the City. 3. Final Reports. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 67.28.1816, an annual report regarding the economic impact of the grants must be made to the Washington State Department of Commerce. As a condition of this Grant, the Promoter shall provide the City a draft report (See Exhibit B) by January 15, 2011 for City review, approval and {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 1 Packet Page 45 of 248 filing with the Department of Commerce by May 1st of the following year. The report shall include: 3.1 The total revenue received by the Promoter pursuant to this Agreement; 3.2 A list of the festivals, special events, or nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization that receives funds under this chapter; 3.3 A list of the festivals, special events or tourism facilities sponsored or owned by the Promoter that receive funds under this chapter; 3.4 The amount of revenue expended on each festival, special event or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; 3.5 The estimated number of tourists, persons traveling over 50 miles to the destination, persons remaining at the destination overnight and lodging stays generated per festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; and 3.6 Any other measurements which the Promoter feels demonstrate the impact of increased tourism attributable to the festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or local jurisdiction. 4. Time of Performance. Promoter shall complete production of the season brochure no later than December 31, 2010 . 5. Credit to City. Any publications produced as a result of the Grant will prominently feature the following message: FUNDED IN PART BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX FUND. 6. Intellectual Property Rights. Where activities supported by the Grant produce original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the promoter may copyright or trademark such materials upon obtaining the prior written approval of the City; provided, that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or use such materials. Where such license is exercised, appropriate acknowledgement of Promoters contribution will be made. 7. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment to be executed by both parties. {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 2 Packet Page 46 of 248 8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and records of the promoter relating to the performance of this Agreement. 9. Hold Harmless. The Promoter shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at its own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Grant, including claims by Promoter's, employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City. 10. Legal Requirements. The promoter shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws in performing this Agreement; including but not limited to, State, Federal and local laws regarding discrimination. 11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue shall be in an appropriate court in Snohomish County. 12. Termination. (a) If the Promoter breaches any of its obligations under this agreement, and fails to cure the same within five (5) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may terminate this Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall return of the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination. (b) The City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) written days notice to the Promoter for any reason other then that stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which case, the Promoter shall return of the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination. 13. Waiver. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of this Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a Waiver thereof or deprive that party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of this Agreement. 14. Assignment. This Agreement is personal in nature and shall not be assigned by the Promoter. 15. Records. The Promoter must maintain adequate records to support its use of the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Ordinance. Promoter’s records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after termination of this Agreement. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, or papers and records of the Promoter that are directly related to this Agreement for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts, or transcripts. {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 3 Packet Page 47 of 248 16. Reimbursement. Use of the Grant by the Promoter that is determined not to be in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Ordinance must be reimbursed to the City. The Promoter shall reimburse the requested funds within five (5) business days after the City sends its request for reimbursement. 17. Independent Contractor. Promoter is an Independent Contractor and not an agent, employee or servant of the City. The Promoter is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of the City. Promoter has the right to direct and control its own activities in using the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 18. Recitals. The Recitals of this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference. 19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties executed this Agreement as of the date first shown above. CITY OF EDMONDS PROMOTER _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gary Haakenson, Mayor 121 – 5th Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 ____________________________________ Print Name Print Address Approved as to Form: ____________________________________ W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 4 Packet Page 48 of 248 EXHIBIT A The 2010 approved budget for the Lodging Tax Fund includes funding for the Edmonds Center for the Arts 2010-11 season brochure, as recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee to promote tourism and economic development in Edmonds. The funding is to be used for an expanded listing of annual community events with short descriptions, an expanded “Welcome to Edmonds” stay, shop, and dine section, and provides an opportunity for a listing of lodging businesses within the core downtown Edmonds area. As part of the “grant” agreement the Edmonds Center for the Arts will draft copy for approval by the City of Edmonds Economic Development Director before printing, and submit a final report on the marketing efforts, including information on distribution of the season brochure, overnight stays, and other information on tourism impacts as available, by December 15, 2010. {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 5 Packet Page 49 of 248 EXHIBIT B Event or Tourism Activity Report Worksheet Official Report Form is due: January 15, 2011 NOTE: It is very important that you fill this report out as completely as possible to ensure you are eligible to receive Tourism Promotion Funds supported through Lodging Tax in the future! The City of Edmonds is required to provide this information to the State. Please plan now how you will collect this information. Questions? Call 425-771-0228 1. Organization __________________________________ 2. This report covers: Event Name: _________________________________ Date: _________________ Tourism Facility: _______________________________ Date: _________________ 3. Total Lodging Tax Funds Allocated to this event of facility $ ____________________ 4. Estimated total event attendance or user count for the facility: _____________________ Describe methodology used to determine this figure 5. Estimated percentage of total attendance for event or facility by: a. Tourists (total number of guests from outside Edmonds) ______% OR # _______ b. Traveled more than 50 miles ______% OR # _______ c. Overnight stays associated with event ______% OR # _______ Describe methodology used to determine this figure 6. Estimated total hotel or B & B room nights generated _________ Describe methodology used to determine this figure (eg: arrangement with hotel to report visitors, surveys of participants, etc.) 7 Any other information that demonstrates the impact of the festival, events or tourism- related facility owned by a non-profit organization or local jurisdiction (please describe, eg: restaurant or shop patronage, etc): {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 6 Packet Page 50 of 248 {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 7 Submitted by: ____________________________________ Date: _________________ E-mail or phone number: ___________________________________________________ Economic Development – Brochures Packet Page 51 of 248 AM-2898 2.G. Contract with Orchid Cellmark for DNA Testing Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Contract with Orchid Cellmark for DNA testing. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Orchid Cellmark. Previous Council Action On March 9, 2010, Public Safety Committee approved the proposed contract with Orchid Cellmark for consent agenda with a recommendation to approve the contract. Narrative To improve the ability of the police department to solve property crime cases such as burglary, the police department would like to enter into a contract with Orchid Cellmark. Orchid Cellmark is a company that provides DNA testing for criminal cases. The testing process used by Orchid Cellmark is now sensitive enough to detect DNA samples collected from a crime simply by the suspect touching an item. The same process has been used in England for over ten years. Orchid Cellmark currently provides services for WASPC's Stranger Rape Project. In addition, the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory has approved the scientific testing process Orchid Cellmark uses to enter DNA data into the national data base (CODIS). Orchid Cellmark has agreed to provide training to department personnel for collection of DNA evidence. The cost of the testing is based on the number of submissions submitted by the department. The contract has been reviewed and approved as to form by Mr. Bio Park, of the City Attorney's Office. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Orchid Cellmark Contract Link: Orchid Cellmark Pricing List Link: Orchid Cellmark Insurance Certificate Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:08 AM APRV Packet Page 52 of 248 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 11:20 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 03/11/2010 08:43 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 53 of 248 P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 5 5 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 5 6 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 5 7 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 5 8 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 5 9 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 o f 2 4 8 March 3, 2010 Gerald Gannon, Assistant Chief of Police City of Edmonds Police Department 250 – 5th Avenue North City of Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Pricing Agreement for Property Crime Testing Services Dear Assistant Chief Gannon, Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding property crime testing services. This letter shall serve as a pricing agreement between Orchid Cellmark and the City of Edmonds Police Department for the testing of property crime evidence. Service Element BioTracks ExpressTM BioTracksTM Price $245 per sample for batches of 70 or more swabs/swab cuttings* $345 per sample for batches of 70 or more swabs/swab cuttings* Turn-around time 15-30 days 30-45 days Report Data tables and abbreviated report Standard report Low quant samples Samples with <20 picograms of DNA/microliter after extraction and quantification are not analyzed further Samples with <20 picograms of DNA/microliter after extraction and quantification are not analyzed further Analysis approach Sample only analyzed once** Samples that do not yield CODIS-uploadable profiles on the first attempt are re-analyzed using the same approach used for analyzing violent crime evidence Non-swab items (less than 8.5” x 11”) Non-swab items not accepted. Additional $30/item Reference or Exclusion Samples $245 per sample $245 per sample *Add $20/sample for batches of 45-69, $40/sample for batches of 20-44 and $60/sample for batches of 10 - 19. Packet Page 61 of 248 **Samples can be re-analyzed using the standard BioTracksTM process for an additional $260/sample (minimum batch sizes apply) Orchid Cellmark also offers an alternative method of pricing when you expect to have a significant number of samples where no DNA is present. 1) DNA quantification is performed for $145/sample for BioTracks ExpressTM or $165/sample for BioTracksTM (70 sample minimum; add $20/sample for batches of 45-69, $40/sample for batches of 20-44 and $60/sample for batches of 10 - 19.) 2) STR analysis is only performed on samples meeting a minimum DNA concentration for an additional $150/sample for BioTracks ExpressTM or $270/sample for BioTracksTM Expert Witness Testimony: It is expected that the vast majority of property crime criminals will plea out a case when faced with DNA evidence linking them to the scene of the crime. As a result, property crime cases using DNA testing should rarely go to court. However, in the event a property crime case does go to court and require expert witness testimony: $1,500 per day plus expenses (per our agreement with the Washington State Patrol) for each testimony request Orchid Cellmark Representations: Orchid Cellmark represents and warrants that the Services provided hereunder shall be performed in accordance with established and recognized forensic testing procedures and in material compliance with federal and state laws. Testing Specifications: All testing will be performed by Orchid Cellmark utilizing protocols approved under the existing Washington State Patrol contract (e.g., use of the Profiler/Cofiler kit for testing) unless specified in the testing description above (e.g., not running samples through the process with DNA quantification values less than 20 picograms per microliter and only running BioTracks ExpressTM samples through the process once). Switching Service Options: Each batch of samples submitted will be run using either BioTracksTM or BioTracks ExpressTM (i.e., half of one sample batch cannot be run using one process and half with the other process). The City of Edmonds shall have the right to change which process they are using in between sample shipments. Testing Location: Orchid Cellmark has fully accredited casework facility in Farmers Branch, TX a suburb of Dallas. Contract Length: The pricing outlined herein shall remain in effect through December 31, 2011. Packet Page 62 of 248 Billing and Payment: Orchid Cellmark shall invoice the City of Edmonds Police Department for all services performed on a monthly basis. The City of Edmonds Police Department agrees that all invoices should be paid within 30 days. Record Retention: All biological material/evidence pertaining to cases sent to Orchid Cellmark by the City of Edmonds Police Department will be returned to the City of Edmonds Police Department within 60 days after delivery of the final report unless otherwise instructed by the City of Edmonds Police Department. Customer Service Contact: Your operations point of contact at our testing facility, Matt Quartaro (214-271-8323 mquartaro@orchid.com). Matt will contact you once this agreement is signed make sure you have all the information you need to send samples as it becomes necessary. Matt can also help coordinate case file review and CODIS upload of your samples with the appropriate Washington State Patrol crime lab. If these terms are acceptable, please return this signed agreement via fax or email. Jeff Boschwitz Vice President Sales and Marketing Orchid Cellmark 609-750-2329 phone 609- 750-2729 fax Agreed and Acknowledged to Signature _______________________ Name _______________________ Title ________________________ Date ________________________ Packet Page 63 of 248 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 o f 2 4 8 AM-2904 2.H. Approval of Taxicab Operator's Licenses Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of 2010 Taxicab Operator's Licenses for Low Fare, Northsound Taxi Inc., and Yellow Cab of Washington, Inc. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2010 Taxicab Operator's Licenses for Low Fare, Northsound Taxi Inc., and Yellow Cab of Washington Inc. Previous Council Action Taxicab Operator's Licenses are issued annually. Narrative Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 requires that the City Council approve Taxicab Operator's Licenses. A copy of the license application for each business is attached. In addition, the Police Department reviewed each application and recommended approval (please see attached memorandum). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Taxicab Operator's License Application - Low Fare Link: Taxicab Operator's License Application - North Sound Link: Taxicab Operator's License Application - Yellow Cab Link: Taxicab Operator's License - Police Dept. Approval Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 03:21 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 03:24 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 03:41 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/11/2010 03:08 PM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 66 of 248 Packet Page 67 of 248 Packet Page 68 of 248 Packet Page 69 of 248 Packet Page 70 of 248 Packet Page 71 of 248 Packet Page 72 of 248 Packet Page 73 of 248 Packet Page 74 of 248 Packet Page 75 of 248 Packet Page 76 of 248 Packet Page 77 of 248 AM-2899 2.I. BNSF Utilities Upgrade Project Award of Contract Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Robert English Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Report on bids opened March 2, 2010 for the BNSF Utilities Upgrade Project and award of contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. ($1,059,341.33). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council award a contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,059,341.33 (including sales tax) for the BNSF Utilities Upgrade Project and authorize a 10% contingency of $105,900 for construction change orders. Previous Council Action On October 6, 2009 Council authorized Staff to call for bids for the BNSF Utilities Upgrade Project. Narrative On March 2, 2010, the City received seven bids for the BNSF Utilities Upgrade project. The bids ranged from a low of $1,059,341.33 to a high of $1,406,837.51. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Interwest Construction, Inc. submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $1,059,341.33, including sales tax. The engineer’s estimate was $1,047,294.30. A review of the low bidder’s documents and records was satisfactory. In April 2008, the City was informed by BNSF that the double tracking project along the Edmonds waterfront would require improvements to several City utility pipelines that cross beneath the railroad tracks. The work will upgrade the existing pipelines so they withstand the additional weight imposed by the future second track. The project will also replace an existing watermain at Brackett's Landing North Park and add a new watermain in James Street between Sunset Avenue and Railroad Street to improve the City water system and fire flow service. Below is a summary of the estimated construction budget: Construction Budget: Contract Award $1,059,341 Inspection/Construction Management $110,000 Material Testing $21,000 Contingency (10%) $105,900 Packet Page 78 of 248 Total = $1,296,241 The project will be funded by the combined 412 Utility Improvement Fund. Construction is anticipated to begin in April/May and continue thru September. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 03/11/2010 10:48 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:08 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 11:20 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 03/11/2010 10:04 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 79 of 248 P a c k e t P a g e 8 0 o f 2 4 8 AM-2895 2.J. Amendment of EMC 5.05, Animal Control Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:James Lawless Submitted For:Al Compaan Time: Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Amendment of EMC 5.05.121 and 5.05.123 (Potentially Dangerous Dog) to allow for an appeal process should a dog be declared "Potentially Dangerous." Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Police Department recommends approval of amendment in order that the City Ordinance be consistent with recent case law as it relates to providing for due process. Previous Council Action Approved by Public Safety Committee for consent agenda approval by full Council. Narrative Proposed change to EMC 5.05.121 and 5.05.123 (Potentially Dangerous Dog) to provide for an appeal process should a dog be declared potentially dangerous. While this declaration is tantamount to a warning, recent court decisions support a provision for appeal in support of due process. This action is consistent with those taken in/by neighboring jurisdictions. This amended ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Ordinance - Potentially Dangerous Dog Appeals Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 04:59 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 08:03 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:08 AM APRV Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 03/10/2010 11:08 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 81 of 248 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.05 ECC RELATING TO APPEALS OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, currently, ECC 5.05.121(B) provides that potentially dangerous dog declarations are final determinations and not appealable; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide an opportunity to appeal potentially dangerous dog declarations because such a declaration may be the basis for issuance of a dangerous dog declaration pursuant to ECC 5.05.122 and ECC 5.05.010(E) if the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amended. Chapter 5.05 ECC entitled “Animal Control” is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.05.121 Potentially dangerous dogs. A. Declaration. Upon declaration by the animal control authority that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog as defined in ECC 5.05.010, the owner shall be served with a potentially dangerous dog declaration. B. Declaration – Final Determination Unless Appealed. The service of a potentially dangerous dog declaration shall, unless timely appealed, be a final determination that the dog is a potentially dangerous dog. No appeal may be taken from a declaration of potentially dangerous dog. C. Notice – Service. Service of the potentially dangerous dog declaration upon the owner of the animal may be made either by personal service to the owner, by posting such notice at the residence of the owner or by certified mail to the last known address of the owner. {KNE765835.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 1 Packet Page 82 of 248 D. Appeal. An appeal of a potentially dangerous dog declaration must be served upon the city of Edmonds police chief within five days of service of the potentially dangerous dog declaration. Appeals shall be heard by the judge of the Edmonds municipal court and conducted in accordance with ECC 5.05.123. 5.05.123 Appeal. A. Filing. A notice of appeal, substantially in the form prescribed, shall be filed with the Edmonds municipal court and the chief of police not more than five business days after service of the order to abate a nuisance, potentially dangerous dog declaration, or dangerous dog declaration. Failure to timely file a notice of appeal shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal the determination of the order to abate a nuisance, potentially dangerous dog declaration, or declaration of dangerous dog. B. Form. An appeal pursuant to this chapter shall be written and shall conform substantially to the following requirements: 1. A caption reading: “Appeal of ____,” giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal; 2. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants involved in the notice and order; 3. A brief statement in concise language of the specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant; 4. A brief statement in concise language of the relief sought, and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside; 5. Signatures of all parties named as appellants, and their official mailing addresses; and 6. Verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matter stated in the appeal Certification (by signature of the appellant) that the appellant has read the appeal, and that to the best of the appellant’s knowledge, information, and belief, the appeal is well grounded in fact. C. Scheduling of Hearing. Upon receipt of a timely filed notice of appeal, a hearing shall be scheduled not more than 60 days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal. Written notice of the date of the hearing shall be sent to the appellants at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The failure of the appellant to appear at the hearing shall result in a denial of the appeal and upholding of the order to abate a nuisance, potentially dangerous dog declaration, or declaration of dangerous dog. D. Enforcement Stayed During Pendency of Appeal. Unless otherwise determined by the hearing examiner, enforcement of the order to abate a nuisance or declaration of dangerous dog shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. {KNE765835.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 2 Packet Page 83 of 248 E. Presentation of Evidence. At the appeal hearing, the hearing examiner judge shall take evidence relevant to the order to abate a nuisance, potentially dangerous dog declaration, or dangerous dog declaration. Testimony may be provided in the form of a signed written statement pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085. F. Decision of the Court. The judge of the Edmonds municipal court may uphold, dismiss, or modify the order to abate nuisance, potentially dangerous dog declaration, or declaration of dangerous dog. A written order shall be prepared and signed by the judge. The decision of the judge of the Edmonds municipal court shall be a final administrative decision appealable to the Snohomish County superior court within 30 days of the final written order Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. The ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved. 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: {KNE765835.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 3 Packet Page 84 of 248 PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {KNE765835.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 4 Packet Page 85 of 248 {KNE765835.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 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 CHAPTER 5.05 ECC RELATING TO APPEALS OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL, 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 86 of 248 AM-2896 3. Appointment of Mike Popke to the Public Facilities District Board Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Cindi Cruz Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Time:5 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Appointment of Mike Popke to the Public Facilities District Board. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Appoint Mike Popke to the Public Facilities District Board. Previous Council Action Narrative On June 19, 2001, the Edmonds City Council approved the appointment of a five-member Public Facilities District (PFD) board. Ordinance No. 3358 states that all board members are to serve four-year staggered terms. On April 6, 2004 the City Council appointed Dave Earling to serve the remainder of the term originally held by James Monroe. Mr. Earling was appointed for a four-year term on 6/19/07. Mr. Earling submitted his resignation on January 17, 2010. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.57.010, a PFD shall be governed by a board of directors consisting of five (5) members selected as follows: (a)(i) Two members appointed by the legislative authority of the City or Town; and (a)(ii) Three members appointed by the legislative authority based on recommendations from local organizations that may include, but are not limited to, the local chamber of commerce, local economic development council, and local labor council, etc. The position held by Dave Earling must be filled by someone recommended by the entities referenced under subsection (a)(ii). On February 1, 2010, a press release was issued soliciting for individuals interested in serving on the PFD Board for the remainder of the term previously held by Dave Earling. One resume was received and after review the Edmonds PFD Board recommends Mike Popke for appointment to the vacant position. Mr. Popke is the general manager and general sales manager of Lynnwood Honda. He is also an Edmonds Chamber member, on the Edmonds Center for the Arts Board of Directors, a member of the Highway 99 Task Force, Seattle Executives Association, and Edmonds Yacht Club. Mr. Popke has received recommendations for this appointment from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and Chamber members, Dave Arista, Arista Wine Cellars and Mike Meeks, Dewar Meeks + Ekrem PC. Edmonds Center for the Arts Executive Director Joe McIalwain will be giving a brief introduction during the March 16, 2010 City Council meeting. If Mr. Popke is appointed to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board by the City Council, his term will expire on June 19, 2011. Packet Page 87 of 248 term will expire on June 19, 2011. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 03:49 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 08:03 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:08 AM APRV Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 03/10/2010 03:35 PM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 88 of 248 AM-2897 4. Proposed Amendment to the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2010-2015) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Robert English Time:20 Minutes Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Public Hearing regarding amending the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program in order to add a project: Reconstruction of Dayton Street from the railroad tracks to Sunset and resurfacing of 220th between 84th and Highway 99. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the amendment to the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2010-2015) and adopt the proposed Resolution (Exhibit 3). Previous Council Action On September 22, 2009, Council approved the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2010-2015). Narrative In February of this year, the Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (ICC) developed a transportation project list for the proposed federal 2010 Jobs Bill (Exhibit 1). The list was developed from a competitive process based on scoring criteria for job creation and project readiness. The City's Dayton St. Reconstruction (Sunset to BNSF right of way) and 220th St. Overlay (84th Ave to Highway 99) project scored high enough to be placed in a primary group of projects that may receive funding if the federal 2010 Jobs Bill is passed. ICC’s projection of $14.4M in federal transportation funding is based on the budget allocation provided in 2009 for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Staff is proposing to amend the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (Exhibit 2) to add the Dayton St. Reconstruction and 220th St. overlay project in anticipation of the approval of the 2010 Jobs Bill. This action will allow WSDOT to amend the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), if the federal funds become available. This project meets Goal V of Section 15.25.010 from the adopted 2009 Transportation Plan since it is a maintenance preservation project. Goal V:"Prioritize and finance transportation improvements for the greatest public benefit emphasizing transit, demand management, and maintenance of current facilities". Fiscal Impact Packet Page 89 of 248 Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 Link: Exhibit 2 Link: Exhibit 3 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 03/11/2010 04:16 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 04:21 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 04:24 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 04:39 PM APRV Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 03/10/2010 05:50 PM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 90 of 248 20 1 0 J O B S B I L L - S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y I C C R e c o m m e n d e d L i s t o f P r o j e c t s 2 / 2 5 / 1 0 PS R C T I P # A g e n c y Pr o j e c t T i t l e JO B S R e q u e s t IC C Re c o m m e n d e d Jo b s A l l o c a t i o n T o t a l C E / C N C o s t T o t a l P r o j e c t C o s t N/ A D a r r i n g t o n S a u k A v e n u e R o a d C o n n e c t i o n , W a t e r , S t o r m D r a i n & S i d e w a l k P r o j e c t 39 0 , 0 0 0 $ 39 0 , 0 0 0 $ 39 0 , 0 0 0 $ 390,000 $ N/ A Sn o h o m i s h 1s t S t r e e t & A v e n u e D T r a f f i c S i g n a l 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1,000,000 $ CT - 4 0 Co m m u n i t y T r a n s i t Se c u r i t y S y s t e m s f o r S w i f t B R T S t a t i o n s 50 0 , 0 0 0 $ 50 0 , 0 0 0 $ 50 0 , 0 0 0 $ 500,000 $ N/ A Ar l i n g t o n Ai r p o r t B l v d - 1 7 2 n d S t . t o 1 8 8 t h S t . 3, 3 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3, 3 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3, 4 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3,810,000 $ N/ A Bo t h e l l Ar t e r i a l R o a d w a y P r e s e r v a t i o n 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1,800,000 $ EV T - 4 8 Ev e r e t t W. M a r i n e V i e w D r i v e N o n - m o t o r i z e d I m p r o v e m e n t s 50 0 , 0 0 0 $ 50 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 1 6 6 , 7 8 6 $ 1,318,786 $ N/ A Mo n r o e W. M a i n S t / K e l s e y S t . T r a f f i c S i g n a l 75 0 , 0 0 0 $ 75 0 , 0 0 0 $ 75 0 , 0 0 0 $ 915,000 $ N/ A Mu k i l t e o Ov e r l a y o f 5 t h S t r e e t 60 5 , 0 0 0 $ 60 5 , 0 0 0 $ 65 0 , 0 0 0 $ 650,000 $ N/ A Ed m o n d s Da y t o n S t . R e c o n s t r u c t i o n & 2 2 0 t h S t . O v e r l a y 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1,000,000 $ N/ A L y n n w o o d P a v e m e n t O v e r l a y 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ N/ A Mo u n t l a k e Te r r a c e / L y n n w o o d 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t ( 4 4 t h t o 5 2 n d A v e n u e s ) O v e r l a y & R e c h a n n i l i z a t i o n 77 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ N/ A Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y 52 n d A v e W ( 1 4 8 t h S t S W t o L y n n w o o d C / L ) 5, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3, 6 0 2 , 1 3 1 $ 7, 6 6 8 , 8 8 8 $ 11,279,577 $ Pr o p o s e d P r o j e c t s s u b - t o t a l $ 1 6 , 5 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 , 4 6 2 , 1 3 1 $ 2 1 , 5 4 9 , 6 7 4 $ 2 5 , 9 9 3 , 3 6 3 CO N T I N G E N C Y L I S T N/ A M a r y s v i l l e L a k e w o o d T r i a n g l e A c c e s s / 1 5 6 t h S t r e e t O v e r c r o s s i n g 8, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ N/ A Po r t o f E v e r e t t Le h i g h C e m e n t L o a d i n g T r a c k R a i l C o n n e c t i o n 1, 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1,500,000 $ N/ A Ev e r e t t Do w n t o w n S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s 2, 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4, 7 3 6 , 0 0 0 $ 5,376,000 $ N/ A Ed m o n d s Do w n t o w n S t r e e t L i g h t i n g & S i d e w a l k R e p l a c e m e n t 72 5 , 0 0 0 $ 72 5 , 0 0 0 $ 725,000 $ N/ A S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y Br i d g e R a i l U p g r a d e s a n d B r i d g e 9 6 & 2 1 4 T i m b e r D e c k & S t r i n g e r Re p l a c e m e n t 83 9 , 4 0 0 $ 8 3 9 , 4 0 0 $ 9 0 9 , 4 0 0 $ N/ A Mo n r o e Fr y e l a n d s B l v d . O v e r l a y 41 0 , 0 0 0 $ 41 0 , 0 0 0 $ 430,000 $ N/ A Mo u n t l a k e T e r r a c e 21 4 t h S t @ 4 4 t h A v e n u e W S i g n a l P r o j e c t 57 1 , 0 0 0 $ 57 1 , 0 0 0 $ 775,000 $ N/ A Ly n n w o o d SR 5 2 4 / S c r i b e r L a k e R o a d T r a f f i c S i g n a l R e b u i l d 40 0 , 0 0 0 $ 40 0 , 0 0 0 $ 480,000 $ N/ A Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Sn o h C o O v e r l a y 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1,100,000 $ N/ A Ev e r e t t Br o a d w a y A v e & 1 4 t h S t . T r a f f i c S i g n a l 30 0 , 0 0 0 $ 61 8 , 0 0 0 $ 658,000 $ N/ A Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Br i d g e 3 0 0 & 5 0 4 S u b s t r u c t u r e P i l e & C a p 44 6 , 6 8 0 $ 44 6 , 6 8 0 $ 486,680 $ N/ A Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ge t c h e l l R d B r i d g e 4 5 3 D e c k R e p l a c e m e n t 43 8 , 6 6 7 $ 43 8 , 6 6 7 $ 536,605 $ N/ A Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y SR 9 6 & 3 9 t h A v e S E T r a f f i c S i g n a l 80 0 , 0 0 0 $ 80 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1,000,000 $ Co n t i n g e n c y P r o j e c t s s u b - t o t a l $ 1 7 , 5 3 0 , 7 4 7 $ - $ 2 8 , 1 8 4 , 7 4 7 $ 3 1 , 9 7 6 , 6 8 5 GR A N D T O T A L 34 , 0 9 0 , 7 4 7 $ 14 , 4 6 2 , 1 3 1 $ 49 , 7 3 4 , 4 2 1 $ 57,970,048 $ Re c o m m e n d e d f o r s t a t e w i d e E n h a n c e m e n t f u n d i n g C: \ D o c u m e n t s a n d S e t t i n g s \ e n g l i s h \ D e s k t o p \ J O B S 2 0 1 0 I C C R e c o m m e n d e d P r o j e c t L i s t . x l s Page 1 of 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 91 of 24 8 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Si x - Y e a r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Gr a n t O p p o r t u n i t y P r o j e c t (2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Pr o j e c t N a m e Pu r p o s e Gr a n t / D a t e Ph a s e T o t a l C o s t So u r c e 20 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2014 2015 Pr e s e r v a t i o n / M a i n t e n a n c e P r o j e c t s : Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) $0 (S t a t e ) An n u a l S t r e e t O v e r l a y s Gr i n d p a v e m e n t , o v e r l a y $1 8 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l F u n d 4 1 2 ) $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) & $0 (S t a t e ) Po s s i b l e T B D $1 , 0 9 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l F u n d 4 1 2 ) $ 1 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $750,000 $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 Re c o n s t r u c t i o n o f D a y t o n S t . a n d R e s u r f a c i n g o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h c u r b r a m p A D A Po s s i b l e C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , U n s e c u r e d ) $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 re s u r f a c i n g o f 2 2 0 t h S t . S W $0 (S t a t e ) up g r a d e s , c u r b g u t t e r s , a n d s t r i p i n g . Gr a n t $0 (L o c a l ) Ci t y W i d e Pa v e m e n t m a i n t e n a n c e t o Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) St r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s in c r e a s e r o a d w a y l i f e & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 2 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $7,500 $ 7 , 5 0 0 $ 7 , 5 0 0 Ci t y w i d e Up g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g s i g n a l s , f o r Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Si g n a l I m p r o v e m e n t s ma i n t e n a n c e & t e c h n o l o g y , u p d a t e e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l c a b i n e t & $0 (S t a t e ) el e m e n t s f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $5,000 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 Do w n t o w n P a r k i n g Ad d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ci t y w i d e Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y $0 (S t a t e ) No n m o t o r i z e d th r o u g h o u t t h e c i t y w h e r e h i g h b i k e t r a f f i c i s n o t i c e d $9 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $3,000 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 0 23 8 t h @ 1 0 0 t h A v . S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Re b u i l d s i g n a l s y s t e m TB D Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) an d i n s t a l l v i d e o d e t e c t i o n & & $1 6 5 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e U n s e c u r e d ) $165,000 Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 7 1 , 0 0 0 ( T B D u n s e c u r e d ) $71,000 Sa f e t y / C a p a c i t y A n a l y s i s : 80 t h A v e n u e W e s t An a l y z e 8 0 t h A v e n u e W e s t f o r v e h i c l e , b i c y c l e En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Si g h t D i s t a n c e I m p r o v e m e n t s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y . Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) $2 2 0 , 0 0 0 ( S i t e D e v e l o p e r ) $220,000 Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 7 2 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $72,000 SR 5 2 4 ( 1 9 6 t h S t . S W ) / De s i g n i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t Po s s i b l e G r a n t De s i g n $0 (F e d e r a l ) 88 t h A v e W . I n t e r s e c t i o n & $7 5 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $7 5 , 0 0 0 Im p r o v e m e n t s Lo c a l F u n d s $8 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $8 0 , 0 0 0 Co n s t r u c t i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Po s s i b l e G r a n t $5 3 6 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $536,000 & T B D $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $100,000 $8 8 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $88,000 21 2 t h / 8 4 t h ( 5 C o r n e r s ) De s i g n i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t En g i n e e r i n g $ 2 7 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $270,000 In t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s Po s s i b l e G r a n t $0 (S t a t e ) $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $100,000 Co n s t r u c t i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $1,000,000 Po s s i b l e G r a n t $0 (S t a t e ) & $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $100,000 TB D $4 4 0 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $440,000 76 t h A v . W @ 2 1 2 t h S t . S W I n t e r s e c t i o n R e - d e s i g n i n t e r s e c t i o n t o m a k e t r a f f i c s i g n a l w o r k $0 (F e d e r a l ) Im p r o v e m e n t s mo r e e f f i c i e n t l y a n d i m p r o v e t h e c a p a c i t y / l e v e l Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 8 9 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $189,000 of s e r v i c e o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n . $8 1 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $81,000 Po s s i b l e En g i n e e r i n g $ 2 4 5 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $2 4 5 , 0 0 0 22 8 t h S t . S W . C o r r i d o r S a f e t y Re a l i g n h i g h l y s k e w e d i n t e r s e c t i o n Gr a n t $0 (S t a t e ) to a d d r e s s s a f e t y a n d i m p r o v e o p e r a t i o n s ; $1 4 1 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $3 1 , 0 0 0 $1 1 0 , 0 0 0 in c l u d e s n e w s i g n a l @ S R 9 9 / 2 2 8 t h Po s s i b l e G r a n t & RO W $ 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $185,000 TB D $8 5 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $85,000 Im p r o v e m e n t s Po s s i b l e G r a n t C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 3 , 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $3,107,000 & $0 (S t a t e ) TB D $0 (L o c a l ) Pa g e 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 92 of 24 8 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Si x - Y e a r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Gr a n t O p p o r t u n i t y P r o j e c t (2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Pr o j e c t N a m e Pu r p o s e Gr a n t / D a t e Ph a s e T o t a l C o s t So u r c e 20 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2014 2015 $3 4 5 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $345,000 Wa l n u t S t . @ 9 t h A v . S Tr a f f i c S i g n a l I n s t a l l a t i o n Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) & & $3 9 0 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $75,000 $ 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 TB D $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $100,000 Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 3 8 5 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $75,000 $ 3 1 0 , 0 0 0 Ma i n S t . @ 3 r d S i g n a l U p g r a d e Up g r a d e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a n d l e s s e n l i k e h o o d t o b e h i t En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) by t r u c k s Lo c a l F u n d s & $0 (S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 3 8 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $138,000 Ma i n S t . @ 9 t h A v . In s t a l l s i g n a l a t i n t e r s e c t i o n t o r e d u c e i n j u r y a n d En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) pr o p e r t y d a m a g e a c c i d e n t s Po s s i b l e G r a n t , L o c a l & $5 8 2 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e u n s e c u r e d ) $75,000 $ 5 0 7 , 0 0 0 & T B D $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $100,000 Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 9 3 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $75,000 $ 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 Ar t e r i a l S t r e e t S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n Co o r d i n a t e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s w i t h i n 1 / 2 m i l e o f e a c h o t h e r En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Im p r o v e m e n t s al o n g 7 6 t h A v . W , 2 1 2 t h S t . S W , a n d 2 2 0 t h S t . S W L o c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $50,000 No n - m o t o r i z e d P e d e s t r i a n / B i c y c l e P r o j e c t s : $0 (F e d e r a l ) Bi c y c l e R o u t e S i g n i n g In s t a l l s i g n a t e i n d i c a t e ( 3 ) d i f f e r e n t b i k e C i t y l o o p s . Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (S t a t e ) & T B D $5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $5,000 $4 , 5 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $1,500 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 In t e r u r b a n T r a i l Pa v e , s i g n , a n d c o n n e c t r e g i o n a l s e g m e n t f r o m RC O $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l s e c u r e d ) $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 24 4 t h t o 2 2 8 t h & Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 4 7 1 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , s e c u r e d ) $ 4 7 1 , 0 0 0 Sh o r e l i n e t o M o u n t l a k e T e r r a c e CM A Q g r a n t s $3 1 4 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l F u n d 1 3 2 ) $ 3 1 4 , 0 0 0 Ma i n S t . P e d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g Im p r o v e s t r e e t l i g h t i n g f o r p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y o n Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 3 7 3 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $373,000 Ma i n S t . b e t w e e n 5 t h A v . a n d 6 t h A v . & & $0 (S t a t e ) TB D Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $160,000 AD A C u r b R a m p s I m p r o v . Co n s t r u c t A D A c o m p l i a n t c u r b r a m p s w h e r e En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ci t y w i d e ( T r a n s i t i o n P l a n ) Lo c a l F u n d s & $0 (S t a t e ) & $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $75,000 $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 fa c i l i t i e s d o n o t e x i s t o r d o n ' t m e e t c u r r e n t s t a n d a r d s TB D Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $150,000 $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 Bi k e w a y P r o j e c t s En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ci t y w i d e Mi n o r b i k e w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $5,000 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 Wa l k w a y I m p r o v e m e n t s En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ci t y w i d e Mi n o r w a l k w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y $0 (S t a t e ) $2 2 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $7,500 $ 7 , 5 0 0 $ 7 , 5 0 0 Pe d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g Im p r o v e l i g h t i n g a t c r o s s w a l k s a n d i n t e r s e c t i o n s Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ci t y w i d e Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y $0 (S t a t e ) to i m p r o v e p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y $1 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $5,000 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 Ma d r o n a E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Im p r o v e p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y w i t h i n s t a l l a t i o n o f n e w P o s s i b l e P e d e s t r i a n a n d E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) an d B i c y c l e & $1 9 6 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $196,000 si d e w a l k t o g a i n e a s y a c c e s s t o s c h o o l . Sa f e t y G r a n t C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 8 4 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $84,000 80 t h A v . W f r o m 1 8 8 t h S t . S W t o Pr o v i d e s a f e a n d d e s i r a b l e r o u t e t o Po s s i b l e S a f e E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ol y m p i c V i e w D r . Ro u t e s t o & $1 2 0 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $120,000 Sc h o o l G r a n t & C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (L o c a l ) Se a v i e w E l e m e n t a r y a n d p a r k s . TB D $3 0 , 0 0 0 ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $30,000 2n d A v . S f r o m J a m e s S t . t o M a i n S t . En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k a l o n g s h o r t m i s s i n g l i n k Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $25,000 Da y t o n S t . f r o m 7 t h A v . S t o 8 t h A v . S En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k a l o n g s h o r t m i s s i n g l i n k Po s s i b l e G r a n t & $3 2 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $32,000 Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 4 1 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $10,000 $ 3 1 , 0 0 0 22 6 t h S t . S W W a l k w a y Pr o v i d e s a f e p e d e s t r i a n m i s s i n g l i n k b e t w e e n S R - 1 0 4 a n d Fe d e r a l $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 10 5 t h P l . W , c r e a t i n g s a f e r a c c e s s t o Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (S t a t e ) Sh e r w o o d E l e m e n t a r y a n d r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b h o o d s . Sa f e t y G r a n t $0 (L o c a l ) In s t a l l P e d e s t r i a n C o u n t d o w n S i g n a l I n s t a l l f l a s h i n g c o u n t d o w n i n d i c a t i n g t h e n u m b e r o f s e c o n d s En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) at a l l p e d e s t r i a n h e a d s re m a i n i n g i n F l a s h i n g D o n ' t W a l k d u r i n g Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Pe d e s t r i a n P h a s e a t s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 4 3 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $1 4 , 5 0 0 $ 1 4 , 5 0 0 $ 1 4 , 5 0 0 4t h A v e n u e C o r r i d o r E n h a n c e m e n t Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $1,000,000 Cr e a t e m o r e a t t r a c t i v e a n d s a f e r c o r r i d o r a l o n g 4 t h A v . S & & $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $100,000 Pa g e 2 Pa c k e t Pa g e 93 of 24 8 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Si x - Y e a r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Gr a n t O p p o r t u n i t y P r o j e c t (2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 ) Pr o j e c t N a m e Pu r p o s e Gr a n t / D a t e Ph a s e T o t a l C o s t So u r c e 20 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2014 2015 Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o j e c t s : Re s i d e n t i a l N e i g h b o r h o o d Tr a f f i c c i r l c e s , s p e e d h u m p s , De s i g n $0 (F e d e r a l ) Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g "Y o u r S p e e d " s i g n s , e t c . Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $5,000 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 Tr a f f i c P l a n n i n g P r o j e c t s : Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Up d a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n i n 2 0 1 1 , a s r e q u i r e d b y G M A L o c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Pl a n n i n g $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $3 0 , 0 0 0 To t a l $1 8 , 6 4 6 , 0 0 0 $2 , 9 1 1 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 9 , 5 0 0 $ 7 4 9 , 5 0 0 $ 3 , 4 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 3 9 , 5 0 0 $ 9 , 3 6 4 , 5 0 0 To t a l F e d e r a l ( S e c u r e d ) $9 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 To t a l F e d e r a l ( U n s e c u r e d ) $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 2 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 5 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 To t a l S t a t e ( S e c u r e d ) $4 7 1 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 To t a l S t a t e ( U n s e c u r e d ) $0 $0 $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 0 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 5 9 , 0 0 0 To t a l ( T B D , u n s e c u r e d ) $0 $0 $0 $ 1 , 3 0 5 , 5 0 0 $ 9 7 6 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 0 6 9 , 5 0 0 To t a l ( D e v e l o p e r , u n s e c u r e d ) $0 $0 $0 $ 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $0 To t a l L o c a l F u n d $5 4 0 , 0 0 0 $2 3 9 , 5 0 0 $4 2 9 , 5 0 0 $728,500 $543,000 $829,000 Pa g e 3 Pa c k e t Pa g e 94 of 24 8 P a c k e t P a g e 9 5 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 9 6 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 9 7 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 9 8 o f 2 4 8 P a c k e t P a g e 9 9 o f 2 4 8 AM-2903 5. Proposed Title 18 Code Amendments to Allow Use of City Right-of-Way Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Robert English Time:30 Minutes Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee:Community/Development Services Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Public Hearing on proposed Title 18 amendments to allow use of City right-of-way for bistro and outdoor dining and placement of art in City right-of-way. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Review proposed ordinance and fee resolution and place them on consent agenda for approval in April. Previous Council Action On February 9, 2010 the CSDS Committee reviewed the item and directed staff to present it to the full Council for review and approval. Narrative In spring 2009, a local restaurant secured a street use permit to use public right of way adjacent to their business for outdoor dining. The restaurant's proposal included fencing within the right of way to create an exclusive dining area for its patrons. After the fencing was installed, the City received several citizen complaints about lack of sidewalk clearance (approximately 36-inches) for pedestrian passage. Because of citizen feedback and problems with sidewalk clearance, it was determined that more specific guidelines should be developed to address similar applications in the future. A copy of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) along with a redline version (Exhibit 2) which shows the proposed changes are attached. An administrative policy (Exhibit 3) and draft fee resolution (Exhibit 4) are also attached for reference. The administrative policy will provide staff with guidelines on how to administer the proposed code amendments and the resolution will establish a fee for use of public right-of-way. Staff contacted several cities in the region to review existing code and policies related to this issue. The amendments and guidelines were then developed and refined based on input from the Community Services Director, City Engineer, Planning Manager, Building Official and the City Attorney. The proposed amendments to Title 18 also address the installation of art work within the public right of way. The changes outline the application process, submittal requirements and provision to have the proposed art work reviewed by the Edmonds Art Commission. The Edmonds Art Packet Page 100 of 248 Commission would then provide a recommendation to the Community Services Director and City Engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 Link: Exhibit 2 Link: Exhibit 3 Link: Exhibit 4 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 03/11/2010 01:23 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:15 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 02:17 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 03/11/2010 12:26 PM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 101 of 248 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 10/16/09 R:11/17/09gjz R:2/4/10gjz R:2/9/10 gjz R:3/9/10gjz ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 18.70 RELATING TO STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TO PROVIDE CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AS THEY RELATE TO OUTDOOR DINING AND ARTWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, in an effort to develop and encourage tourism, enliven the streetscape of Edmonds and provide for business development within the downtown area, the City of Edmonds has enacted provisions relating to outdoor dining, and private and public artwork installed in the right of way; and WHEREAS, legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the use of the public right of way; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to clarify the provisions relating to outdoor dining in order to ensure that public sidewalks remain open and available for foot traffic, their primary purpose and that adequate compensation is received; and WHEREAS, the streetscape can also be enhanced by private and public art within the right of way, so long as the artwork does not impair the public’s use of the right of way for travel, both foot, bicycle and motor vehicle, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1 Packet Page 102 of 248 AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.70 Street use and encroachment permits is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Chapter 18.70 STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 18.70.000 Permits required. 18.70.010 Exemptions. 18.70.020 Applications. 18.70.030 Review. 18.70.040 Revocation. 18.70.050 Fees. 18.70.000 Permits required. No person shall use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the Development Services Director or City Engineer. A. Encroachment Permit. An Encroachment Permit is required to encroach upon any portion of City public space, right- of-way or easement area with permanent structures. To encroach means to construct, erect or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, easement, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the airspace above them, any structures permanent in nature, including but not limited to, building extension, marquee, fence, retaining wall, artwork, or any other building or structure. B. Street Use Permit. A Street Use permit is required to use any portion of public space or city right-of-way for objects which are temporary in nature. 1. To “use” means to place or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the air space above them, any temporary or movable object. 2. “Temporary in nature”, in reference to street use permits, means not having or requiring permanent attachment to the ground, or involving structures which have no required permanent attachment to the ground. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2 Packet Page 103 of 248 3. “Temporary object” for the purposes of this chapter refers to all objects placed in the right of way that are temporary in nature including but not limited to chairs, tables, planters, sandwich boards, benches, stanchions, rope, and fencing. None of the above definitions shall be interpreted to prohibit the parking of a properly licensed vehicle within the parking strip adjacent to their property line of sight, and street plantings. 18.70.010 Exemptions. This chapter shall not apply to: A. Any noncommercial use (such as residential, churches, schools, etc.) in areas zoned residential, which does not involve a building or structure. This exemption shall not be construed to grant any vested right of use or to permit the continuation of such use and such uses are hereby deemed and declared to be permissive and shall be promptly removed upon the order of the City of Edmonds. B. Installation of fences across City utility easements, if the City’s easement is not for vehicular access and a point of access (e.g. gate) is provided to allow the City a point of entry to the easement area. Fences shall be permitted in accordance with this chapter and the provisions of this code prior to their installation. 18.70.020 Applications. Applications for Street Use or Encroachment permits shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable city code, the following information: A. Street Use Permit. 1. Architectural Design Board approval, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds Art Commission, when applicable 3. Certificate of insurance. 4. Complete Street Use permit application. B. Encroachment Permit. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3 Packet Page 104 of 248 1. Critical Areas determination, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds Art Commission, when applicable 3. Architectural Design Board approval, when applicable. 4. Partial site plan, to be recorded with Snohomish County, clearly showing proposed encroachment, private property lines, all existing structures and driveways, easements and/or public property (developed or undeveloped). 5. Legal Description, including copies of all recorded easements on the property. 6. Elevation view or side view of the proposed encroachment. 7. Ownership. Evidence showing the applicant to be the agent record owner of the property immediately adjoining the public place or right-of-way. 8. Certificate of insurance. 9. Complete Encroachment Permit application. 10. Complete Encroachment Agreement, to be recorded with Snohomish County. C. Such other information as the City Engineer or designee of the Development Services Director shall require. D. The Encroachment Agreement shall require prompt removal of the encroachment by the applicant at his/her/its expense upon reasonable demand by the City Engineer and be legally adequate for recording in the land records of Snohomish County and the chain of title of the applicant’s property. Such encroachment agreements may be executed as acknowledged on behalf of the City by the City Engineer and recorded by the City Clerk following approval as to form by the City Attorney. 18.70.030 Review. A. Architectural Design Board. Any application for a permit to construct, erect or maintain an awning, marquee, sign or any structure in a public place may be referred by the Development {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4 Packet Page 105 of 248 Services Director or his/her designee to the Architectural Design Board. If referred to the board, the board shall review the plans and specifications as they relate to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. Applications for mobile street vending units shall be reviewed in accordance with ECC 4.12.055 by the Architectural Design Board. B. Edmonds Arts Commission. Applications for an Encroachment permit or a Street Use permit to install art in the public right of way shall be subject to the review and recommendation of the Edmonds Arts Commission. No art shall be permitted in the public right of way except as expressly permitted herein. 1. The terms “art” or “art work” as used in this section shall refer only to a work of visual art consisting of a sculpture, existing in a single copy or in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated scupltures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author. Art such as a painting, print, drawing, audio visual or still photographic image may not be located in the public right of way. 2. The terms “art” or art work” do not include: a. Any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; b. Any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container. c. Architectural details such as masonry, ironwork, or other building fixtures or materials; d. Any portion or part of any item described in subparagraphs (A), (B) or (C); e. Any work not subject to copyright protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act, as codified under federal copyright law, Title 17, as the same exists or is hereafter amended. 3. Encroachment and Street Use permits require determination of public benefit. The Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is mandated in Chapter 10.20 ECC to {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5 Packet Page 106 of 248 advise the City on matters pertaining to art. When the proposed encroachment is art, EAC will review and make written recommendations to the Community Services Director and City Engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance. (See C below.) 4. The public right of way is a traditional forum for public expression. By this permit program the City acknowledges that it is approving uses in a limited public forum. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to protect the safety of the public who use the right of way for pedestrian or vehicular traffic and to insure that the City provides for accessibility for the disabled. No recommendation or denial shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art as long as there is no commercial content. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian oriented character of the downtown area. 5. Specific submission requirements for EAC review include, but are not limited to: a. Site plan showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum 1/4 inch scale drawings of the art concept or art component, including at least one elevation; c. Context drawings; d. Material/color samples; e. Model (optional); f. Written proposal: 6 copies of a written proposal in 8 1/2 x 11 inch format to include:  A description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork for the proposed project;  Detailed maintenance requirements;  A schedule for development, fabrication, and completion;  Artists’ resume/background  Evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee;  For proposal to be reviewed at next scheduled EAC meeting, a complete {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6 Packet Page 107 of 248 Additional requirements may be requested based on staff input or information sought by EAC members. 6. Review Criteria. Art in public places may be art standing alone, modifiers or definers of space, functional, or used to establish identity. The use of art as an integral part of the structure and function of building is encouraged e.g. the interpretation of light fixtures, benches, hardware, doors, surface finishes, walkways, gates, and other features with the artwork or as a part of the artwork, although only some of these elements would occur in the public right of way. The criteria used for review of Encroachment Review artwork submissions are as follows: a. Constructability of proposed artwork. No artwork shall impair disabled accessibility and barrier free design requirements. b. Artist’s credentials and recognition. c. Durability and craftsmanship in fabrication and production quality - quality of the work is a high priority. d. Due consideration shall be given to the structural and surface soundness of artworks, and to their permanence, including ability to withstand age, theft, vandalism, weathering, and maintenance and possible related repair costs. Careful consideration shall be given to the materials used and the appropriateness of those materials for the conditions of the site. e. Coordination of the artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian oriented character of the downtown area is encouraged. f. Maintenance/conservation plan. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 7 Packet Page 108 of 248 g. Relationship to other existing artwork in vicinity. h. No commercial content - artwork shall not be used as signage (see definition of signage) C. Issuance by the Development Services Director or City Engineer. The Development Services Director, City Engineer or their respective designee, may administratively, without hearing, approve a Street Use or Encroachment permit if: 1. The proposed use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, including but not limited to the following requirements: a. No portion of the public right-of-way designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking shall be permanently occupied; b. Requirements of the State Building Code, including but not limited to all provisions relating to disabled accessibility and barrier-free design requirements shall be met; c. Any mobile vending units shall be properly licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.12 ECC; d. Permit application fees have been paid. (see section 18.70.050 of this chapter); e. A “Clear Zone” must be maintained on public sidewalks or walkways. A Clear Zone refers to an area 7 feet in height and 5 feet in width providing a level, safe walking surface along the public sidewalk. Clear zone on sidewalks shall not include any curbing, planting strips or ramps; f. All temporary objects shall be removed from the right of way on twenty four hours notice to accommodate public events. Temporary objects are subject to removal in the event of an emergency; and g. All temporary objects, excluding approved awnings and wall signs, that project more than 24 inches into the right of way shall be removed each day at the close of business or by 11pm whichever {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 8 Packet Page 109 of 248 is earlier. 2. Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the City’s urban core, Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as; i. “Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining” shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right of way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. ii. “Barrier” shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g. stanchion, rope, fencing, planters) used to establish an exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining area. b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right of way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.070.050 have been paid. c. All barriers shall be removed each day from the right of way at the close of business or by 11pm whichever is earlier. d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of State law, City ordinance and City policy including but not limited to: i. Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County Health Division (SCHD). When applicable the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public rights of way; ii. ECDC Section 17.70.040 Bistro/Outdoor Dining; and iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 9 Packet Page 110 of 248 70.93.060 and ECC Chapter 6.40. 3. The Design Board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure; 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and 5. The proposal (if for an Encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g. supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies with the requirements of subsections (B) (1) through (3) of this section. D. Bay Windows, Decks, and Related Architectural Features. In an effort to allow for more creative designs and a better overall appearance in the downtown area, bay windows, decks, and related architectural features may encroach into the public right-of-way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following requirements: 1. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation has been paid; 2. The encroachment shall not occur over alleys; 3. The building encroachment shall not project more than two feet (24 inches) into the right-of-way; 4. The encroachment shall not exceed 30 percent of the length of the facade on any one side of the building; 5. The encroachment shall provide for a minimum clearance height of eight feet over any pedestrian right-of-way and a minimum clearance height of 11 feet over any vehicular right-of- way, whichever is greater; 6. The encroachment shall be approved by the Architectural Design Board as contributing to a modulated facade design which enhances the variation and appearance to the public of the overall building design and public streetscape. E. Appeal. The decision of the Development Services Director, City Engineer, or their respective designees, may be {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 10 Packet Page 111 of 248 appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II proceeding under the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06, provided, however, that the establishment of compensation for use of the public right-of-way is a legislative decision of the city council and is not subject to judicial review. F. Insurance Requirement. When the application is for use or encroachment unto a public right-of-way including but not limited to, streets, roads, alleys, trails, sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian easements, and any other easement intended for the use of the public, the applicant who operates a business or commercial operation shall be required to provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. The policy must contain the additional insured statement, coverage amounts and cancellation notification indicated on the sample insurance form provided by the city. In addition, a business and commercial applicant, as well as all residential or non-profit applicants shall sign a covenant to hold harmless and indemnify the city which will be recorded and run with the land in a form approved by the city attorney. G. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the base or ground support for any sign to be located upon or attached to the ground within the public right-of-way. 18.70.040 Revocation. A. Except as provided below, all permits approved under this chapter shall be temporary, shall vest no permanent right and shall be issued and may in any case be revoked at the sole discretion of the city upon 30 days’ notice, or without notice, in the event any such use or occupation shall become dangerous; any structure or obstruction so permitted shall become insecure or unsafe; shall become a public nuisance; or shall not be constructed, maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The determination by the City Engineer that a structure is dangerous, insecure, unsafe, a nuisance or has not been constructed, used or maintained in accord with this chapter shall be conclusive. B. Permits shall also be revoked if; 1. Following written notice of the lapse of an insurance policy required to be maintained by ECDC 18.70.030(F), the permittee fails to supply a valid certificate of insurance; or {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 11 Packet Page 112 of 248 2. Following written notice of the lapse of an annual application fee, renewal fee, or fees for the exclusive use of the right of way by ECDC 18.70.050 (B), the permittee fails to bring fees/account current. C. Permits issued for architectural features pursuant to ECDC 18.70.030(D) shall be issued for an initial term of 10 years. A permit for an architectural feature may be revoked at any time as provided in subsection A of this section. If revoked before the end of the 10-year term, at the will of the city, the holder of the permit shall be reimbursed for any consideration provided for the permit. Reimbursement shall not be required if the permit is revoked due to its having become dangerous, a public nuisance, unsafe or is not constructed in accord with the terms of permit issuance. Permits for architectural features shall be automatically renewed, if not revoked by the city, for additional 10-year terms subject to such additional consideration as the city may require. D. If any such structure, obstruction, use or occupancy is not discontinued on notice to do so by the city engineer and within the time period designated, the city engineer may remove any structure or obstruction, or make such repairs upon the structure or obstruction as may be necessary to render the same secure and safe, at the expense of the permittee, or his successor, and such expense may be recorded as a lien and otherwise collected in the manner provided by law. 18.70.050 Fees. A. Application fees for Street Use or Encroachment permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. Application fees shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of any permit. B. Fees for the exclusive use of the public right of way are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. C. There shall be no judicial appeal from a determination of the compensation to be paid for the use of public right-of-way. 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 {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 12 Packet Page 113 of 248 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. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 13 Packet Page 114 of 248 {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 14 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 CHAPTER 18.70 RELATING TO STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TO PROVIDE CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AS THEY RELATE TO OUTDOOR DINING AND ARTWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, 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 115 of 248 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 10/16/09 R:11/17/09gjz R:2/4/10gjz R:2/9/10 gjz R:3/9/10gjz ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 18.70 RELATING TO STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TO PROVIDE CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AS THEY RELATE TO OUTDOOR DINING AND ARTWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, in an effort to develop and encourage tourism, enliven the streetscape of Edmonds and provide for business development within the downtown area, the City of Edmonds has enacted provisions relating to outdoor dining, and private and public artwork installed in the right of way; and WHEREAS, legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the use of the public right of way; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to clarify the provisions relating to outdoor dining in order to ensure that public sidewalks remain open and available for foot traffic, their primary purpose and that adequate compensation is received; and WHEREAS, the streetscape can also be enhanced by private and public art within the right of way, so long as the artwork does not impair the public’s use of the right of way for travel, both foot, bicycle and motor vehicle, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1 Packet Page 116 of 248 AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.70 Street use and encroachment permits is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Chapter 18.70 STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 18.70.000 Permits required. 18.70.010 Exemptions. 18.70.020 Applications. 18.70.030 Review. 18.70.040 Revocation. 18.70.050 Fees. 18.70.000 Permits required. No person shall use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the Development Services Director or City Engineer. A. Encroachment Permit. An Encroachment Permit is required to encroach upon any portion of City public space, right- of-way or easement area with permanent structures. To encroach means to construct, erect or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, easement, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the airspace above them, any structures permanent in nature, including but not limited to, building extension, marquee, fence, retaining wall, artwork, or any other building or structure. B. Street Use Permit. A Street Use permit is required to use any portion of public space or city right-of-way for objects which are temporary in nature. 1. To “use” means to place or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the air space above them, any temporary or movable object. 2. “Temporary in nature”, in reference to street use permits, means not having or requiring permanent attachment to the ground, or involving structures which have no required permanent attachment to the ground. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2 Packet Page 117 of 248 3. “Temporary object” for the purposes of this chapter refers to all objects placed in the right of way that are temporary in nature including but not limited to chairs, tables, planters, sandwich boards, benches, stanchions, rope, and fencing. None of the above definitions shall be interpreted to prohibit the parking of a properly licensed vehicle within the parking strip adjacent to their property line of sight, and street plantings. 18.70.010 Exemptions. This chapter shall not apply to: A. Any noncommercial use (such as residential, churches, schools, etc.) in areas zoned residential, which does not involve a building or structure. This exemption shall not be construed to grant any vested right of use or to permit the continuation of such use and such uses are hereby deemed and declared to be permissive and shall be promptly removed upon the order of the City of Edmonds. B. Installation of fences across City utility easements, if the City’s easement is not for vehicular access and a point of access (e.g. gate) is provided to allow the City a point of entry to the easement area. Fences shall be permitted in accordance with this chapter and the provisions of this code prior to their installation. 18.70.020 Applications. Applications for Street Use or Encroachment permits shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable city code, the following information: A. Street Use Permit. 1. Architectural Design Board approval, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds Art Commission, when applicable 3. Certificate of insurance. 4. Complete Street Use permit application. B. Encroachment Permit. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3 Packet Page 118 of 248 1. Critical Areas determination, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds Art Commission, when applicable 3. Architectural Design Board approval, when applicable. 4. Partial site plan, to be recorded with Snohomish County, clearly showing proposed encroachment, private property lines, all existing structures and driveways, easements and/or public property (developed or undeveloped). 5. Legal Description, including copies of all recorded easements on the property. 6. Elevation view or side view of the proposed encroachment. 7. Ownership. Evidence showing the applicant to be the agent record owner of the property immediately adjoining the public place or right-of-way. 8. Certificate of insurance. 9. Complete Encroachment Permit application. 10. Complete Encroachment Agreement, to be recorded with Snohomish County. C. Such other information as the City Engineer or designee of the Development Services Director shall require. D. The Encroachment Agreement shall require prompt removal of the encroachment by the applicant at his/her/its expense upon reasonable demand by the City Engineer and be legally adequate for recording in the land records of Snohomish County and the chain of title of the applicant’s property. Such encroachment agreements may be executed as acknowledged on behalf of the City by the City Engineer and recorded by the City Clerk following approval as to form by the City Attorney. 18.70.030 Review. A. Architectural Design Board. Any application for a permit to construct, erect or maintain an awning, marquee, sign or any structure in a public place may be referred by the Development {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4 Packet Page 119 of 248 Services Director or his/her designee to the Architectural Design Board. If referred to the board, the board shall review the plans and specifications as they relate to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. Applications for mobile street vending units shall be reviewed in accordance with ECC 4.12.055 by the Architectural Design Board. B. Edmonds Arts Commission. Applications for an Encroachment permit or a Street Use permit to install art in the public right of way shall be subject to the review and recommendation of the Edmonds Arts Commission. No art shall be permitted in the public right of way except as expressly permitted herein. 1. The terms “art” or “art work” as used in this section shall refer only to a work of visual art consisting of a sculpture, existing in a single copy or in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated scupltures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author. Art such as a painting, print, drawing, audio visual or still photographic image may not be located in the public right of way. 2. The terms “art” or art work” do not include: a. Any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; b. Any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container. c. Architectural details such as masonry, ironwork, or other building fixtures or materials; d. Any portion or part of any item described in subparagraphs (A), (B) or (C); e. Any work not subject to copyright protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act, as codified under federal copyright law, Title 17, as the same exists or is hereafter amended. 3. Encroachment and Street Use permits require determination of public benefit. The Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is mandated in Chapter 10.20 ECC to {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5 Packet Page 120 of 248 proposed encroachment is art, EAC will review and make written recommendations to the Community Services Director and City Engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance. (See C below.) 4. The public right of way is a traditional forum for public expression. By this permit program the City acknowledges that it is approving uses in a limited public forum. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to protect the safety of the public who use the right of way for pedestrian or vehicular traffic and to insure that the City provides for accessibility for the disabled. No recommendation or denial shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art as long as there is no commercial content. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian oriented character of the downtown area. 5. Specific submission requirements for EAC review include, but are not limited to: a. Site plan showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum 1/4 inch scale drawings of the art concept or art component, including at least one elevation; c. Context drawings; d. Material/color samples; e. Model (optional); f. Written proposal: 6 copies of a written proposal in 8 1/2 x 11 inch format to include:  A description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork for the proposed project;  Detailed maintenance requirements;  A schedule for development, fabrication, and completion;  Artists’ resume/background  Evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee;  For proposal to be reviewed at next scheduled EAC meeting, a complete {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6 Packet Page 121 of 248 received a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting Additional requirements may be requested based on staff input or information sought by EAC members. 6. Review Criteria. Art in public places may be art standing alone, modifiers or definers of space, functional, or used to establish identity. The use of art as an integral part of the structure and function of building is encouraged e.g. the interpretation of light fixtures, benches, hardware, doors, surface finishes, walkways, gates, and other features with the artwork or as a part of the artwork, although only some of these elements would occur in the public right of way. The criteria used for review of Encroachment Review artwork submissions are as follows: a. Constructability of proposed artwork. No artwork shall impair disabled accessibility and barrier free design requirements. b. Artist’s credentials and recognition. c. Durability and craftsmanship in fabrication and production quality - quality of the work is a high priority. d. Due consideration shall be given to the structural and surface soundness of artworks, and to their permanence, including ability to withstand age, theft, vandalism, weathering, and maintenance and possible related repair costs. Careful consideration shall be given to the materials used and the appropriateness of those materials for the conditions of the site. e. Coordination of the artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian oriented character of the downtown area is encouraged. f. Maintenance/conservation plan. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 7 Packet Page 122 of 248 g. Relationship to other existing artwork in vicinity. h. No commercial content - artwork shall not be used as signage (see definition of signage) C. Issuance by the Development Services Director or City Engineer. The Development Services Director, City Engineer or their respective designee, may administratively, without hearing, approve a Street Use or Encroachment permit if: 1. The proposed use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, including but not limited to the following requirements: a. No portion of the public right-of-way designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking shall be permanently occupied; b. Requirements of the State Building Code, including but not limited to all provisions relating to disabled accessibility and barrier-free design requirements shall be met; c. Any mobile vending units shall be properly licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.12 ECC; d. Permit application fees have been paid. (see section 18.70.050 of this chapter); e. A “Clear Zone” must be maintained on public sidewalks or walkways. A Clear Zone refers to an area 7 feet in height and 5 feet in width providing a level, safe walking surface along the public sidewalk. Clear zone on sidewalks shall not include any curbing, planting strips or ramps; f. All temporary objects shall be removed from the right of way on twenty four hours notice to accommodate public events. Temporary objects are subject to removal in the event of an emergency; and g. All temporary objects, excluding approved awnings and wall signs, that project more than 24 inches into the right of way shall be removed each day at the close of business or by 11pm whichever {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 8 Packet Page 123 of 248 2. Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the City’s urban core, Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as; i. “Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining” shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right of way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. ii. “Barrier” shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g. stanchion, rope, fencing, planters) used to establish an exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining area. b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right of way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.070.050 have been paid. c. All barriers shall be removed each day from the right of way at the close of business or by 11pm whichever is earlier. d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of State law, City ordinance and City policy including but not limited to: i. Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County Health Division (SCHD). When applicable the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public rights of way; ii. ECDC Section 17.70.040 Bistro/Outdoor Dining; and {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 9 Packet Page 124 of 248 iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW 70.93.060 and ECC Chapter 6.40. 3. The Design Board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure; 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and 5. The proposal (if for an Encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g. supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies with the requirements of subsections (B) (1) through (3) of this section. D. Bay Windows, Decks, and Related Architectural Features. In an effort to allow for more creative designs and a better overall appearance in the downtown area, bay windows, decks, and related architectural features may encroach into the public right-of-way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following requirements: 1. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation has been paid; 2. The encroachment shall not occur over alleys; 3. The building encroachment shall not project more than two feet (24 inches) into the right-of-way; 4. The encroachment shall not exceed 30 percent of the length of the facade on any one side of the building; 5. The encroachment shall provide for a minimum clearance height of eight feet over any pedestrian right-of-way and a minimum clearance height of 11 feet over any vehicular right-of- way, whichever is greater; 6. The encroachment shall be approved by the {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 10 Packet Page 125 of 248 Architectural Design Board as contributing to a modulated facade design which enhances the variation and appearance to the public of the overall building design and public streetscape. E. Appeal. The decision of the Development Services Director, City Engineer, or their respective designees, may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II proceeding under the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06, provided, however, that the establishment of compensation for use of the public right-of-way is a legislative decision of the city council and is not subject to judicial review. F. Insurance Requirement. When the application is for use or encroachment unto a public right-of-way including but not limited to, streets, roads, alleys, trails, sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian easements, and any other easement intended for the use of the public, the applicant who operates a business or commercial operation shall be required to provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. The policy must contain the additional insured statement, coverage amounts and cancellation notification indicated on the sample insurance form provided by the city. In addition, a business and commercial applicant, as well as all residential or non-profit applicants shall sign a covenant to hold harmless and indemnify the city which will be recorded and run with the land in a form approved by the city attorney. G. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the base or ground support for any sign to be located upon or attached to the ground within the public right-of-way. 18.70.040 Revocation. A. Except as provided below, all permits approved under this chapter shall be temporary, shall vest no permanent right and shall be issued and may in any case be revoked at the sole discretion of the city upon 30 days’ notice, or without notice, in the event any such use or occupation shall become dangerous; any structure or obstruction so permitted shall become insecure or unsafe; shall become a public nuisance; or shall not be constructed, maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The determination by the City Engineer that a structure is dangerous, insecure, unsafe, a nuisance or has not been constructed, used or maintained in accord with this chapter shall be conclusive. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 11 Packet Page 126 of 248 B. Permits shall also be revoked if; 1. Following written notice of the lapse of an insurance policy required to be maintained by ECDC 18.70.030(F), the permittee fails to supply a valid certificate of insurance; or 2. Following written notice of the lapse of an annual application fee, renewal fee, or fees for the exclusive use of the right of way by ECDC 18.70.050 (B), the permittee fails to bring fees/account current. C. Permits issued for architectural features pursuant to ECDC 18.70.030(D) shall be issued for an initial term of 10 years. A permit for an architectural feature may be revoked at any time as provided in subsection A of this section. If revoked before the end of the 10-year term, at the will of the city, the holder of the permit shall be reimbursed for any consideration provided for the permit. Reimbursement shall not be required if the permit is revoked due to its having become dangerous, a public nuisance, unsafe or is not constructed in accord with the terms of permit issuance. Permits for architectural features shall be automatically renewed, if not revoked by the city, for additional 10-year terms subject to such additional consideration as the city may require. D. If any such structure, obstruction, use or occupancy is not discontinued on notice to do so by the city engineer and within the time period designated, the city engineer may remove any structure or obstruction, or make such repairs upon the structure or obstruction as may be necessary to render the same secure and safe, at the expense of the permittee, or his successor, and such expense may be recorded as a lien and otherwise collected in the manner provided by law. 18.70.050 Fees. A. Application fees for Street Use or Encroachment permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. Application fees shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of any permit. B. Fees for the exclusive use of the public right of way are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. C. There shall be no judicial appeal from a determination of the compensation to be paid for the use of public right-of-way. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 12 Packet Page 127 of 248 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. {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 13 Packet Page 128 of 248 {WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 14 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 CHAPTER 18.70 RELATING TO STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TO PROVIDE CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AS THEY RELATE TO OUTDOOR DINING AND ARTWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, 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 129 of 248 1 Number: Public Works Department Engineering Division Policy Date: Issue/Revised: Subject: Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining Approved: Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines to follow when reviewing an application to use city right of way for Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining. Sections 18.70 and 17.70.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) shall be followed in processing and approving a Street Use permit for Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining. Conditions It shall be the policy of the City of Edmonds to allow Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining to operate under the following conditions; 1. The applicant shall be the owner or occupant of the adjacent property and operate a food service establishment. 2. Outdoor dining area shall be limited to portion of sidewalk directly adjacent to business frontage. 3. “Barriers” for the purpose of this policy shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g. stanchion, rope, fencing, planters) used to establish an exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining area. 4. All barriers shall have a minimum height of 36 inches and shall be approved by the Development Services Director or City Engineer. Attached are examples of typical barriers allowed. 5. A “clear zone” shall be maintained around all objects and structures located on public sidewalks or walkways. Clear zone refers to an area 7feet in height and 5 feet in width providing a level, safe walking surface along the public sidewalk. a. Clear zone shall be measured from the outermost edge of temporary objects or barriers. b. Clear zone on sidewalks shall be measured from sidewalk edge (not including curb). 6. Outdoor dining area to be located at least 5 feet from alleys, bus zones and handicap parking zones. Packet Page 130 of 248 2 7. Conforms with all requirements of ECDC Section 17.70.040 Bistro/Outdoor Dining. 8. If liquor is served in outdoor dining area, then approval must be obtained from the Washington State Liquor Control Board. 9. Area shall be maintained free of litter by applicant including windblown litter over surrounding area in accordance with RCW 70.93.060. 10. All furniture, barriers and other objects used for the purpose of outdoor dining will be of a temporary nature and shall not be bolted or in any other manner permanently affixed to the sidewalk or building. 11. All furniture and other temporary objects projecting in excess of 24 inches into the right of way must be removed each day at the at close of business or 11pm whichever occurs earlier. Application Submittal Requirements 1. Completed Street Use application. 2. Three (3) copies of scaled right of way site plan clearly showing business frontage, proposed area of public right of way for use, all existing structures (signs, street lights, fire hydrants etc.), and road and/or sidewalk details (i.e. driveways, alleys, ramps, curbing, planters, etc.) within 15 ft of area of proposed use. 3. Three (3) copies of a scaled detail (plan view) showing objects (table, chairs, planters, etc.) and spacing within outdoor dining area. 4. Three (3) copies of a scaled detail (elevation view) of proposed barrier. Include vertical dimensions, manufacturer specifications and/or photos if available. 5. Copy of Certification of Insurance a. City of Edmonds requires insurance coverage of a minimum of $300,000 Personal Injury and $100,000 Property Damage. b. City of Edmonds must be named as an additional insured. c. Name of business and address of location of use must included on certificate. 6. If proposed use includes serving alcohol, submit copy of approval from Washington State Liquor Board. 7. Permit application fee. (Right of way use fees will be determined during review and due at time of permit issuance. Packet Page 131 of 248 3 Fees 1. Street Use permit fee of $100 shall be paid to the City at time of application submittal. 2. Right of way use fee shall be assessed at a rate of $____ per square foot per month. Right of way use fee shall be paid monthly on or before the first day of each month. 3. Annual Street Use permit renewal fee of $30.00 shall be paid to the City on or before January 1st . 4. For seasonal use of the right of way, monthly use fees shall only be paid for months of actual use, if the following conditions are met: a) Annual Street Use permit fee has been paid and proof of insurance provided. b) Minimum thirty (30) day written notice to City prior to first month of seasonal use. Payment of first months right of way use to be included with notice. c) Minimum thirty (30) day notice to the City prior to last month of seasonal use. 5. Temporary objects (i.e. tables, chairs, etc) placed in the right of way that are intended for general public use are exempt from “right of way use” fees. Revocation 1. Permits approved for exclusive outdoor dining shall be temporary and may be revoked at the sole discretion of the city upon 30 days written notice. 2. Permits shall be revoked if: a) use is not consistent with the intent and requirements of ECDC Chapters 18.70 and 17.70.040, and this policy. b) annual Street Use fees and/or monthly right of way use fees are not paid to the City pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.70.050. c) failure to maintain valid insurance coverage, d) use becomes dangerous or a public nuisance Packet Page 132 of 248 {WSS734588.DOC;1\00006.900000\} - 1 - RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING FEES FOR STREET USE PERMITS. WHEREAS, ECDC 18.70.050 establishes that application fees and the compensation to be paid to the public for the use of public right of way shall be established by resolution and that such resolutions are adopted in the sole legislative discretion of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the business development impact of outdoor cafes and bistros, artwork and other temporary exclusive commercial uses of this public right of way generally enhances the urban environment and provides for an active street scape and street life in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan policies, and WHEREAS, however, the City Council finds that the temporary exclusive commercial use of the public right of way should result in appropriate compensation to the public for such use, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to the authorization of ECDC 18.70.050, the following fees are established for compensation to be paid for the temporary exclusive commercial use of public rights of way. 1. The following Street Use Permit fees are hereby established for the temporary exclusive commercial use of public rights of way: A. A “right of way use fee” in the sum of $1.05 per square foot per month and an amount of 12.84% leasehold excise tax on the Packet Page 133 of 248 {WSS734588.DOC;1\00006.900000\} - 2 - total monthly amount shall be paid to the City. Right of way use fees shall be paid monthly on or before the first day of each month. Failure to remit the use fee by the 15th day of each month may result in the revocation of the Street Use Permit pursuant to ECDC 18.07.040 A(2)b. B. A $30.00 annual administrative renewal fee shall be paid to the City. Failure to remit the annual renewal fee by January 15th of each respective year may result in the revocation of the Street Use Permit pursuant to ECDC 18.07.040 A(2)b. 2. Such fees shall be effective for all applications and annual permit renewals processed after the effective date of this resolution. The resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. 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 134 of 248 AM-2885 8. Presentation on Planned Residential Developments Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Councilmember Dave Orvis Time:20 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Presentation on Planned Residential Developments. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action The City Council approved interim zoning ordinance #3775 on January 5, 2010 amending Title 20 ECDC, expanding opportunities for closed record appeals before the Council. On February 2, 2010 the City Council held a public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3775 - Amending Title 20 ECDC, Review Criteria and Procedures, to expand opportunities for closed record administrative appeals. During that Council Meeting: COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE UPDATED INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3783. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. The ordinance adopted reads as follows: INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3783 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. Attach 1: CM 1/5/2010 Attach 2: Ord. #3775 Attach 3: CM 2/2/2010 Attach 4: Ord. #3783 Narrative The question of Council hearing closed record reviews has naturally brought the issue of Planned Packet Page 135 of 248 The question of Council hearing closed record reviews has naturally brought the issue of Planned Residential Developments (PRD), where Council appeal is not allowed under our current ordinances. When the CSDS committee reviewed this issue of PRD's, the committee learned that staff plans the rewrite of the subdivision ordinance to include elements of the PRD ordinance, and eliminate the PRD ordinance as alternative process to subdivisions. Naturally, this will bring the PRD and subdivisions under one process that will be appealable to Council. However, in the interim, the Council may want to take action in the event that another PRD application is filed. In my opinion, the council needs to ask itself three questions, 1) Does the Council want to take interim action on the issue of council appeals for PRD's? 2) Does the Council want to take interim action on the perimeter setback issue brought up by Ms. Petso? (I have included Ms. Petso's Presentation) 3) Does the Council want to accelerate the subdivision re-write? Attach 5: Petso PRD Presentation Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attach 1 - Jan 5 2010 Council Minutes Link: Attach 2 - Ord. #3775 Link: Attach 3 - Feb 2 2010 Council Minutes Link: Attach 4 - Ord 3783 Link: Attach 5 - Petso Power Point Presentation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 08:46 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/10/2010 08:52 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/10/2010 03:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 03/08/2010 11:14 AM Final Approval Date: 03/10/2010 Packet Page 136 of 248 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 137 of 248 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 138 of 248 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 139 of 248 Packet Page 140 of 248 Packet Page 141 of 248 Packet Page 142 of 248 Packet Page 143 of 248 Packet Page 144 of 248 Packet Page 145 of 248 Packet Page 146 of 248 Packet Page 147 of 248 Packet Page 148 of 248 Packet Page 149 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 2, 2010 Page 5 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3775 - AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC, REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES, TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council passed an interim zoning ordinance on January 5 that was intended to revert some of the Title 20 changes approved in mid 2009 to what the code allowed prior to the passage of that ordinance. Subsequent to the passage of the interim ordinance on January 5, staff reviewed the ordinance and identified additional corrections. The Council could re-pass the interim ordinance to correct those items tonight or the Council could forward the issue onto the Planning Board. The advantage of making the corrections tonight was to adopt a correct version of the interim ordinance. Mr. Chave reviewed the proposed changes:  Prior to and after the Title 20 changes were made, the short plat approval process was a staff approval with appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Final short plat approval was a staff approval as it was simply checking off that the conditions of the preliminary approval had been met and it had not been sent to the Council for approval. Under the interim ordinance, final short plat approvals go to the Council. This would delay the process as it has existed in the past. The first two items in his memo to the Council would return that process to what has been in effect for a number of years.  Temporary buildings are a staff approval that goes to the Hearing Examiner on appeal. The interim ordinance provides for an additional appeal process which he anticipated was counter to the intended process.  The code previously enabled appellants to recover appeal fees. That was advertently omitted in the Title 20 revisions. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the first proposed change clarified the Council gave final plat approval on formal plats, subdivision with more than four lots. With regard to appeal fees, Chapter 20.105 previously provided for appeal fees but it referenced Council appeals. When Council appeals were removed, the chapter was revoked. If Council appeals are reinstated, it would be appropriate to reinsert that provision. He referred to the issue Mr. Reidy raised that a citizen was required to appeal a code enforcement action to obtain an administrative hearing. He agreed with his assertion that if the code were not violated, their appeal fee should be returned. He summarized the proposed change would allow the return of the appeal fee to apply to City Council proceedings as it has in the past and to clarify that the appeal fee is also returned in a civil enforcement process. With regard to temporary buildings, Mr. Snyder explained there was a limit of one appeal; currently it was to the Hearing Examiner. The Council could choose to have the appeal come to the Council but there could not be an additional appeal from the Hearing Examiner to the Council. Councilmember Orvis clarified temporary buildings or short plats were not appealable to the Council before the Council passed the Title 20 changes. Mr. Chave agreed. Mr. Snyder clarified final formal plats come to the Council with a recommendation. Councilmember Orvis observed the proposed changes would return Title 20 to the process utilized before the original revisions were made. Mr. Chave agreed, noting that was what staff understood the Council’s intent to be on January 5. Mr. Snyder pointed out in addition he had included language regarding the City’s civil enforcement process which was not addressed in the past but was related to the return of appeal fees. Mr. Chave summarized if the Council approved the revised interim ordinance, staff believed it would reestablish the process that existed prior to June 2009 when the changes to Title 20 were made. Council President Bernheim asked whether Council adoption of the revised interim ordinance would be subject to another public hearing. Mr. Snyder answered this was the public hearing on the interim Packet Page 150 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 2, 2010 Page 6 ordinance. The interim ordinance will then be reviewed by the Planning Board for public hearing and returned to the Council with their recommendation. The interim ordinance will only be in effect for approximately five more months. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented his position on the interim ordinance was well known. When the Council voted, he requested they state their reasons for or against. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned whether the proposed process would allow a final appeal to the City Council of a Hearing Examiner’s decision on an appeal of a staff decision. He also questioned who would be allowed to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision to the City Council, whether it would be staff or the appellant. With regard to returning the fee, he questioned whether the fee paid by an appellant who prevailed at the Hearing Examiner would be returned. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he has attended numerous Hearing Examiner hearings in the past. He was in favor of a process that allowed an appellant to appeal to the City Council rather than the court. He anticipated this would save money for the City as well as the appellant. He remarked on the requirement to speak at the Hearing Examiner hearing in order to be a party of record. Betty Larman, Edmonds, spoke in favor of returning to the process where appeals were heard by the City Council. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder summarized the interim ordinance would be reviewed by the Planning Board and be returned to the Council for adoption as a permanent ordinance. If the Council wanted to consider broadening the return of appeal fees, he suggested the Planning Board confer with the Planning Department and the Finance Department with regard to the cost. He explained the City incurs costs when decisions are appealed to the Hearing Examiner. If the appeal fee was returned, it was likely the application cost would need to be revised to cover those costs. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE UPDATED INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3783. Council President Bernheim acknowledged the intent was to return the process to the way it was. He was concerned with amending ordinances on the fly, such as adding the return of the Hearing Examiner appeal fees. Although he was in favor of it in principle, he was unsure whether it was appropriate to address it along with the return of appeal fees to the Council. He suggested it could be addressed via amendment to Chapter 20.110 where the Hearing Examiner procedures are addressed. Councilmember Peterson reiterated the concern he expressed on January 5 that the ordinance was hastily written. He agreed interim ordinances were appropriate in some instances but these additional changes were the result of not having a complete process. He planned to vote against the proposed interim ordinance, noting the Planning Board considered this issue in detail previously and recommended the changes via a 6-1 vote. He was frustrated with comments the changes to Title 20 took away the power of the people, emphasizing the importance of a Hearing Examiner and the courts to do things that a part-time Council may not always do correctly. He summarized that was the Planning Board’s advice to the Council, the advice of the Association of Washington Cities as well as countless other organizations. Packet Page 151 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 2, 2010 Page 7 This issue has been thoroughly reviewed by not only Edmonds but other municipalities and changing the procedure was a disservice to the process. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Peterson that the Council was in this position because the interim ordinance was developed on the fly on January 5; if the Council had taken more time, it would not be in this position. Although he supported keeping appeals at Council, he disagreed that the public was being taken out of the process by having appeals heard by the Hearing Examiner. He expressed support for having testimony on closed record appeals provided in writing. He planned to vote against the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas indicated she would support the ordinance because she favored having appeals heard by the City Council. A process where appeals are heard by the Hearing Examiner and then appealed to court created a separation between the haves/haves not; people who cannot afford to appeal to court will lose and those who can afford an appeal to court will win. Councilmember Plunkett commented when citizens are required to appeal to court, it took citizens out of important land use decisions. He disagreed with the suggestion that the Council should not hear appeals because they did not do it right; the Council has done it right in the past and will do it right in the future. He supported the motion, concluding citizens should have the right to appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Orvis echoed Councilmember Plunkett’s comments and agreed the previous ordinance restricted the public’s access to the Council. He commented on the importance of citizens having the friendly, low cost opportunity to appeal to the Council. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the Council had moved appeals to the Hearing Examiner for other decisions such as PRDs. He recalled Ms. Petso criticized the City in 2002 for moving PRD appeals from the Council to the Hearing Examiner. He recommended the Council address those instances in the future, expressing support for PRD appeals being reviewed by the Council rather than the Hearing Examiner. He expressed concern with a process where some appeals were to the Hearing Examiner and others to the Council, preferring they all be the same. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She disagreed it was being amended on the fly as the ordinance had been discussed for quite some time. She supported allowing elected officials to hear citizens’ appeals rather than having them heard by the Hearing Examiner and then Supreme Court. Councilmember Orvis reported the Community Services/Development Services Committee will be considering other areas where appeals could be to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. The ordinance adopted reads as follows: INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3783 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. 6. 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 Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the Public Works Utilities Division currently owns equipment that is no longer useful to the utilities. He displayed a list of the assets. RCW 35.94.040 Packet Page 152 of 248 Packet Page 153 of 248 Packet Page 154 of 248 Packet Page 155 of 248 Packet Page 156 of 248 Packet Page 157 of 248 Packet Page 158 of 248 Packet Page 159 of 248 Packet Page 160 of 248 Packet Page 161 of 248 Packet Page 162 of 248 Packet Page 163 of 248 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 4 of 24 8 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 5 of 24 8 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 6 of 24 8 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 7 of 24 8 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 8 of 24 8 Pr o p o s e d L a n g u a g e • Se t b a c k s s h a l l n o t o v e r l a y t h e p e r i m e t e r bu f f e r a r e a . Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 9 of 24 8 AM-2861 9. Public Comment on the Subject of Budget Cuts Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:30 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Public comment on the subject of budget cuts. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The Council will receive public comment on the subject of budget cuts. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2010 02:39 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/03/2010 02:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2010 09:36 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/26/2010 09:27 AM Final Approval Date: 03/04/2010 Packet Page 170 of 248 AM-2852 10. Property Tax Increase Put to Voters Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernhiem Time:30 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Property tax increase put to voters. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative On July 28, 2009, the Edmonds City Council voted 4-2 to postpone the property tax levy "until 2010," rather than hold the vote last year. (Bernheim, Orvis opposed; Wilson absent). The matter now returns to the Council agenda for guidance regarding the date on which the Council wishes to put the question to the voters, as per last year's approved motion. Attached is a schedule provided by the City Clerk regarding deadlines that must be met in order to submit the levy lid lift referendum to the voters. Attachment 1 Also attached are the minutes of the July 28, 2009 Council meeting at which further consideration of the proposed levy lid lift ordinance was postponed until 2010. Attachment 2 Also attached are the minutes of July 21, 2009 Council meeting at which the City Council approved 4-3 the terms of a proposed levy lid lift (Olson, Wambolt, Peterson opposed). Attachment 3 Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Elec Dates & Reso Due Dates 2010 Link: Attach 2 July 28, 2009 CM excerpts Link: Attach 3 July 21, 2009 CM excerpts Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/09/2010 01:30 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/09/2010 02:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/09/2010 03:57 PM APRV Packet Page 171 of 248 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/09/2010 03:57 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/25/2010 11:35 AM Final Approval Date: 03/09/2010 Packet Page 172 of 248 This guide is for informational purpose only and does not take the place of local, state or federal laws. RCW, WAC and county code notations are offered as a reference for additional research only. 3 Election Dates & Resolution Due Dates for 2010 (RCW 29A.04.311, 321) 2010 Dates of Election Resolution Due Dates February 9, 2010 December 23, 2009 (45 day cutoff) April 27, 2010 March 12, 2010 (45 day cutoff) May 18, 2010 * April 2, 2010 (45 day cutoff) August 17, 2010 May 25, 2010 (84 day cutoff) November 2, 2010 August 10, 2010 (84 day cutoff) * For tax levies that have previously failed in the calendar year or new bond issues Major Political Party Information Democratic Party Headquarters Party Chair - William Phillips 4405 95th St NE, Marysville WA 98270 (360) 572-0073 Republican Party Headquarters Party Chair - James Kellett 514 State Ave, Ste 109, Marysville WA 98270 (360) 653-1100 Election Dates & Resolution Due Dates for 2011 (RCW 29A.04.311, 321) 2011 Dates of Election Resolution Due Dates February 8, 2011 December 22, 2010 (45 day cutoff) April 26, 2011 March 11, 2011 (45 day cutoff) May 17, 2011 * April 1, 2011 (45 day cutoff) August 16, 2011 May 24, 2011 (84 day cutoff) November 8, 2011 August 16, 2011 (84 day cutoff) * For tax levies that have previously failed in the calendar year or new bond issues Packet Page 173 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 28, 2009 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 Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT D. J. Wilson, Council President STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of the following item as Agenda Item 3B: “Ordinance Providing for the Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City at the November 3, 2009 Election of a Proposition Authorizing a Levy Lid Lift to Increase the Regular Property Tax by up to an Additional $0.4864, Not to Exceed $2.2923 per $1,000 of True Assessed Valuation, Supplying a Ballot Title, Stating the Council’s Intent to Utilize such Funding for Public Safety, Parks and Recreation, including Senior Center and Yost Pool, Maintenance, Technology, and Operation Purposes.” COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #113066 THROUGH #113198 DATED JULY 23, 2009 FOR $1,038,508.14. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GARY TOLLEFSEN ($1,700.71). Packet Page 174 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2009 Page 2 E. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, JULY 2009. F. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT –JULY, 2009. G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS 2 AND 3 WITH KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES UPGRADES WITH RESPECT TO THE BNSF DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT. 3A. EDMONDS BUSINESS STORY: CAROL SCHILLIOS, FABRIC OF LIFE FOUNDATION STORE Carol Shillios, Founder, Fabric of Life Foundation, explained the store, a social entrepreneur business, opened in November and is operated by approximately 50 volunteers. A foundation has been established to assist social causes. Since November they have donated over $18,000 to projects in developing countries as well as in this community. Because Edmonds was a great place to have their store, she wanted to draw attention to Edmonds and the importance of one small act. She planned to live in a tent atop their building at 523 Main until one million people send her one dollar each and described the good they are doing in the world. Several community members have agreed to provide her a developing country meal including classrooms who will research a developing country and prepare a meal. The Rose House in Edmonds has offered its kitchen for groups to prepare meals. She identified other Edmonds businesses such as Rakin Jewelry who provided jewelry for a window display and Cole Gallery who displayed a picture in their window, pointing out collaboration between businesses could bring visibility to businesses. She envisioned a downtown community with a park-like setting where people could gather. The Edmonds Fire Department will lift her to the roof of the building on Friday, July 31 and KING 5 TV will film her assent. Music and dancing will follow from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. in the street in front of the store. An Edmonds angel has offered to match every dollar contributed by Edmonds residents. She urged other cities to challenge their residents to provide matching donations. 3B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 3, 2009 ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING A LEVY LID LIFT TO INCREASE THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX BY UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $0.4864, NOT TO EXCEED $2.2923 PER $1,000 OF TRUE ASSESSED VALUATION, SUPPLYING A BALLOT TITLE, STATING THE COUNCIL’S INTENT TO UTILIZE SUCH FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS AND RECREATION, INCLUDING SENIOR CENTER AND YOST POOL, MAINTENANCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND OPERATION PURPOSES. Mayor Haakenson explained Council President Wilson originally moved the vote on the levy ordinance from tonight’s meeting to next week. City Attorney Scott Snyder informed Council President Wilson that with the vote on this agenda item scheduled for August 4, it would be noticed in the newspaper on August 9 and become effective five days later, August 14. The ordinance must be provided to the Snohomish County Auditor by August 11. As a result, Council President Wilson worked with Mr. Snyder to draft this ordinance for tonight’s agenda. Council President Pro Tem Wambolt recalled when the Council discussed the levy at last week’s meeting, a few Councilmembers did not agree with the items to be funded, items the Administration did not ask for, as well as providing for more expenditures than the Citizen Levy Review Committee endorsed. He Packet Page 175 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2009 Page 3 reported hearing from several unhappy Levy Committee members who questioned the Council’s endorsement of such a levy. He concluded the prudent thing to do was postpone the levy until 2010. There is also the potential that the initiative proposed by Tim Eyman, Initiative 1033, that limits all tax increases to the rate of inflation plus population growth, could negate the City’s levy. Further, there have been concerns expressed that this is not the right time to place a levy on the ballot. For those reasons, he felt it best to postpone the levy until 2010. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO POSTPONE THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY UNTIL 2010. Councilmember Plunkett commented there were many reasons for delaying the levy. He determined 30 days ago and again last week that November was not the time for a levy and that the best opportunity for success would be next year. He preferred to fund and even increase funding to the Senior Center in the budget, rather than on the ballot, and preferred to fund Yost Pool in the budget rather than on the ballot. Councilmember Peterson acknowledged a levy was needed to fully fund essential services and to build the City’s reserves to improve the City’s financial position in the future. However, timing is everything and Initiative 1033 raises a question about the City’s levy if both are approved on the same ballot. In addition, negotiations are underway regarding the Fire District 1 proposal which could affect the City’s finances. And while the economy shows signs of improvement, it will take some time for the economy to recover, making this a difficult time to ask taxpayers for a property tax increase. He expressed support for the motion to delay the levy until 2010. Councilmember Bernheim explained the reason this vote was scheduled for tonight instead of next week when Council President Wilson would be present was to account for the possibility of the Mayor’s veto. If the Council voted next week to place the levy on the November ballot, the timing was sufficient except in the event of the Mayor’s veto. Thus the reason for voting tonight was in the event a motion passed to place the levy on the ballot and the Mayor vetoed, there would not be time for the Council to override the veto. Councilmember Bernheim questioned how the levy could be delayed when it was his understanding the City had such a serious economic problem that there were plans to cut funding to the Senior Center and close Yost Pool. Because the City’s financial situation was unchanged, the responsible action was for government to ask the taxpayers for a property tax increase to provide additional funds. He recalled nearly all members of the Citizen Levy Review Committee (CLRC) recommended a property tax increase of varying amounts. Councilmember Bernheim said he had not received any communications from the public expressing concern with the proposed levy. With regard to Initiative 1033, he did not view that as a reason not to place the City’s levy on the ballot. He advised the levy proposed last week and approved by the Council would result in an $18.50/month increase for a home valued at $456,000; more or less for homes with higher or lower assessed values. Councilmember Bernheim preferred to place the levy on the November 2009 ballot even if it did not pass, pointing out it would provide an indication of the public’s feeling toward the levy. He questioned the basis of the comment that the levy had a better chance of success next year. He concluded it was always better to do something twice; the first time could be a practice. He also disagreed with the comment that it was better to fund the Senior Center and Yost Pool in the budget rather than via a levy, pointing out funding in the budget for both was in jeopardy. He was opposed to the motion to postpone the levy until 2010 and preferred to schedule the levy ordinance on next week’s Council agenda. Packet Page 176 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2009 Page 4 Council President Pro Tem Wambolt stated the citizen concerns he received were expressed via private conversations. He agreed all the CLRC teams supported a levy in 2009; however, their support was for a levy that maintained services, not the extra items that were added last week. He recalled some Councilmembers preferred Prop 3 last week rather than Prop 2 which added expenditures the Administration had not requested. He found it unusual in a time of budget shortfalls, the Council wanted to provide more funding than the Administration asked for. With regard to Councilmember Bernheim’s suggestion to do a practice levy, he pointed out that practice would cost the City $80,000. Councilmember Plunkett reiterated the risk of losing $80,000 if the levy did not pass as well as Initiative 1033 as the reason he supported postponing the levy vote until next year. Next, he pointed out although Mayor Haakenson had proposed funding cuts for the Senior Center and Yost Pool, he was certain the Council would not have approved reducing the funding for Yost Pool or the Senior Center. He disagreed with providing funding for the Senior Center and Yost Pool via the proceeds of a levy. He concluded the Senior Center and Yost Pool were funded in next year’s budget and anticipated additional funding may be provided to the Senior Center. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PLUNKETT, AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS AND BERNHEIM OPPOSED. 4. REPORT ON SUSTAINABILITY AGENDA. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the problem of carbon emissions was widespread and occurred where people lived. He displayed a graph of carbon emissions, explaining emissions varied by month, day of the week and time of day. To address sustainability and climate change, the City has undertaken a number of actions including adoption by the City Council of resolutions and commitments, formation of the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee and a commitment to a new Sustainability Element for the Comprehensive Plan. He identified the following resolutions passed by the Council: • Resolution 1129 (September 2006) – supported Kyoto Protocol, endorsed US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and made a series of commitments • Resolution 1130 (September 2006) – joined ICLEI and committed to participating in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, pledged to take a “leadership role and address the same five milestones in the Cities Climate Protection Campaign • Resolution 1168 (April 2008) – established the City of Edmonds Sustainable Building Policy, established a LEED Silver standard for certain remodels and new City buildings and facilities, emphasized life cycle cost analyst • Resolution 1169 (April 2008) – joined the Cascade Agenda as a Member City, endorsed Cascade Agenda principles of making the City complete, compact and connected • Resolution 1170 (April 2008) – committed to a set of environmental principles, policies and goals for future action; emphasis on City taking a leadership role in addressing climate issues; and recognizing key role of education, transit and TOD in a complete and coordinated policy framework Mr. Chave explained the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee has completed a greenhouse gas inventory for city operations as well as a community-wide greenhouse gas inventory and have begun the next step of developing priorities and an action plan. The Committee also serves as a clearing house for exploring, compiling and reporting city efforts and initiatives. He commented on the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan, explaining the definition of sustainability that has been used is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to Packet Page 177 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 21, 2009 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Rob Chave, Planning Manager Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Ann Bullis, Building Official Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Carl Nelson, CIO Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Haakenson requested a Report by the City Attorney on the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine on Building Applications be added as Item 5B. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #112735 THROUGH #112922 DATED JULY 9, 2009 FOR $322,062.87, AND CLAIM CHECKS #112923 THROUGH #113065 DATED JULY 16, 2009 FOR $522,011.21. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48312 THROUGH #48378 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2009 FOR $866,528.52. Packet Page 178 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 2 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNY JORGENSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHS ENGINEERS, LLC FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SEWER LIFT STATIONS REHABILITATION PROJECT. F. REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO SALVAGE SURPLUS AND OBSOLETE PARTS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER DIVISIONS. G. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT RENTAL HOURLY RATES FOR EXTERNAL AGENCIES. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT RENTAL HOURLY RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. H. ORDINANCE NO. 3747 DESIGNATING THE GANAHL – HANLEY LOG CABIN, LOCATED AT 120 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION. 3. PRESENTATION ON LEVY OPTION #2 BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM. Mayor Haakenson suggested City Attorney Scott Snyder provide the Council a legal opinion regarding Initiative 1033, the latest Tim Eyman initiative. Mr. Snyder advised the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the City’s bond counsel have provided advisories regarding I-1033. The initiative provides that levies adopted after the date of the initiative are not impacted. Taxes levied previously are valid and taxes that are approved after the approval of I-1033 would be valid; levies that occur on the same date are likely to be the subject of litigation. He explained an approved levy was not self-executing; if the voters gave the City the authority to levy the tax, that authority could be held until a determination was made regarding I-1033. For Council President Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained if the Council waited to execute the levy until any issues were resolved by the courts, the Council would be aware of the impact I-1033 would have on the levy. He clarified the Council could delay levying the tax until the courts determined what the impact of I-1033 would be on simultaneous tax levies. Council President Wilson commented only one of the court’s determinations would have a negative outcome for the City. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the negative outcome would be a decision by the court that levies enacted on the same date count against the General Fund benchmark. Mr. Snyder offered to verify the length of time the Council had to exercise an approved levy. Mayor Haakenson asked how long a court case of that magnitude typically took. Mr. Snyder answered it would be given priority, settled via summary judgment and likely reviewed directly by the Supreme Court. He estimated a 1½ - 2 year timeline. Councilmember Plunkett stated if the City’s levy was successful and I-1033 was successful and the courts upheld I-1033, once the Council executed the levy, it would be under the I-1033 constraints. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a new levy could be placed on the ballot to comply with I- 1033. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting although a number of taxing districts have made a decision not to place issues on this ballot, a number were moving forward, thus there was a reasonable likelihood it would be litigated. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the cost of the levy election. City Clerk Sandy Chase relayed estimated costs from the Auditor’s Office of $3.00 per registered voter; Edmonds has 26,746 registered voters for a cost of approximately $80,000. Packet Page 179 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 3 Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the base year was 2009 from which expenses could be increased. Mr. Snyder answered that was his understanding. Council President Wilson recalled when the Eyman initiative that capped property tax increases at 1% was passed by voters, it was invalidated by the courts and within a month the legislature called a special session to implement the initiative legislatively. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting there was a difference between lawsuits against the initiative and lawsuits regarding local levies. Councilmember Plunkett commented it was not a question of how the Council felt about the levy or how it would be adjudicated, it was whether the Council wanted to take a $80,000 gamble by putting the levy on the ballot at the same time as I-1033 and risk another $80,000 to put it on a future ballot. He questioned whether the speculative action of placing the levy on the November ballot was preferable to waiting until next year. Councilmember Wambolt commented one of the primary reasons he voted to proceed with the levy this November was input from citizens that 2009 was a better year because of competition from other measures next year. However, since learning the details of I-1033, he agreed a November levy may risk the $80,000 cost of the election. If the initiative passed statewide and passed in the Edmonds precincts, he was uncertain the advisability of a levy when citizens will have just indicated they wanted to curb their taxes. Council President Wilson explained I-1033, which was certified to be on the ballot this fall, would ask voters whether municipalities, county governments or other taxing authorities should be limited by inflation and population in the amount they can collect in their General Fund with a benchmark of 2009. He explained one of the consequences for cities like Edmonds was because sales taxes in 2009 were very low, the benchmark would be very low. If I-1033 passed and sales tax collections increased dramatically next year, the Council would be required to reduce property taxes to offset the increase in sales tax. The only exception was votes by the public that occurred after the November election which raises the question if funds from a levy approved in November could be collected due to the wording in the initiative regarding voter-approved levies approved after November. Councilmember Bernheim observed because the outcome of I-1033 was unknown, that should be disregarded as a factor in the Council’s analysis. If the Council believed the levy was necessary to fund essential government services, the Council should proceed with the levy regardless of other measures on the ballot. Council President Wilson recalled the Council had voted six times in support of placing a levy on the ballot in November, making that the Council’s policy. If any Councilmember was interested in changing that policy, he suggested a motion be made and a vote taken. Councilmember Orvis noted there would always be Eyman initiatives. If Council did not begin asking voters for help, no help would be forthcoming. He acknowledged the levy may need to be placed on the ballot again. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Orvis it was likely there would be Eyman initiatives on future ballots. In addition to I-1033, more information was being provided regarding contracting with Fire District 1 and the nation was facing a very difficult economic situation. He was concerned with the cumulative affect these would have on the promotion of such an important levy. Councilmember Wambolt commented should the City reach an agreement with Fire District 1 regarding fire service, the Council could lower the levy amount. Observing there had not been a motion to change the levy timeline, Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council intended to move forward with the levy in November. Councilmember Bernheim observed for several months Council discussed alternate forms of a ballot measure, whether the funds raised were directed to the General Fund for general expenditures, which he acknowledged Packet Page 180 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 4 was a legitimate approach, or for specific purposes. For him, the specific purposes would be additional funds for the senior center and Yost Pool. He noted he initially opposed funding Yost Pool because he visited it rarely and it was a special interest. However, Yost Pool had tremendous public support and contributes to the culture of the City. After further discussions with citizens, other specific items were identified. Council President Wilson provided a presentation regarding Prop 1 and Prop 2. He explained both proposals would, 1) fund existing services, 2) set aside reserves to pay for the next five years of operations, and 3) begin to fund investments deferred. The difference is what deferred investments will be funded; Prop 1, Mayor Haakenson’s proposal, focuses on technology and general operations and their proposal, Prop 2 focuses on public safety and parks. The reason their proposition focused on parks and public safety was because in a difficult economic climate, the focus should first be on priorities; public safety was the community’s first priority and parks second. He explained the levy had two cost centers: one time purchases and ongoing funds. He provided a comparison of items funded in Prop 1 and Prop 2, commenting the $210,000 for economic development would be $70,000 per year for three years: General Operations (one time purchases) Prop 1 Prop 2 Fire: Protective Clothing 114,000 114,000 Fire: SCBA Air Compressor 39,000 39,000 Fire: Fire House Replacement 39,000 39,000 Fire: ALS Equipment for Backup Unit 40,000 40,000 Fire: Standardize Equipment on Eng 20 42,000 42,000 Fire: Replacement Tools and Equipment 50,000 50,000 Parks: Lawnmower 15,000 15,000 Economic Development: Resources/Advertising 210,000 Total $339,000 $549,000 General Operations (ongoing) Prop 1 Prop 2 Parks: Senior Center 100,000 Total 0 $100,000 Council President Wilson commented many of the technology purchases were grouped together in Prop 2 and the Mayor would determine how those funds were expended. Technology (one-time purchases) Prop 1 Prop 2 Clerk: Document Mgmt System 100,000 100,000 IS: Offsite Data Backup 73,000 IS: Offsite Server 24,000 IS: Storage Server Facilities Improvement 25,000 IS Upgrade to GigE 9,000 IS: Basic Wireless Controllers 37,000 Fire: ePCR Hardware and Software 40,000 40,000 Dev Serv: Automated Permit Package 25,000 Dev. Serv: Digital Records Initiative 30,000 IS: General Technology Purchases 160,000 Total $363,000 $300,000 Council President Wilson commented Edmonds had the lowest level of police officers per capita of any comparable city, 55 uniformed officers; the per capita average was 62 officers. He remarked 9 times out of 10 that number was adequate but during busy times it may not be enough. He described a burglary that occurred at his home where he was able to arrive home from Auburn before the police responded. He acknowledged this occurred during rush hour when there were three traffic accidents on Hwy. 99. He explained the Police Department was budgeted for 56 officers; the following proposal would bring the number of uniformed officers to a total of 58. Packet Page 181 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 5 Personnel (ongoing costs) Prop 1 Prop 2 IS: GIS Analyst 87,450 IS: Server/Apps Support Staff 66,650 IS: Webmaster & Analyst 88,750 IS Helpdesk Staff 38,050 Fire: Fire Inspector/Educator/Help 109,877 109,877 Police: Crime Prevention 108,803 108,803 Police: Staff Assistant 60,421 60,421 Parks: Parks Maintenance Worker 68,330 68,330 HR: Part-time HR Assistant 26,600 Clerk: Administrative Assistant 60,000 60,000 Public Works: Facilities Maintenance 55,900 Police: 2 New Uniformed Police Officers 220,000 Total $770,831 $627,431 Building Maintenance (ongoing) Prop 1 Prop 2 Public Works: Building Maintenance 200,000 Parks: Yost/Senior Center/Boys & Girls/Meadowdale Clubhouse 250,000 Fire: Station 17 & 20 150,000 Total 200,000 $400,000 Council President Wilson advised a third Animal Control officer and the DARE program in Prop 1 would not be funded in Prop 2. Costs Prop 1 Prop 2 One-time 702,000 789,900 Ongoing 970,831 1,127,431 Subtotal 1,672,831 1,916,431 Utility Fund offset -104,000 Cuts from Baseline -91,006 Total 1,508,831 1,825,425 Council President Wilson summarized the following were expenditures by department for one year; approximately 43% in Prop 1 would fund Fire, Police and Parks, versus approximately 76% in Prop 2. With over 70% of the funds dedicated for public safety and parks in Prop 2, he was comfortable with identifying it as a Public Safety and Parks levy. Department Prop 1 % Prop 2 % Fire 473,877 28.3 623,877 32.8 Police 169,224 10.1 389,224 20.5 Parks 83,330 5.0 433,330 22.8 Economic Development 210,000 11.0 Public Works 255,900 15.3 Information Services 448,900 26.8 100,000 5.3 Human Resources 26,600 1.6 Clerk 160,000 9.6 160,000 8.4 Dev Services 55,000 3.3 Subtotal 1,672,831 1,901,431 Offsets -104,000 -91,006 Total 1,568,831 1,810,425 Packet Page 182 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 6 Council President Wilson provided the following ending fund balances, noting the target represented approximately one month of annual expenses: Year Target Prop 1 Prop 2 2010 $3,077,822 $3,012,724 $2,760,130 2011 $3,138,860 $4,364,200 $3,946,012 2012 $3,256,552 $5,071,433 $4,487,651 2013 $3,381,646 $5,122,985 $4,373,609 2014 $3,518,401 $4,420,449 $3,505,479 2015 $3,649,797 $3,053,314 $1,972,750 Council President Wilson noted after approximately $1 million in cuts during the budget process and another $1 million in interim cuts made by the Mayor, the City’s projected ending fund balance was approximately $1.3 million. Via Prop 2, the City’s ending cash balance would be more than it is projected to be this year. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the ending cash balance included the emergency reserves. Council President Wilson answered it did not. Councilmember Wambolt referred to an email from a citizen questioning the reduction in Animal Control Officers from three to two. He explained the third Animal Control Officer was not necessary as the City would no longer be providing animal control services to Mountlake Terrace. Mayor Haakenson explained when this process began approximately six months ago, the Council requested staff and he develop a levy request that identified the City’s needs – what was needed to operate the City on a day-to- day basis, what was needed to get through the time period and continue to provide the current level of service which he noted was lower than the optimum. Staff’s proposal, Prop 1, focused on staff’s needs to provide service to the citizens. Late last week, he was informed of Prop 2, prepared by Council President Wilson and Councilmember Bernheim, which allowed little time for staff response. Staff met on Friday to discuss Prop 2 and Friday afternoon he emailed Prop 3 to the Council. Prop 3 was not included in the Council packets as packets are prepared on Thursday and distributed to the public over the weekend. He stated that he emailed copies of Prop 3 to Council. (Note: A copy of the “Summary of Levy Decision Packages” that includes Prop 3 is attached to the minutes.) Mayor Haakenson described Prop 3, a compromise between Prop 1 and 2. He acknowledged it was more of a compromise toward Prop 1 than Prop 2. During his budget message in November 2008 and again several weeks ago, he stressed the need for technology improvements to the City’s infrastructure in order to lessen reliance on personnel, the City’s biggest cost and one that will continue to grow. To reduce labor costs, the City needed to rely more heavily on technology; technology that would help staff work more efficiently and allow more citizens to do business with the City online. For that reason, he added back into Prop 3 the technology needs that were cut from Prop 1. He assured technology was needed and used by public safety and parks employees as well as all other City employees. He referred to a spreadsheet provided to the Council that identified technology usage by department, explaining the levy proceeds from Prop 3 were 70% for public safety and parks and after the one-time expenditures the first year, the percentage increased to 75% for public safety and parks. Mayor Haakenson explained he removed the $210,000 proposed in Prop 2 for economic development because Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton advised there were sufficient funds budgeted currently to fulfill the City’s present needs. He also removed the $100,000 Senior Center request from Prop 2 as he had no idea then or now of the need for the additional $100,000. He advised $60,000 for the Senior Center was included in Prop 1, the amount the Parks Department pays the Senior Center to provide programs. Mayor Haakenson explained Prop 2 removed the part-time Human Resources position that was included in Prop 1; he did not add that position back into Prop 3. He added the request for an additional Facilities Maintenance Worker to Prop 3. Prop 2 added two new Police Officers; after conferring with Police Chief Al Compaan, he Packet Page 183 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 7 reduced it to one new officer. Prop 2 doubled the building maintenance budget from $200,000 to $400,000; because the CIP did not support that amount, in Prop 3 he reduced building maintenance to the original amount of the $200,000 and dedicated those funds to parks and police as requested in Prop 2. Mayor Haakenson reiterated when staff was asked to develop a levy request, Council’s direction was to keep requests to what was needed to operate the City for the next few years; Prop 1 and Prop 3 represent staff’s recommendations. He summarized staff could support Prop 1 or Prop 3 but as presented, could not support Prop 2. Staff recommends if Council agrees to contract for fire service with Fire District 1, the fire portion of the levy request, $642,000, be dropped from the levy, reducing the levy amount and the property tax burden on taxpayers. Councilmember Bernheim recalled approximately a month ago there was a Council resolution asking for a public safety and parks alternative. When Mayor Haakenson indicated he was not able to develop that alternative, Council President Wilson and he developed Prop 2. In light of the Police Chief’s comments, he was willing to consider reducing one of the police officer positions and to discuss building maintenance. Mayor Haakenson recalled advising the Council the levy could be titled whatever they wanted, funds from Prop 2 provide 75% for parks and public safety; Prop 3 provides 70%. Councilmember Orvis observed in Prop 2 all the technology needs were combined in one amount. Mayor Haakenson clarified Prop 2 reduced $600,000 in technology in Prop 1 to $100,000. Councilmember Wambolt commented the development of Prop 2 by Council President Wilson and Councilmember Bernheim resulted in the administration developing an improved proposition. He pointed out the percentage of funds from the levy for parks and public safety increased in Prop 3 because staff had allocated the technology expenditures by department, a great deal for parks and public safety. He did not support removing funds from Prop 1 allocated for technology, relaying that in his experience, during difficult economic times many companies spent more on technology in an effort to improve efficiency. He expressed support for Prop 3 rather than Prop 2, possibly with some adjustments. Councilmember Orvis observed Prop 2 did not include the Maintenance Worker but that position was included in Prop 3. He observed Prop 2 had $400,000 in ongoing costs for building maintenance and asked if those funds could be used to fund a Maintenance Worker. Mayor Haakenson responded the $400,000 in Prop 2 was for capital improvement projects although only $200,000 in projects were identified. Council President Wilson explained the thinking was because all the proceeds from the levy would be placed in the General Fund rather than capital funds, the administration could use those funds to hire a Building Maintenance Worker. Prop 1 included $200,000 for building maintenance as well as $55,000 for a Maintenance Worker versus Prop 2 which includes $400,000 for building maintenance. He pointed out the CIP lists projects and needs based on projected revenue; however, the City has significant building maintenance needs including approximately $4 million in needed improvements to the Senior Center. He concluded although the CIP did not include all the City’s building maintenance projects, they did exist. Mayor Haakenson responded if the Council was asking voters to approve a Facilities Maintenance position, that should be stated in the levy, and not included in a $400,000 capital improvement request. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE PROP. 2. Councilmember Peterson commented the difficulty he had with Prop 2 was the lack of technology. He acknowledged although it was not romantic to talk about a GigE server, it would make City government more efficient including the Fire and Police Departments, the type of investment that made for better business and better government. He did not support Prop 2. Councilmember Orvis commented his intent was to begin with Prop 2 as a baseline and suggested adding the technology requests back into Prop 2. Packet Page 184 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 8 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED TO AMEND PROP 2 TO ADD THE TECHNOLOGY REQUESTS BACK INTO PROP 2. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the total amount needed to be the same; thus any additions required a comparable reduction, a reduction in the ending cash balance or an increase in the levy amount. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW HIS MOTION. Council President Wilson pointed out each of the propositions entirely funded parks maintenance. During the last budget cycle there was discussion of cutting $500,000 from the parks maintenance budget which would have resulted in the closure of all the City’s neighborhood parks. Each proposition also fully funds existing programs at the Senior Center, funds the Crime Prevention program, and funds Discovery Programs. He summarized the Council was quibbling over which deferred investments to fund but each was a great proposal for Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson remarked the quibble was actually over what he and staff believe are the needs to operate the City versus what the Council views as the needs. Council President Wilson acknowledged staff may have a different opinion than the Council; staff’s responsibility was to operate the City the best way possible with the available resources; the Council’s responsibility was to set the priorities. Thus the argument was not over needs but over priorities. Mayor Haakenson reiterated the Council asked staff to identify needs, not the Council’s priorities. Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Council President Wilson, remarking when he balanced staff’s needs with the Council’s priorities, he favored the Council’s priorities. He was confident that all the ideas would result in an improved City and he was confident that improved software would become available if some of the technology improvements were deferred. He compared Mayor Haakenson’s request for technology with Council President Wilson’s and his proposal for $210,000 over a 3 year period to fund an economic development position. He acknowledged Mr. Clifton’s efforts with regard to economic development in addition to the two other jobs he is doing, envisioning a person dedicated to economic development could be an attribute to the City. He spoke in favor of the additional $40,000 for the Senior Center over the present $60,000, remarking the Senior Center was his and many other citizens’ future. He recognized the efforts of the Senior Center Executive Director David McNayr and the Board of Directors. Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern with the amount of police resources devoted to enforcing the Driving While License Suspended Third Degree, suggesting that aspect of law enforcement be deemphasized and focus on house-breaking. He was willing to support additional police officers because it would be a positive contribution to the community. He expressed support for Prop 2. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AMEND PROP 2 TO RESTORE THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MAINTENANCE PERSON IN PROP 1, $56,000, REDUCE THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE ONGOING FROM $400,000 TO $200,000 AND INCREASE THE IS GENERAL TECHNOLOGICAL PURCHASE LINE TO $304,000. Councilmember Peterson spoke against Prop 2, commenting that although there were great ideas in Prop 2, Prop 3 was a better starting point because it was a better compromise between staff’s proposal and the Council’s goals. Council President Wilson responded Prop 3 was not a compromise, it was Prop 1 with an extra police officer and without a part-time HR assistant. Mayor Haakenson clarified Prop 3 represented staff and his compromise. Council President Wilson wanted to ensure whatever levy was put to the voters passed. His threshold had been that 70-75% of the total levy amount needed to be targeted toward parks and public safety. He expressed concern that Councilmember Orvis’ amendment that took funds from building maintenance for parks and public safety and allocated it to technology, diluting the specificity of the funds for parks and public safety. He Packet Page 185 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 9 anticipated diluting the specificity would undermine the ability to pass the levy. Mayor Haakenson pointed out 70% the proceeds from Prop 3 were for public safety and parks versus 75% in Prop 2. Councilmember Wambolt spoke against the motion to approve Prop 2 and the current amendment. He found it strange when the City had a funding shortfall and was preparing to ask taxpayers for money, that the levy would include funds for things the administration was not asking for. He expressed support for Prop 3. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Wilson asked whether the intent was to have $100,000 or $160,000 in total funding for the Senior Center. Councilmember Bernheim responded his intent was $100,000 total. Council President Wilson observed the $100,000 line item could be amended to $40,000 as the budget already included $60,000 for the Senior Center. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AMEND PROP 2 TO CHANGE THE SENIOR CENTER REQUEST TO $40,000 FROM $100,000. Councilmember Wambolt explained the money provided to the Senior Center funds programs the Senior Center provides for the Parks Department. He suggested reaching an agreement between the Senior Center and the Parks Department regarding additional programs and then determine what additional funds were needed. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recognizing that some of the one-time technology purchases would have a greater impact on public safety and parks, Council President Wilson made the following amendment: COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO MOVE THE $60,000 INTO LINE 19, GENERAL TECHNOLOGY PURCHASES, TO MAKE IT $160,000. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson advised the $60,000 that had been allocated to the Senior Center was for ongoing costs ($240,000 over 4 years) versus the $60,000 in one-time technology purchases. The net benefit will be an additional $180,000 in the ending cash balance. Mayor Haakenson reiterated the Parks Department did not have any request or identified need for the additional $40,000/year for the Senior Center. Council President Wilson invited Senior Center Executive Director David McNayr to describe how those funds would be used. Mr. McNayr responded the Senior Center could offer a day clinic staffed by retired medical professional volunteers. The clinic could be used to address minor health conditions with referral to family physicians as necessary. The retired medical professionals could guide members into better healthcare for chronic conditions. He estimated the cost to operate the clinic for the first year to be approximately $30,000. The second item that could be funded would be intergenerational programs that paired youth and seniors, providing an alternative for working parents that would allow youth to work with seniors on projects. He estimated the cost of a 2½ month summer program in 2010 to be $5,000. The third area that could be funded would be technological upgrades for the Center’s employment office, an estimated cost of $5,000. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO REDUCE TWO UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS IN PROP 2 TO ONE OFFICER WITH THE SAVINGS PLACED IN RESERVES. Packet Page 186 of 248 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 21, 2009 Page 10 Council President Wilson did not support the amendment, viewing police as an important service for the City to provide. He pointed out there were times when the City did not have sufficient uniformed police and fire service personnel. He reiterated the average number of police officers per capita was 62; Edmonds had 55. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Police Chief did not request two additional officers. Mayor Haakenson responded Chief Compaan did not even request one new officer. He relayed Chief Compaan’s comment that if police officers were added, he did not want it to be at the expense of other City departments. Council President Wilson recognized staff at City Hall had to work together and it may be difficult if it looked like a request for an HR staff person was omitted in favor of additional police officers. The issue for the Council was priorities and clearly the community’s priority was public safety. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, PETERSON, OLSON, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson commented the Council was slowly moving toward Prop 3 but was still missing approximately $500,000 in technology upgrades that were in Prop 3 but were not in Prop 2. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, AND BERNHEIM IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. 4. RESOLUTION AND FINAL ACTION ON THE 2009 LEVY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO DIRECT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR TO PLACE A PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.75 MILLION ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5A. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THAT THE “EDMONDS BANK” IS ELIGIBLE FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. (APPLICANT: HPC / FILE NO. HPC-09-8). Associate Planner Kernen Lien recalled there had been a number of historic preservation requests before the Council recently that did not require a public hearing. The difference between the Edmonds Bank and the previous requests was the previous structures/properties were listed on the Washington State Register of Historic Places which automatically makes them eligible for the Edmonds Register. The Edmonds Bank is not on the national or state register and therefore has a different approval process. A public hearing was held at the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding whether the Edmonds Bank met the criteria and the HPC concluded it did meet the criteria. A public hearing before the City Council was not technically required but hearings have been held in the past for properties not on the national or state register. He questioned whether the Council wished to continue that process for properties not on the national or state register. Mr. Lien explained the Edmonds Bank was located at 324 and 326 Main Street. It was nominated for listing by the HPC and the property owner has signed the authorization form to list the property on the register. He reviewed the effects of listing the property on the register: • Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds • Prior to commencing any work on a registered property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC • May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation Packet Page 187 of 248 AM-2860 11. Neighborhood Meetings on Economic Development and City-wide Vision Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:30 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Proposal for City Council to conduct neighborhood meetings on issues of neighborhood economic development and city-wide "vision." Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The Citizen Economic Development Commission and Planning Board met jointly with city officials from Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Bothell on December 9, 2009 (minutes attached). On that occasion, the representatives from the three other cities emphasized the importance of obtaining input from citizens and residents directly as the first step in the process of a successful comprehensive economic development plan. Lynnwood: "Mr. Kleitsch advised that the Office of Economic Development was established in 2001, and he immediately started working with the City Council to advance the concept of an economic development action plan to identify what the City wants to accomplish. It defined implementation strategies and provided a development timeline matrix to monitor performance. The first phase of the plan involved community profiling, and a consultant was hired to conduct a full community attribute assessment. Staff also interacted with various stakeholder groups and conducted focus groups to develop a list of strengths, weaknesses, attributes and opportunities, and a Key Issues Report was prepared to clearly identify the community’s concerns. Phase 2 of the plan involved gathering information from the Key Issues Report and stakeholder interviews to prepare draft findings and recommendations, which were presented at a series of community meetings. Once the community outreach process was completed, a final report was prepared and adopted by the Lynnwood City Council." Mountlake Terrace: "Mr. Caulfield shared the process used by the City of Mountlake Terrace to create their Town Center Plan. He emphasized that the public involvement process and schedule was outlined at the early stage of the process, and it included numerous opportunities such as community roundtables, developer forums, visual preference surveys and design workshops. " Bothell: "She emphasized that it’s important for the local government to have the support and commitment of their citizens in order to bring plans to life. It is also important to have a clear Packet Page 188 of 248 understanding of how to involve private partners in the redevelopment process, as well as other agencies. Ms. Battuello shared the process the City of Bothell used to create an economic development program, which started with the development of a strategic roadmap and inventory of the community needs. Next, the City Council reviewed a list of projects that had previously been promised to the citizens and identified which ones they would and would not pursue. " I believe the present plan by the Port to develop Harbor Square and the former plans reviewed by the Group of 33 suffer by not having been influenced in their creation by the views and needs of the local residents. I therefore propose that in order to develop a community-supported plan for neighborhood economic development and for a city-wide "vision" that can be incorporated into our Comprehensive Plans and budgets (see attached joint report from the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission), that we convene seven meetings in seven different parts of the City over the next seven months, each meeting organized, directed, and chaired by a different member of the City Council. I propose the seven areas to be addressed are: Highway 99, Stevens Hospital area, Firdale Village, 5 Corners, Westgate, Perrinville and the Downtown Waterfront Activity Area. These meetings may be held inside or outside, on regularly scheduled Council meeting nights or on weekends, they may be facilitated by outside consultants such as experts from the University of Washington or private consulting firms or by the City council members themselves or others. The objective of the meetings generally is two-fold: FIRST, to obtain direct citizen input concerning what local residents want for their own neighborhood economic development (e.g., expanded home-based business, expanded commercial zoning in neighborhood centers, sidewalks and bikelanes, and whatever else is raised), and SECOND, to obtain direct citizen input regarding the "vision" of the city's direction for the future (e.g., parks acquisitions, expanded building codes or environmental regulations, tourism development, and whatever else is raised). Each councilperson would prepare a report of their own meetings and the Council as a whole would meet to reconcile the many views expressed at the conclusion of the meetings. Based on the information gained from the meetings, Councilmembers would have an idea of what the community would support in the attempts develop local business and community-wide "vision." Attachment 1: CEDC-PB Reports Attachment 2: Joint meeting w Lynnwood et al Attachment 3: Draft Resolution Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attach 1 - CEDC-PB Reports Link: Attach 2 - Joint meeting w Lynnwood et al Link: Attach 3 - DRAFT RESOLUTION RE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS SB REV 3-5-10 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/09/2010 01:30 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/09/2010 02:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/09/2010 03:57 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/25/2010 03:57 PM Packet Page 189 of 248 Final Approval Date: 03/09/2010 Packet Page 190 of 248 COMBINED 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND PLANNING BOARD The City of Edmonds Economic Development Commission and Planning Board, in response to their charge to prepare and submit an annual report, respectfully submit this report to the Edmonds City Council and Mayor Haakenson for review and consideration. Packet Page 191 of 248 2 The Citizens Economic Development Commission On April 21, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Resolution 1198 which directed City of Edmonds staff to create an Ordinance, that would, if approved, create a Citizens Economic Development Commission. On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, which amended the Edmonds City Code, Title 10, adding a new Chapter 10.75 Citizens Economic Development Commission. The Citizens Economic Development Commission, consisting of 17 members, is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to the Planning Board, Architectural Design Board or other Boards or Commissions of the City on such matters as may be specifically referred to the Commission by the Mayor or City Council including but not limited to 1) determining new strategies for economic development within the City of Edmonds, and 2) identifying new sources of revenue for consideration by the City Council, and other strategies for improving commercial viability and tourism development. Packet Page 192 of 248 3 Executive Summary A significant challenge for the City of Edmonds is a long-term structural gap in which revenue growth is slower than growth in expenses. The City of Edmonds will experience a budget deficit that is projected to begin in 2013. Without increases in the City’s revenues, taxes will have to be raised, which can potentially put excessive burdens on individual household budgets. In an effort to find solutions to this problem, the Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) and Planning Board hereby submit several initial proposals that should be worked on and completed in 2010. The problem will require a multi-faceted approach; as no single proposed strategy, policy, or program can assure success for our community or fix the problem. All proposals should therefore be viewed as only one piece of an overall economic development program. The proposals lie in the areas of improved land use, attracting new businesses and supporting existing businesses, and development of tourism. These approaches are also intended to support residential development in certain areas and support existing property values. All of these undertakings can be worked on simultaneously during the year. The Edmonds CEDC and Planning Board requests that the City Council provide feedback shortly after its February 2010 retreat on the following recommended items. 1. Ensure that the City’s economic development position can devote full time to economic development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and activities. A focus of this role is to continue to define and promote Edmonds’ brand. 2. Commit to developing/reviewing/updating a strategic plan every year, ideally corresponding to the City Council’s annual retreat; this includes setting goals and continually assessing progress metrics. 3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center) and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to attract redevelopment. 4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that ensures a balance between generating revenue and addressing environmental concerns. . 5. Initiate and fund a business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optic network. 6. Develop a community vision that addresses a balance between quality of life and growth objectives while furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives. The Edmonds Economic Development Commission and Planning Board encourage the City Council to actively work in partnership with the Edmonds CEDC and participate in its meetings. City leadership needs to focus on, and prioritize, major efforts/initiatives that effect the overall business community and quality of life for residents as a whole as opposed to focusing time, energy, and money on less significant issues. It is time act now, i.e., initiate, not react. Packet Page 193 of 248 4 What is the problem? The City of Edmonds projects that annual revenues will fall below expenses in the year 2013 and that the shortfall will increase well into the future. Reserves, including about $900,000 from the Fire District 1 transaction, will push out the first appearance of a general fund deficit until 2013. The chart below presents the annual deficit as well as the cumulative deficit projected through 2020. By 2020 Edmonds is projecting a cumulative deficit of $30 million. Edmonds Budget -35000000 -30000000 -25000000 -20000000 -15000000 -10000000 -5000000 0 5000000 Ending Balance Cum Year by Year Ending Balance Cum 3026674 2388064 1244080 -402124 -2633035 -5291777 -8634408 -12711862.3 -17565434.8 -23238284 -29775508.7 Year by Year -402124 -2230911 -2658742 -3342631 -4077454.29 -4853572.54 -5672849.13 -6537224.73 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 What does this deficit mean to City of Edmonds residents? There will need to be either large cuts in basic services provided by the City or large increases in taxes paid to the City. On average an Edmonds household now pays about $800 annually in property taxes that go to support the City (property taxes are also collected for other purposes such as the Library District, Emergency Medical Services, Schools, Port, Hospital District, etc.). The chart below demonstrates the average increase in property taxes that each household would need to pay to cover the projected deficit. By the year 2020 the average household will need to pay an additional $374, a 46% increase over today. This equates to a cumulative total of $1,701 in additional taxes from 2013 to 2020. This assessment only takes into account maintaining services at current levels and does not include additional taxes associated with needed transportation improvements or additional amenities such as upgrading Yost Pool. Tax Increase Per Household 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Tax Increase Tax Increase 22.978514 127.48063 151.92811 191.00749 232.99739 277.347 324.16281 373.5557 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Packet Page 194 of 248 5 Why is economic development important to Edmonds? Financial stability is of paramount importance to the City because it allows for the successful delivery of services with an eye on the long-term financial ramifications of decisions, particularly given the budget challenges of the past and those projected into the future. Prudent financial decisions can help determine future opportunity and should result in citizens receiving the best possible government for their tax dollar. The City’s economic prosperity and development increases wealth and the standard of living for many who live and work within the City of Edmonds. The structure of the City’s economy influences the City’s physical development and determines the City’s capacity to fund essential services. These factors also support existing residential property values that are important components of City revenue, as well as personal wealth. Aside from a national or global economic recession, the Citizens of Edmonds deserve predictability and reliability regarding the government services they fund. A strong economy requires a strong, healthy and balanced community as a foundation. Thus, it is imperative that the City of Edmonds position itself to plan for and maintain economic sustainability. Economic development is a program, a group of policies or activities that seek to improve the economic well being and quality of life for a community, and it includes numerous approaches as no single strategy, policy, or program can assure success for a community. It strives to find balance and synergy between business and residential development that is consistent with quality of life concerns of the citizenry. As stated within the City of Edmonds Economic Development Plan, “Communities like Edmonds are realizing that there is no such thing as a ‘static’ or fixed economy; local economies are always changing. They are also impacted by countless forces, such as national and state economic cycles, competition from surrounding cities for desirable businesses, local and regional land use changes, residential and commercial real estate market trends, and other forces. Without change and adaptability, a community can become stagnant or even decline. Successful communities today acknowledge their past and allow a vision for the future to guide them through the changes needed to prosper.” An increasing number of communities around the region have economic development policies and staff. Their community economic development priorities vary widely, but can include, initiatives to create affordable housing; adding employment; downtown or commercial revitalization; small business assistance, business recruitment and site selection; community marketing, branding and promotions; tourism generation; streamlining permit processes; and streetscape projects (includes public art). What are other cities doing to address the problem? Edmonds is not alone in facing economic distress in the near future. The CEDC studied what other neighboring cities and entities are doing to address similar issues. During two joint meetings with the Planning Board, representatives from the Snohomish County Economic Development Council, the cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Bothell, and the Port of Edmonds shared information about recent economic development related efforts/initiatives. Packet Page 195 of 248 6 The Citizens Economic Development Commission and Planning Board collectively agree that one strong message presented from the guest speakers is that success in the area of economic development requires strong and steady leadership from the City Council, and alignment of goals and visions amongst all who impact the situation. Additional messages from guest speakers included the following:  City staff and Council must work closely together, and in support of common goals  Open community involvement and input is critical to the success of the process  Public policy is weighed against its impact to economic development  A positive corporate culture is what encourages collaboration and innovation  Processes and regulations must be aligned with goals  Zoning is to be designed to proactively attract new business  Economic development goals are kept highly visible and tracked for progress and completion  Community branding is critical  A City must present and participate in regional forums  Partnerships between the City and other entities, groups, businesses and organizations are needed in order to move forward in a productive manner  Compliment, don't compete with other communities  Sustaining a razor’s edge focus on achieving the end goal. What has Edmonds been doing? Edmonds has not been idle in recent years either. The community college has been growing and adapting its curriculum to the challenges of the future and has increased its presence in Edmonds, as illustrated by the downtown Conference Center. The Highway 99 Task Force continues to progress. Stevens Hospital is showing positive growth and will enter into a new relationship with Swedish Medical Center that will better prepare it to meet future needs. The council has approved a contract rezone for Firdale Village. The Port has purchased buildings within its office park and begun the process of developing a master plan for the area. Various agencies, including Sound Transit, WSDOT and Community Transit, have initiated and continue to pursue transit improvements on Highway 99 and within the downtown area, providing opportunities for further transit-oriented development. Both public and private initiatives have substantially expanded community access to high-speed fiber optic technology. The City’s Economic Development Department has improved outreach to the business community and increased promotion of Edmonds via advertising in many types of publications in addition to contacting PCC and Ace Hardware to encourage their locating within Edmonds. The City acquired funding for a highway enhancements project now in process to create a visual gateway in Edmonds’ International District on Highway 99, and the City completed first phase planning for the downtown 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. All of these and more represent opportunities for the City of Edmonds to begin to solve its budget problems. Packet Page 196 of 248 7 What is the Edmonds CEDC Doing? After six months of meeting as a body and in subgroups, in addition to gathering information from the county, port, and neighboring cities, the Edmonds CEDC has some initial proposals and ideas we believe help prioritize the aspects the City should begin working on immediately. The Edmonds CEDC cannot stress enough the importance of taking action and initiating programs now. Actions taken by the City in 2010 could take years before they manifest into projects and programs that generate revenue. The City needs to grow its population in a well-planned and sustainable manner. Total revenues from property taxes need to increase without putting excessive burdens on individual households. We need to increase revenues from a variety of sources, not just property taxes. All of these proposals take time, so we must start now because 2013 is just around the corner. Below we describe the most important proposals/ideas that we recommend the City Council initiate in 2010. We will continue to look for more solutions in 2010 and will work on the ideas that City Council requests the Commission address in greater detail. 1. Find a way for the City’s economic development position to devote full time efforts to economic development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and activities. Funds could come, for example, from the Fire District 1 transaction. The priorities of the economic development position should include branding the City to increase tourism; identifying what is unique about Edmonds that attracts people (tourists and new residents) so we can build on those strengths; attracting new businesses and jobs to the City; working with large landowners to overcome the principal barriers to attracting large, quality, clean businesses to Edmonds. The Economic Development Director will also be charged with continually monitoring progress metrics and identifying hurdles to such, especially that which may require council action in a timely manner. 2. The City Council should commit to developing/reviewing/updating a strategic plan every year (and throughout the year, when necessary and appropriate), ideally corresponding to their annual retreat. The City should consider using the services of a skilled strategic planning facilitator to work with the community to develop a vision and strategic plan with active citizen participation. A City of the quality of Edmonds should move forward with a defined strategy. An overarching plan is needed. In addition, that plan needs to be revisited every year to see where the City stands, what has been accomplished and what should be modified. The plan needs to include indicators of achievement. It must involve the citizens in a meaningful way. There are a number of examples of successful strategic planning from our neighbors. There are even funds available to help cities in the process. 3. The City of Edmonds needs to initiate master planning and rezoning for the Neighborhood Business Centers to more easily enable redevelopment and attract innovative and progressive builders. The City should start with Five Corners (Neighborhood Center) and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center). Neighboring cities are already doing this, and Edmonds will be left out if we are not ready to compete. Developers will choose to develop a site that has appropriate zoning in place rather than risk waiting years for a legislative process to conclude. The City recently approved changes to the Firdale Village zoning regulations, although the process was privately sponsored and ended up being excessively long and complicated. Nonetheless, the rezone was accomplished, and the City can use Packet Page 197 of 248 8 lessons learned from this process to develop a more streamlined process for the other neighborhood centers. Additional areas needing continued attention include the ESCA-Skippers-DOT area west of SR 104 (see item 4), Stevens Hospital (medical center area) and Highway 99 corridor, and Perrinville. Because of the confluence of events and potential public resources available, the City should initiate, and/or work with WSDOT on, a master planning process for the ESCA-Skippers-DOT area west of SR-104. This area presents a unique opportunity for the City to “set the stage” for future public/private partnerships and transit-oriented development opportunities that could significantly enhance the entire downtown area while furthering its economic development needs. Much planning has been done over the years in this area; it is time to put the vision, regulations and infrastructure in place to “get it done.” 4. The City should support the process that the Port of Edmonds has begun to redevelop Harbor Square. The process will involve significant public involvement and should ensure a balance between generating revenue and addressing environmental concerns. 5. The City also has an opportunity to position itself so as to attract businesses that wish to utilize the City’s fiber optics. The City Council should work with the Economic Development and Finance Departments’ efforts to prepare and fund a business/marketing plan related to the City’s ability to utilize its fiber optic system. 6. The City should develop a community vision. Community involvement is essential to assuring the quality of life in Edmonds while furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives. In addition, we increase the probability of successful redevelopment of neighborhood centers if the redevelopment responds to the needs of the residents of the neighborhood. We need to develop a vision for the City as a whole, as well as its individual neighborhoods and their centers. What does the Commission need from the City Council? The Commission is made up of 17 members of the community who are donating a great deal of time to this effort because of its importance to the future of the City we love. We have all seen too many reports left to collect dust on a shelf. We want to have our work taken seriously and support the City Council in its economic development efforts. Time is of the essence. To ensure that the remainder of Edmonds CEDC’s tenure is as productive and constructive as possible, it is imperative that the Edmonds CEDC receive confirmation from the City Council that the Edmonds CEDC is moving in the right direction. We agree that it’s important and necessary for the City Council to review the Edmonds CEDC and Planning Board Combined Reports and give us feedback following the February 5 and 6, 2010 Council retreat. More specifically, we request feedback by February 17, 2010 (Edmonds February CEDC Meeting) and ask that the City Council attend this meeting to share your thoughts regarding, and reactions to, our proposals and efforts. Packet Page 198 of 248 9 The Commission is unanimous in agreeing that we need the City Council to work with us on economic development efforts and initiatives, and that our work, ideas and recommendations receive prompt attention for the City Council. We request that the City Council also appoint two members, not currently serving as members of the City Council Economic Development Committee, to participate actively on the Commission and carry back to the full Council our concerns. This will result in four City Council members having ongoing involvement in economic development efforts and activities. Most of all, City leadership needs to focus on, and prioritize, major efforts/initiatives that effect the overall business community and quality of life for residents as a whole. It is time to act now, that is initiate, not react. Summary We consider this report interim in nature. The attached appendices contain information on a variety of issues, ideas, potential recommendations and discussions that have been explored to date. All potential recommendations under each charge of Ordinance 3735 will be further discussed/explored/examined by the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board in 2010 upon acceptance and further direction by the City Council. The Edmonds EDC and Planning Board commit to continue working towards addressing the important charges contained within Ordinance 3735 and we look forward to our tasks at hand. Packet Page 199 of 248 10 APPENDIX AND PLANNING BOARD ATTACHMENTS Packet Page 200 of 248 11 Appendix 1 Edmonds Economic Development Commission Charges Contained Within Ordinance 3735 1. Determining new strategies for economic development within the City of Edmonds 12 o Support neighborhood centers that promote employment, affordable transportation and housing, and capaCity-building services.  The City has an opportunity to position itself so as to attract businesses that wish to utilize the City’s fiber optics network. Support efforts to prepare a business plan related to the City’s ability to utilize its fiber optic system. This is needed before any decisions can be made as to how best to move forward.  Recruit businesses looking to expand that have been successful in other Puget Sound cities.  Form a public/private partnership for business recruitment and retention. The partnership should explore ways to: o Expand businesses related to health care, medicine, biotech, medical equipment, etc. o Motivate land owners to assemble smaller parcels for redevelopment. There are a number of underutilized lots (Burlington Coat Factory, the storage place) that could be used to attract more lucrative businesses. o Focus businesses towards larger sites: family oriented restaurants, commercial center retail, and one or two larger retailers (big box)  The City could explore modifying zoning along the edges of downtown to allow residential on the first floor in buildings where the street level has spent long periods vacant. These sites/units could serve as Live-Work sites until the area can fully support 100% commercial.  Implement Transit oriented development (TOD) tools to support Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 Corridor areas in concert with regional transit providers.  Review ways to promote more use of public rights of way, i.e., sidewalks for cafes, short time sales, art displays, etc.  Review City light industrial zoning and capacity 3. Increasing Tourism Tourism is the fastest growing and one of the top three industries in 49 of 50 states and in every Canadian province. Tourism is an economic development activity that helps diversify the local economy, creates jobs and business opportunities, and lastly, a City’s front door to its non-tourism economic development efforts.1 The City of Edmonds Economic Development Department has significantly increased the visibility of the City of Edmonds since November of 2007, as demonstrated by the following list year 2009 publications, website and miscellaneous items where advertisements were placed: o 2009 Greater Seattle InfoGuide 1 Destination Development, Inc. ”The Art of Branding a Community”. by Roger Brooks. Packet Page 202 of 248 13 o 2009 Snohomish County Visitor’s Guide o 2009 Community Trade and Economic Development Official Tourism Guide o 2009 Washington State Hotel and Lodging Association Official Tourism Guide o ExperienceWA.com – Washington State’s official tourism website o 2009 City of Edmonds Community Calendar of Events o Public Art Review (National publication – Spring/Summer) o Alaska Airlines (May) o Southwest Airlines (April) o Vancouver Magazine (April) o 2009 Washington Festivals and Events Calendar o QFC Pharmacy Bags (Jan – august, 2009) City staff have also worked with a number of publications and feature articles about the City of Edmonds were published in the following magazines and newspapers: o “Downtown Edmonds” -- Seattle Premier Monthly Magazine – March, 2009 o “Discover Edmonds…..a ferry-tale City” -- 425 Magazine - April, 2009 o “Downtown Edmonds has changed a bit since the 1960s — in good ways” – Seattle Time, January 5, 2009 o “Cruising in Puget Sound, Port of Edmonds” -- Northwest Yachting Magazine – November, 2009 o “Write on the Sound writers’ conference” – Writer’s Digest – September, 2009 The City of Edmonds Economic Development Department Director has indicated he has initiated additional programs and tasks to improve tourism. City staff have secured website domain names, e.g., VisitEdmonds.com for the purposes of marketing, and to eventually provide direct links to the City’s Visitor’s Guide with the goal of creating a tourism website. As of December, 2009, the City of Edmonds is now a member of Seattle’s Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB). As a member, the City of Edmonds will be included in each CVB publication and now has an opportunity to distribute brochures at the Convention Visitors Information Center. City staff is reviewing the need to hire a web master to develop a tourism website while at the same time working with the Chamber of Commerce to ensure that effective messages and information are contained within the website. The City’s Economic Development Department in partnerships with the City’s Cultural Services Division, and other entities and organizations throughout the City and region, will work to promote and sustain a vibrant cultural community. According to the City’s Community Cultural Plan (2008), this will be done by:  Building upon Edmonds’ identity as a cultural destination  Encouraging effective partnerships to support cultural opportunities  Developing cultural facilities  Increasing visibility and accessibility of cultural events, and Packet Page 203 of 248 14  Broadening community involvement and participation. Areas the Economic Development Commission Planning Board wish to explore and study further include:  Branding Edmonds. The Economic Development Commission and Planning Board also see the need to initiate a process to brand the Community. This is not the same as developing a slogan or logo. Branding is about perception, i.e., what people think of you, not what you say you are. A branding exercise is a chance to define the City’s identity resulting in a consistent and compelling theme and focused message to create interest in the City of Edmonds as a destination for businesses and visitors.  Creating a Tourism Web site  Ways to make Edmonds the Northwest Arts Capital  How to attract a more diverse demographic, e.g., age, income, culture, etc., to the City of Edmonds 4. Improving Commercial Viability If the City can better enable businesses and other employers to grow and improve, the benefits accrue not only to the people who hold those jobs, but also to the employers who sell the products and services those people create and the communities that can grow as a result of that economic activity. The extant general language about building up the neighborhood centers needs to get turned into explicit zoning changes if redevelopment is to happen. A developer does not want to come to the City and spend a year or more facing the uncertainty of whether or not a parcel will be rezoned for redevelopment. The City needs to have the zoning in place to attract a developer, not wait for business to come along and request a rezone. Other neighboring cities are doing this during this economic downturn. Edmonds must or the City will be left behind when the economy improves.  Implement Transit Oriented Development plan for Hwy 99 and Downtown. Could be two separate items. Hwy 99 takes advantage of high-intensity use areas and BRT initiative. Standards for transit- oriented development tied to incentives (e.g. reduced or more flexible parking standards, priority or discounted permitting) for development. Downtown would be tied to Sound Transit, CT, etc. development. Public/private partnerships should be explored with Sound Transit, WSF, etc.  Identify priorities and commit to ongoing effort to simplify and streamline City regulations and rules. These should be aligned with an adopted Strategic Plan (see above).  Advocate for process improvements to simplify and improve interactions with small business  More efficient regulation. This is not about lowering the City’s regulatory standards, but rather about improving the efficiency with which they are implemented. Packet Page 204 of 248 15  Expedite permitting that meets primary objectives and one stop permit guidance for new locating businesses Packet Page 205 of 248 16 Overall Recommendations  Strategic Planning – City Council should commit to developing/reviewing/updating a strategic plan every year, ideally corresponding to their annual retreat. Purpose would be to set/confirm priorities within the Strategic Plan and link those to the City’s adopted Budget, Economic Development Plan, Community Sustainability Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, Transportation Plan, Streetscape Plan, Parks and Recreation Plan, Cultural Plan, and long range planning efforts. o Explore ways to devote staff, time and funding to long-term strategic planning, its relation to budgeting, and develop a plan for implementing a long-term strategic plan.  Government actions and policies significantly shape the City’s business climate. o City leadership needs to focus on, and prioritize, major efforts/initiatives that effect the overall business community and quality of life for residents as a whole as opposed to focusing time, energy, and money on less significant issues. o It is time to initiate, not react.  Improve left turns from Hwy 99 and improve highway crossings, including pedestrian crossings  Support increase in Economic Development Department budget necessary to recruit, retain and expand businesses  Time is of the essence. The City needs to start laying the groundwork for economic development immediately. A portion of the savings from reducing expenses of the Fire Dept. should be spent on economic development activities, not set aside for the future. o The savings could be used to hire consultants to help staff achieve many of the ideas raised in this report.  Edmonds should adopt economic development as one of its goals.  Edmonds is no longer a bedroom community. Continuing to function as a City that is heavily dependent on residential revenue will damage the City in the long run. The City needs to diversify its tax base with a more balanced residential/commercial mix.  The City Council, Mayor, City staff, Chamber of Commerce and other organizations need to work together in support of common goals. Prepare, adopt and expand upon existing Economic Development Plan policies that support a diverse, innovative, competitive, entrepreneurial, and sustainable local economy Packet Page 206 of 248 17 Attachment 1 PLANNING BOARD Report to City Council January 19, 2010 INTRODUCTION The Edmonds Planning Board is charged with the task of reviewing and considering strategies for economic development in conjunction with the Citizens Economic Development Commission as set forth in Ordinance 3735. These strategies are to be developed from a land use perspective given that our role as a planning board is to address land use issues. The overall intent is to improve commercial viability, tax revenue base, and tourism activity within the City of Edmonds all of which contribute to the quality of life of our citizens. BACKGROUND Our city, region, and the nation are reeling from an unforeseen economic downturn. Market conditions are making it extremely difficult to rebound in ways that normally get us back on track. Reliance on real estate taxes and automobile sales taxes, two of our largest contributors to city revenue in the past, are no longer saviors for our current condition. It's no longer business as usual so we must get innovative, look to see what's working and what's not around us, and create the change that's needed in how we do things in this city. While the Planning Board will undertake studies, analyses and strategies designed to contribute to both economic and livability sustainability conditions within the City, we believe that the Council needs to provide leadership and proactive participation [partnering] in the process in order to enable realization of any such developed plans. The 60-plus membership of last Spring’s budget levy committee reported to the Council with the key findings that a levy measure should be enacted by the Council to supplement the city’s budget or the next 6 years. Additionally, the universal recommendation was then (and remains so today) that both plans and strategies for the future economic health of Edmonds should be led by the City Council. Mayor Haakenson reported on 12/30/09 in the media that: “If we do nothing, we will find ourselves in the same position in 2014 that we found ourselves in 2009.” If we do nothing, State and Federal mandates via the Growth Management Act will force decisions upon us without our input, and we will be facing outcomes that most if not all of us would not want especially around the transportation nodes. To address this deteriorating situation in light of a bleak economic forecast throughout our State and Country, we recommend that the City Council study the need to put to the voters a tax levy in 2010 to address both budget recoveries and ‘kick start’ economic development and revenue generation plan implementation within the City. With leadership and commitment from City Council, this first step must be taken and many more steps toward creating diverse revenue streams need to follow through our joined efforts. SHORT AND LONG TERM PROPOSALS UNDER STUDY Packet Page 207 of 248 18 Rationale Strategies and approaches are being addressed by the Planning Board which are intended to contribute to sustainability of the City in all aspects [economic, environmental, livability]. Economic development and effective fiscal management of the City should be undertaken by City Council along with skillfully guided grassroots efforts as a contributing force. The function of our Board is to study and recommend plans and guidelines regarding land use in conjunction with their associated Codes and the Comprehensive Plan for the City. We can only conduct action as set forth [enacted] by our elected leadership—the City Council. We must be partners in action if we are to accomplish what is needed. Commitments made by City Council towards a more sustainable Edmonds Resolution 1168 (April 2008) - established the City of Edmonds Sustainable Building Policy, established a LEED silver standard for certain remodels and new City buildings and facilities, emphasized life cycle cost analysis. Resolution 1169 (April 2008) - joined the Cascade Agenda as a Member City, endorsed Cascade Agenda principles of making the City complete, compact, and connected Resolution 1170 (April 2008) - committed to a set of environmental principles, policies and goals for future action; emphasis on City taking a leadership role in addressing climate issues; and recognizing key role of education, transit and TOD in a complete and coordinated policy framework December 1, 2009 Mayor signed a contract with Cascade Land Conservancy to become a Cascade Agenda Leadership City. Becoming a leadership city will allow CLC to partner with Edmonds as well as conduct a livability assessment that considers the City’s policies and programs and compares them to other leadership cities to identify things Edmonds is doing that could work in other cities and to share things other cities are doing with Edmonds. Planning Board Suggestions Strategies and goals listed below are those the Planning Board can support and work with City Council on as needed: 1) The City should encourage and enable a renewal of appropriate’ branding’ for Edmonds. [likely led by the business community] 2) Assign timeline and dollar allocations to both create and carry out a strategic plan towards stated goals. Some goals will take a long time (5-10 years) to implement. Set up a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis to track progress. 3) City must provide and ‘couple’ budget funds annually with established action plan (implementation) in order to produce real trackable results. If the City does not undertake responsible growth plans, other governing agencies may very well do so on our ‘behalf’ Packet Page 208 of 248 19 4) City will need Code and Comprehensive Plan revisions to enable meaningful commercial development in the immediate as well as long-term future within the City. 5) Plan implementation strategies should provide for linkage between future development and/or redevelopment of applicable available areas within the City; ie. Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Planning with development of remaining waterfront area(s). 6) Address and provide any linkage necessary between Edmonds Sustainability Element strategies developed and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2040 plan as related to WA Growth Management Act (GMA) currently projected to (only) 2025. 7) Support and coordinate through your leadership, interest groups, citizens' committees, and various functions within the City that are actively pursuing plans and strategies to enhance aspects of the quality of life and sustainability of our city: 1. City Parks, Recreation and Cultural Development [Yost/Aquatics, new parks, 4th Ave. Arts Corridor, Interurban Trail] 2. South County Senior Center 3. Civil Service Commission 4. Public Facilities District 5. Port of Edmonds [Yacht club, Harbor Square Master planning] 6. Historic Preservation Commission [increased elements identification] 7. DEMA [sponsored events, linkage of merchants] 8. Economic Development undertakings by the City. 9. Lead and sub-groups under Transportation Plan 10. Edmonds in Bloom 11. Edmonds Arts 12. Rose House/Center for Creative and Humanitarian Endeavors 13. Edmonds Conference Center 14. Edmonds Mural Society 15. Rotary Club of Edmonds 16. Edmonds Center for the Arts 17. Edmonds Historical Museum 18. Edmonds-South Snohomish County Historical Society 19. Sustainable Edmonds 20. Friends of the Library 21. Friends of the Marsh Packet Page 209 of 248 20 Attachment 1.1 PLANNING BOARD APPENDIX to Report to City Council Jan. 19, 2009 Resources and Presentations throughout 2009 geared to Planning and Sustainability PB 4/8/09 Retreat PB met as a group for extended discussion on history, trends, and desired direction for planning purposes over the course of 2010. The Board is committed to the long term goal of creating a sustainable city from an environmental, economic, and livability standpoint. The Board sees the need to work collaboratively with the City Council in both planning and realizing actions to achieve sustainability goals and is willing to investigate and study a number of factors that have been impeding efforts to keep pace with surrounding communities as population grows, resources become stretched, and infrastructure and buildings age. The Planning Board suggested three goals to focus on: 1) Developing a vision for Edmonds and potentially going through a branding process for the city 2) Continued utilization of sustainable practices towards efficiency, longevity of, and livability within the city 3) Addressing and reconciling political issues impacting productive plan(s) and implementation thereof PB 6/24/09 Meeting Jennifer Gerend, the city’s prior Director of Economic Development, presented an overview of opportunities and challenges for us to consider. Opportunities 1) Promote mixed use development in neighborhood "nodes" (Firdale, 5 Corners, etc.) 2) Downtown could be enhanced for pedestrian shopping zone 3) Bolder marketing efforts when development plans are viable and progressive Challenges 1) Hwy 99 needs "more generous development regulations" 2) Building height limit possibilities for innovative development 3) Need better balance of zoning/Development Code(s) and financial feasibility of projects Stephen Clifton, the city’s current Director of Economic Development, talked about the status and opportunities relating to transportation and land use in downtown and waterfront areas. Listed are a number of Packet Page 210 of 248 21 influences by involved and related parties that make decisions regarding these areas difficult. 1) Ferries 2) BNSFRR 3) WSDOT 4) private property owners 5) Port of Edmonds 6) Public Opportunities 1) Potential public/private development proposals could emerge 2) City could take lead in preparing defined development guidelines and SEPA processing ahead of development in order to shape overall goal(s) for the area PB 7/8/09 Meeting Fiber optic system opportunities were presented whereby the public involved in commercial or business enterprises could foresee the possibility for access to and utilization of the system. This sounds like a worthwhile investment for the city. Community Transit presented on planning and opportunities (see detailed plan). The following are major future corridors under consideration: 1) 196th St. (Rt. 524) 2) 76th Ave 3) Rt. 104/Edmonds Way 4) Waterfront Transportation PB 7/22/09 Meeting A presentation of City of Edmonds Highway 99 Enhancement Project Report (6/22/09 update to 4/7/04 Report) revealed a number of positive ideas and visualizations of what be accomplished along that stretch: 1) “Activity Center” concepts envisioned along the Edmonds portion of the route 2) Becoming more transit-oriented especially with upgraded bus system 3) Collaboration opportunities with Lynnwood and Shoreline 4) More focus on DESIGN needed including green building and redevelopment Projects in the pipeline 1) Edmonds Green 2) Top Food and Drug 3) ID Artwork Packet Page 211 of 248 22 4) SWIFT Transit System (Community Transit) 5) Burlington Coat Factory PB 9/9/09 Meeting Presentation of the North King and South Snohomish Counties Regional Mitigation Plan for Natural Hazards which pointed out notable exposures for Edmonds: 1) Recurrent flooding of Dayton/Waterfront area plus 2) Potential rising sea level due to climate change predictions 3) More frequent land/mud slides likely in certain locales within city It is important to point out that there is no dedicated funding associated specifically with the plan at this time. PB 10/14/09 Meeting The Sustainability Element of Comprehensive Plan (File #AMD2008009) was presented and discussed. Sustainability is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability is not solely focused on environmental sustainability; it also emphasizes the inter-related nature of environmental, economic, and social factors. The Sustainability Element establishes a framework for creating short term (2 yr) budget goals, a 3-5 year strategic plan, and a long term (20 yr) comprehensive plan with corresponding goals. It serves as a lens through which policy decisions are made as Edmonds strives for economic and environmental sustainability as well as social equity for the future of the city. There are 4 major elements: 1) Climate Change 2) Community Health 3) Environmental Quality 4) Implementation Citizen's comments were offered and included some of the following specifics that were also discussed by planning board members: 1) Enhance attractiveness of city to younger people 2) Possibly have a year-round farmers market 3) Concerns about Edmonds marsh preservation and creating public access 4) Concerns about rising water levels in Puget Sound due to climate change 5) Climate Action Plan is being worked on by the Mayors Climate Protection Committee (See minutes for more data discussion—actually over many PB meetings) Packet Page 212 of 248 23 PB 10/14/09 Meeting Presentation of Department on Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Plan for 2009–2015. The body of this report indicates that the plan's elements have either funding sources associated or identified within. PB 11/4/09 Meeting Capital Facilities Update for 2009-2015 to City’s Comp. Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee for Transportation proposed an increase in funding for TBD (voter approval required) Friends of Edmonds Marsh 1) Habitat preservation/enhancement 2) Daylighting of Willow Creek to Sound discharge 3) Increase/enhance public access and use Edmonds Bicycle Advisory Group is promoting infrastructure improvements towards convenience and safety of bicycle exercise and transportation. They are seeking grant funding for these projects to supplement city funding. PB 12/9/09 Meeting Presentation of the City of Edmonds Climate Action Plan: an outcome of the Mayors Climate Protection Committee. This is a strategy plan that provides a framework for action items leading to potential reduction of greenhouse gases within Edmonds. It will serve as an adjunct to recently approved Sustainability Element within the Comp. Plan. The following are areas of focus within the plan element: 1) Transportation and land use 2) Lifestyles 3) Buildings 4) Environment 5) Economy 6) Community Outreach and Empowerment Packet Page 213 of 248 CITY OF EDMONDS MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION December 9, 2009 The Edmonds Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission began at 6:00 p.m. in the City of Edmonds Council Chambers, 250 – 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Wa 98020. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Cary Guenther John Reed Judith Works Kevin Clarke Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Bowman, Chair Jim Young STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Karin Noyes, Recorder COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Frank Yamamoto, Chair Marianne Burkhart Bruce Faires Stacy Gardea Don Hall Darrol Haug Betty Larman Beatrice O’Rourke Evan Pierce Kerry St. Clair Ayers David Schaefer Rich Senderoff Bill Vance Bruce Witenberg Rebecca Wolfe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Michael Bowman Rob VanTassell ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA As requested by the Commission and Board, Mr. Clifton stated he extended invitations to the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Bothell, asking for representatives of each to present information on their efforts related to economic development. He introduced Terrie Battuello, Bothell Assistant City Manager/Economic Development Director; John Caulfield Mountlake Terrace City Manager; and David Kleitsch, Lynnwood Economic Development Director, who would each provide a 20-minute presentation. The Commission and Board would have an opportunity to ask questions following the presentations. PRESENTATION BY LYNNWOOD REPRESENTATIVE David Kleitsch, City of Lynnwood, Economic Development Director, provided a brief overview of the history of the City of Lynnwood, particularly illustrating how it has grown and changed since the early 1900’s. He explained that in 2000, the Lynnwood City Council made the decision to actively pursue economic development. Their goal was to go back to a community-focused development approach. He referred to Ordinance 2320, which outlines the City of Lynnwood’s goals and objectives for economic development. It identifies and codifies all of the factors the City believes are important for Packet Page 214 of 248 successful economic development. It also provides 14 policy priorities for the City to pursue. He emphasized that this document made his job much easier, and the City was able to move forward fairly quickly. Mr. Kleitsch advised that the Office of Economic Development was established in 2001, and he immediately started working with the City Council to advance the concept of an economic development action plan to identify what the City wants to accomplish. It defined implementation strategies and provided a development timeline matrix to monitor performance. The first phase of the plan involved community profiling, and a consultant was hired to conduct a full community attribute assessment. Staff also interacted with various stakeholder groups and conducted focus groups to develop a list of strengths, weaknesses, attributes and opportunities, and a Key Issues Report was prepared to clearly identify the community’s concerns. Phase 2 of the plan involved gathering information from the Key Issues Report and stakeholder interviews to prepare draft findings and recommendations, which were presented at a series of community meetings. Once the community outreach process was completed, a final report was prepared and adopted by the Lynnwood City Council in November of 2004. He noted that throughout the process, staff provided information memorandums to the City Council to update them on their progress. The policy makers were kept in the loop so they were well versed and comfortable with what was presented in the final plan. He cautioned that it was very important to involve both the public and the City Council throughout the entire process. Mr. Kleitsch shared examples of the goals contained in Lynnwood’s Economic Development Action Plan. He explained that in order to implement the goals and strategies, they identified areas for growth and created catalyst projects to make it happen such as freeway improvements, transit improvements, rezoning, and looking at opportunities to link transit zones to the City Center. He said the action plan also includes a strategy for economic development on Highway 99, which involves different types of mixed-use zones, linking the neighborhoods to the commercial activity centers, working with Community Transit to advance mixed-use development in conjunction with their bus rapid transit program, coordinating the high-density nodes with bus rapid transit, changing land use designations and improving development regulations to enhance redevelopment opportunities along the highway. Mr. Kleitsch said their economic development program also includes a strategy for branding and marketing the City. They have a strong website, using an outside contractor as their host. The website allows for interactive communication, as well. He advised that they have branded Lynnwood as “a place to start your regional vacation.” They are encouraging people to stay in Lynnwood and experience the North Puget Sound area at a more affordable price. He emphasized that once a city implements a marketing or branding strategy, it is important that they stick with it and monitor its success. Mr. Kleitsch summarized that their program has been successful because they asked the community for input, and they are currently working to address their weaknesses and market their strengths. They hired a consulting firm in 2007 to work with them on their branding campaign. He explained that the purpose of a branding program is to ensure community pride and to attract new businesses to the area. However, it is also important to offer people who want to come to the community a facilitated permit process. This requires upgrading internal systems to accommodate economic development investments in the community. He concluded in order to have a successful citywide branding program, it is important to be consistent with the message and follow through with the promises that are made. PRESENTATION BY MOUNTLAKE TERRACE REPRESENTATIVE John Caulfield, City Manager, Mountlake Terrace, provided background information and history regarding the City of Mountlake Terrace. He specifically noted that Mountlake Terrace used to be a much more vibrant city before Interstate 5 was constructed right through the middle of it. He pointed out that if this same thing were to happen today, there would have been quite a bit of mitigation and amenities provided to the community. That was not the case and the City of Mountlake Terrace has been paying the price for the past 40 years. However, there are also numerous opportunities for the future. For example, between now and 2030 they anticipate an additional 84,891 jobs and 89,701 households in area. They know the growth will come, and the Mountlake Terrace City Council made the decision that they wanted to have some control over the growth that takes place in their City. He shared some statistics about the City of Mountlake Terrace, particularly noting that the City ranks 10th of 50 Puget Sound cities in average annual wage of jobs, and they have a low crime rate. He also emphasized that every residential property in Mountlake Terrace is within ¼ mile of a bus stop. DRAFT Joint Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 2 Packet Page 215 of 248 Mr. Caulfield explained that economic development discussions have taken place in the City of Mountlake Terrace for decades, and good analysis has been done in the past. However, nothing was done until 2006 when the City Council decided they needed to seriously move forward with implementation of an economic development program. At that time, they directed staff to prepare a work plan for creating economic development strategies to redevelop the downtown area of their city. They emphasized that they wanted the new plan to be community driven. They also wanted it to be completed by the end of 2006, which was a very aggressive timeline given the high level of community outreach they wanted to include. Mr. Caulfield said the City Council identified economic development as a key goal, and they recognized the need to broaden and diversify the City’s revenue base. While the commercial areas comprised about 25% of the land mass, they were only providing about 10% of the funding. The residential community was funding most of the government services. They also recognized a need to provide efficient implementation tools such as zoning codes, design standards, planned action ordinances, impact fees, etc. They agreed it was important to build on community assets and improve the quality of life across a wide range of community assets. He provided examples of development that has occurred since the plan was adopted. He noted that while not a lot of redevelopment has occurred in the town center area, it is ready for redevelopment when the economy improves. He also provided examples of development that occurred based on previous code standards. Mr. Caulfield shared the process used by the City of Mountlake Terrace to create their Town Center Plan. He emphasized that the public involvement process and schedule was outlined at the early stage of the process, and it included numerous opportunities such as community roundtables, developer forums, visual preference surveys and design workshops. The City Council made a commitment to provide the necessary resources at the staff and planning commission levels. In addition to public involvement, Mr. Caulfield said the City staff also gathered, reviewed and summarized previous documents on the City’s downtown and collected information about downtown planning from other cities in the area. The City Council and Planning Commission took a bus tour of key downtowns in Puget Sound, and an extensive website was set up. The results of the roundtable discussions were published and the design charette work was synthesized. If it would have been financially possible, the City Council would also have visited communities in other states where there are good examples of economic development and downtown revitalization. Mr. Caulfield referred to a Tipping Point Analysis that identified the different points at which projects would pencil out in the various zones in the Town Center Area. This information was shared with the community up front and factored into the decision making process. They did not want to develop a plan that looked good on paper but was feasibility impossible to implement. He briefly shared some of the elements of the Town Center Vision which includes buildings up to 7 stories high in some zones. He emphasized that one of the key components of the plan is to protect residential neighborhoods and create a more walkable community. The plan envisions the Town Center as an enjoyable place to be with restaurants and coffee shops, neighborhood retail, and a mixture of other uses. It envisions attractive buildings stepped back to allow the sun, gathering spaces, street trees, and recognizable differences amongst the building districts. Once built out, they expect the Town Center Area to accommodate an additional 1,415 more jobs, 297,300 square feet of retail, 267,700 square feet of office, 737 new housing units, and 1,621 residents. Mr. Caulfield briefly reviewed all of the steps the City of Mountlake Terrace has already accomplished during a very short period of time to implement their plan. He emphasized that the City Council is not allowing their current plan to sit on the shelf. He noted that the plan takes advantage of the new Mountlake Terrace Transit Center at Interstate 5 and 236th Street, the Mountlake Terrace “Flyer” Freeway Station, and the proposed Civic Campus design. He announced that the City of Mountlake Terrace’s citizen involvement program received an award from the American Planning Association. He summarized that the City now has all the plans in place to move forward with redevelopment. He provided a map showing the redevelopment activity that has occurred over the past few years, and noted that there are currently 4 or 5 projects in the works in the downtown and they have received an incredible amount of interest given the difficult economic times. This increased activity is a reflection of the changes the City Council has made to adapt to the current development climate. He concluded his presentation by emphasizing that Mountlake Terrace’s best days are not behind them, they are in front of them. DRAFT Joint Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 3 Packet Page 216 of 248 PRESENTATION BY BOTHELL REPRESENTATIVE Terrie Battuello, Assistant City Manager/Economic Development Director, Bothell, said she spent the evening prior to the meeting walking around downtown Edmonds. She found it to be a beautiful City and said it is clear the citizens have a lot of pride in their community. She emphasized that it’s important for the local government to have the support and commitment of their citizens in order to bring plans to life. It is also important to have a clear understanding of how to involve private partners in the redevelopment process, as well as other agencies. Ms. Battuello shared the process the City of Bothell used to create an economic development program, which started with the development of a strategic roadmap and inventory of the community needs. Next, the City Council reviewed a list of projects that had previously been promised to the citizens and identified which ones they would and would not pursue. She pointed out that this was a very critical time for Bothell because the University of Washington had announced plans to triple the size of their Bothell Campus, and the Northshore School District had made the decision to vacate their properties in downtown Bothell. In addition, discussions were taking place about the possibility of SR-520 becoming a toll road, which would have placed additional pressure on SR-522, which runs through Bothell. Ms. Battuello said that once the strategic roadmap was finalized, the City’s comprehensive plan, budget and other planning documents were updated to be consistent with the roadmap. She noted the City of Bothell received an award from the Federal Government for this work. The City also realigned their staff to better implement the projects that were identified as priorities, and an economic development division was formed. Their management team consisted of individuals who had extensive experience in downtown revitalization. She emphasized that the City Council hired people they trusted and then trusted the people they hired. It was important to choose the right people for their team and then utilize their skills and experience to implement the City’s plan. She added that the Bothell City Council set aggressive goals and targets for implementing the economic development plan, and they stayed committed to the program. Ms. Battuello summarized the following approaches that worked well for the City of Bothell in implementing their economic development plan: • Be Nimble. Use flexible tactics to support the current environment. • Communicate. Constantly remind and reinforce the community and City Council of the goals. • Roles. The legislators (city council) are responsible for making policy and deciding what will happen, and the administration (staff) is responsible for implementing the adopted policies and plans. • Influence. Increase influence by participating in the region and leveraging assets to bring partners to the table. • Persistence. Doggedly pursue the targets that have been set. Ms. Battuello shared that Bothell’s downtown revitalization plan focuses on the historic aspects of the City. The Sammamish River was the original landing for the Mosquito Fleet and was called Bothell Landing. Their goal is to reconnect the City to its heritage, which is something the City of Edmonds could do, as well. They should consider opportunities for connecting their downtown to the waterfront aspect. She observed that only three blocks of Main Street in Bothell are part of the original grid of the City. However, a future road project will offer an opportunity for the City to build upon the original fabric of the community. Ms. Battuello described some of the features of their revitalization plan, which includes street changes, higher density, etc. She said they have a clear understanding of the current market demand and what part of the market they hope to capture in the future. They anticipate that an additional 600 housing units would be constructed on the properties the City currently owns in downtown Bothell, along with 100,000 square feet of additional retail space. They are currently searching for anchor tenants to support these future development projects. They are currently working with a potential anchor tenant for the Anderson Building (previously owned by the Northshore School District) and are hoping that the site would be remodeled to accommodate a conference center and boutique-type hotel. They are considering a boulevard approach as part of future changes to SR-527. The roadway would be relocated one block to the south to create a smooth flow of traffic and extend Main Street so the grid of the City can function better. DRAFT Joint Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 4 Packet Page 217 of 248 Ms. Battuello said it was important for the City of Bothell to create a “brand” that tells the history or story of the City. She noted that Edmonds also has a lot of lovely places and great facilities that are disconnected from each other. They need to figure out a way to bring their story together. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD Commissioner Wolfe asked which market segment Bothell plans to attract with their proposed new boutique hotel and conference center. Ms. Battuello explained that most of the hotels in Bothell are geared towards the business community, but the new hotel is intended to be a destination. The City of Bothell has a strong tourism program, and they anticipate approximately 1,000 visitors per day to the facility. The hotel would serve as the anchor tenant, and Bothell staff has worked hard to recruit a variety tenants for the historic building. They anticipate the facility would house a variety of uses such as a restaurant, spa, theater, music stage, lecture space, wedding facilities, etc. Commissioner Faires asked Mr. Caulfield to describe the process the City of Mountlake Terrace used to incorporate the need to diversify the revenue base into their downtown revitalization plans. Mr. Caulfield explained that because Mountlake Terrace does not have a lot of sales tax revenue, they rely heavily on property taxes, which are paid primarily by the residential property owners. The City found that their commercial properties were underutilized, and they attempted to address this issue in their plans. During the community roundtable discussions, consultants were present to run numbers for the various ideas and proposals that were brought forth to identify whether or not they would be feasible. They also identified how much revenue would be generated by each idea. He emphasized that while one of the City’s goals was to diversify the tax base, their driving goal was to improve the community and the quality of life of their residents. He cautioned against chasing sales tax as the main goal of an economic development plan. It is important to find a good balance. Mountlake Terrace’s goal is to attract the kinds of businesses that will generate additional revenue, but also provide services that the citizens are currently going elsewhere to obtain. Commissioner Faires asked if Mountlake Terrace was able to quantify a new development’s contribution to the City’s revenue base. Mr. Caulfield answered that their process included a financial analysis because it was important for the City to know that the proposed plan would be feasible and the development opportunities identified in the plan could pencil out. Board Member Clarke asked what square foot land value was used for the proforma assessment. Ms. Battuello emphasized that the proforma merely identified what a developer would be willing to pay for the land under the existing zoning. Mr. Kleitsch explained that Lynnwood’s front end proforma analysis was based on speculation, but a follow-up analysis showed the tipping point at about $68 per square foot, and developers would not likely be interested in redeveloping the properties until they reach this value. While their current code language allows surface parking because it is less costly, the market analysis prior to the recession indicated that property values were reaching the point where structure parking would have been feasible. Commissioner Larman asked the presenters to share more about the catalysts behind their economic development programs and how they gained community support for their visions. Mr. Kleitsch said the community of Lynnwood wanted a place that was seen as their downtown, and they wanted a gathering place to identify the City. In addition, it was clear that the Puget Sound Regional Council’s growth targets for Lynnwood would require them to accommodate additional residents or risk losing transportation money. They determined they wanted to address both of these issues. Mr. Caulfield said Mountlake Terrace’s effort started with their City Council. Citizens were communicating to them the need to do something, and their leadership has been phenomenal. While they City Council Members attended many of the community meetings, they did not get involved in the discussions. Instead, they listened, observed and allowed the citizens to freely share their ideas. The information gathered at the community meetings was presented to the Planning Commission who made a recommendation to the City Council. While the City Council did not agree with every concept identified in the recommendation, they found a balance of consensus based on the input they received from the public. They were recently asked to consider changes to the plan, and they were uniform in their decision to keep it the same. They felt that it in light of the extensive community involvement that went into the original plan, it should be very difficult to make changes. They reemphasized the need to nurture and encourage implementation of the plan into the future. DRAFT Joint Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 5 Packet Page 218 of 248 Ms. Battuello said the City of Bothell started their process by identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. They inventoried their assets and collected extensive public input. She emphasized that the Bothell City Council was courageous in making decisions and steadfast in their commitment to implement the plan. They have also been predictable. She cautioned that when a city asks developers to make significant investments in their community, the leadership must be predictable and do what they say they are going to do even if it is hard. Commissioner Burkhart asked Ms. Battuello to share more about Bothell’s process for purchasing property in their downtown area. Ms. Battuello answered that the Northshore School District surplussed 18 acres to the City of Bothell because they felt confident the City would use the property for the best benefit of the community. The remaining 7 acres were needed as right-of-way for the road project. While imminent domain was used to acquire the right-of-way property, the City was able to negotiate agreements with all property owners. Commissioner Pierce asked if Bothell purchased the property from the school district using the competitive bid process or if they negotiated directly with the district. Ms. Battuello answered that the acquisition was the result of negotiations between the school district and the City with no competition from outside buyers. She emphasized that the school district is a partner in making sure the community remains healthy. Mr. Kleitsch pointed out that Washington State has some of the most conservative imminent domain laws in the country. A city cannot purchase property using imminent domain and then sell it to a private developer. Board Member Clarke observed that all of the recent office buildings developed in Lynnwood have been financial failures and do not produce enough profit to return construction costs and land values. There are numerous vacant office buildings along the Interstate 5 Corridor, as well. He asked the presenters to share where they anticipate the economic engines necessary for future redevelopment will come from. Mr. Kleitsch said he would not paint such a dire picture of office buildings in Lynnwood. Many of them were flipped during the peak of the market at incredibly high prices, but they have been successful in improving occupancy rates over the recent months. The City of Lynnwood is working to attract professional businesses and their employees to the City. The strength of these buildings will drive up rents, making development more feasible. He recognized that developments will need tenants and users in order to be successful, and these will come from the overall strength of the Puget Sound economy in the future. When the economy recovers, he predicted rents would increase once again. He noted that most of the businesses that have located in Lynnwood have done so because they want to be close to their employees who favor Lynnwood as a place to live because housing is more affordable. Mr. Caulfield observed that economic cycles go up and down, and Mountlake Terrace is looking at the current economic situation as an opportunity. Their town center focus is not on additional commercial office space. Instead, they are interested in neighborhood retail projects and housing. He stressed the importance of cities being prepared so they are able to take advantage of improvements in the economy. Ms. Battuello agreed that, at the current time, there is a significant amount of vacant office space. However, offices projects are still being developed in Bothell, and they are getting filled up. She pointed out that four business parks were constructed in Bothell after the last recession in 1985. Board Member Lovell asked each of the presenters to identify the primary force that made their plans move forward. Mr. Caulfield answered that the momentum was started by the City Council. They trusted in the process and stuck to the plan. They also relied heavily on the staff who had been through similar processes before. The City Council was nervous about opening the public process, but they were pleasantly surprised at the number of citizens who participated. He summarized that it is important to Mountlake Terrace that Edmonds succeed in their economic development efforts. The types of issues they all face do not end at the municipal boundaries. Ms. Battuello stressed the importance of making sure there is room for everyone in the process. The City would receive more buy in from the public if they feel they were part of the process. The best deals are forged under fire, and the more the community gets together, the more they will believe in the plan when the going gets tough. Mr. Kleitsch again said the Puget Sound Regional Council’s growth projections and the community’s desire for a city center were driving factors behind Lynnwood’s economic development plan. In addition, a group of developers saw potential opportunities for redevelopment and stepped up with financial support and leadership to convince the City Council to move DRAFT Joint Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 6 Packet Page 219 of 248 forward with the necessary plans for creating a vision for the City and putting in place development and zoning regulations to implement the plan. Commissioner Senderoff observed that all three stressed the importance of city council and community involvement. Economic development staff was also an important element in each of the plans. He asked the presenters to share information about how much of their city budgets are devoted to economic development. Mr. Kleitsch said Lynnwood has a fully-staffed Economic Development Department and an annual budget of about $350,000, which is a small fraction of the City’s budget. At this time, the economic development department is working to get new development and investment and increase the City’s revenues, and the City Council and community have acknowledged the importance of their efforts. Mr. Caulfield advised that Mountlake Terrace does not have a stand-alone Economic Development Department, but economic development is a high priority of the City. The Community Services/Economic Development Director spearheads the City’s economic development activities, and they have been able to accomplish their goals by using their existing resources. The City Council recognizes they could accomplish more if they had a stand-alone Economic Development Director, but there is no funding available at this time. Ms. Battuello said her responsibilities are dedicated to economic development, and she has an annual budget of $230,000. However, the Community Development Department is spearheading the Downtown Revitalization Plan, and the City Manger has worked on the Utility Master Plan, etc. She summarized that it takes all departments to accomplish full implementation of their plans, as well as a precision focus on the goals. Mr. Kleitsch agreed it is important to work in tandem with the planners, code enforcement, city council etc. They do not need a large Economic Development Department because they have other resources within the City. He said his first years at Lynnwood were spent building a facilitating culture. For example, they conducted a permit audit and changed some of their regulatory approaches to facilitate development applications. He summarized that all departments need to work together. Mr. Clifton expressed thanks on behalf of the Mayor, the City Council, the Commission and the Board for each of the presenters taking the time to share their knowledge and experience. The information they provided is valuable and would be shared on Channel 21 for the community to view, as well. He advised that additional questions of the Commission and Board could be sent to him and he would forward them to the appropriate individuals for a response. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. DRAFT Joint Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission Minutes December 9, 2009 Page 7 Packet Page 220 of 248 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ENABLING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ON ISSUES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CITY-WIDE "VISION." WHEREAS the City Council has been called upon by the Citizens Economic Development Commission to Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center) and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to attract redevelopment and to develop a community vision that addresses a balance between quality of life and growth objectives while furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives, and WHEREAS development of neighborhood business plans and a community vision require consideration of the views and opinions of residents and local business and property owners and anyone else with good ideas to share; NOW THEREFORE the City Council of Edmonds hereby resolves to hold seven meetings over the next seven months, each chaired by a different City Council member seeking the views of anyone who wishes to comment on how to achieve successful Neighborhood Business Centers to promote local economic development and quality of life for residents of Edmonds and on the community vision that should guide planning and budgeting for the City's future, the seven meetings to be held regarding the Stevens Hospital area, Highway 99, the Downtown Waterfront Activity Area, 5 Corners, Perrinville, Westgate and Firdale Village; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, such meetings may be facilitated by third parties or simply directed by the responsible assigned City Council member, each of whom shall be responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive report of proceedings of each meeting; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council shall meet no later than November 30, 2010 to articulate the results of the meetings, plans for initiation of Neighborhood Business Centers, and a community vision that addresses the balance between quality of life and growth objectives while furthering Edmonds's "green" initiatives. Passed, Approved, and Adopted this _____ day of ___________, 2010. ____________________________________ MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 221 of 248 AM-2886 12. Resolution re: Citizens Economic Development Commission Recommended Items Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Councilmen Bernheim & Peterson Time:30 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Resolution regarding Citizens Economic Development Commission recommended items. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action April 21, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Resolution No. 1198 related to addressing long-term revenue challenges facing the City of Edmonds and directed staff to create an ordinance forming the Citizens' Economic Development Commission. June 2, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which amended the Edmonds City Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.75, thus creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission. City Council heard and discussed, during the 2010 retreat, the recommendations of the CEDC. On February 17th 2010, Council and the CEDC had a joint meeting to further discuss the goals and recommendations of the CEDC. Attachment 1: Resolution No. 1198 Attachment 2: Ordinance 3735 Attachment 3: February 2010 Council Retreat Minutes Attachment 4: February 17, 2010 DRAFT CEDC Minutes Narrative Since the passage of Ordinance 3735 creating the CEDC, this Commission has met numerous times and has unanimously presented six goals and recommendations to the Council. Council President Bernheim and Councilmember Peterson ask that the attached resolution be approved. Attachment 5: Bernheim-Peterson Draft Resolution Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attach 1 - Reso No. 1198 Packet Page 222 of 248 Link: Attach 2 - Ord. 3735 Link: Attach 3 - Feb 2010 Council Retreat Minutes Link: Attach 4 - Feb 17 2010 DRAFT CEDC Minutes Link: Attach 5 - Bernheim-Peterson Draft Reso Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:08 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 11:20 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 03/08/2010 11:36 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 223 of 248 Packet Page 224 of 248 Packet Page 225 of 248 Packet Page 226 of 248 Packet Page 227 of 248 Packet Page 228 of 248 Packet Page 229 of 248 Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 5-6, 2010 Page 4 live July 2011. The Department received two significant grants in 2009; $39,000 from the U.S. Department of Justice used to purchase equipment and technology to assist automated reporting, and a $30,000 grant from the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority to purchase an automated vehicle license plate reader. The Street Crimes Unit became operational in 2009 and focuses on burglaries, vehicle prowls, theft, prostitution, graffiti and drug offenses. The Department received re-accreditation in November 2009. As part of that process, the Department was provided a template for a Best Practices Policy and Procedure manual. That manual will be available on the website when it is complete along with the Annual Report. The Edmonds Municipal Court in cooperation with the Police Department purchased video arraignment hardware that allows the Judge to conduct arraignments in non-trial proceedings remotely with the defendant at the Snohomish County Jail, eliminating the need to transport defendants, reducing overtime and enhancing overall public safety. Contract negotiations are coming up in 2010 for 2 bargaining units, commissioned staff and support staff. Medical insurance will be an issue. He urged the Council to continue to maintain a competitive salary and benefit package to allow Edmonds to continue to attract the best. He advised the Department and the Police Foundation plan to request a $2,000 contribution from the Council for the Edmonds Night Out Program. He described efforts to seek out training for officers, sergeants and management and his plans to hire a Police Services position and three replacement Police Officers positions this year due to turnover. He asked for the Council’s continued support for operations. C. Economic Development Commission View Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton distributed the 2009 Annual Report from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board. EDC Chair Frank Yamamoto reviewed the action items in the EDC’s presentation (act now, fund a full-time Economic Development Director position and budget, create a Strategic Plan that focuses on economic development, initiate neighborhood business center plans, evaluate Harbor Square plan and support process for redevelopment, and move forward with fiber optics). He noted the Council had taken action on one item, appointing two Councilmembers to the EDC. He urged the Council to provide direction to the EDC at their February 17 meeting. Council President Bernheim suggested Councilmembers send the EDC a letter with their comments regarding the report. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested updating the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Topic 2: Annual-Biannual Budget Structure and Outlook Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained Washington currently levies a 1.28% tax on all real estate sales; local entities (cities and counties) can levy an additional tax. Edmonds has imposed an additional 0.50% divided equally between REET 1 (Fund 126) and REET 2 (Fund 125). He read the definition of REET 1 and REET 2, highlighting the differences in the definition with regard to parks. He reviewed REET rates in other cities, and the schedule of REET 2 and REET 1 revenues and expenses for 2008–2010. Discussion followed regarding land purchased with REET funds in 2009, which REET could be used for purchase of the Skipper’s property, progress of the REET flexibility bill being considered by the Legislature, and use of Fund 132 to isolate expenditures from the REET funds. Comparison of Last Quarter Top 25 Monthly Voucher List 2008 to 2009 Mr. Hines reviewed the top 25 payables for October, November, December 2008 and 2009, highlighting contributions to retirement for staff, AWC benefits, and construction projects, summarizing most of the larger payments were related to payroll and Public Works. Packet Page 230 of 248 CITY OF EDMONDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION February 17, 2010 The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chair Frank Yamamoto in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Bruce Faires Stacy Gardea Don Hall Darrol Haug Betty Larman Mary Monfort Evan Pierce David Schaefer Rich Senderoff Kerry St. Clair Ayers Bill Vance Rob VanTassell Bruce Witenberg Rebecca Wolfe Frank Yamamoto Marianne Zagorski COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Beatrice O’Rourke ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Councilmember Buckshnis Councilmember Peterson Councilmember Orvis Councilmember Plunkett Councilmember Wilson Councilmember Fraley-Monillas STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Jeannie Dines, Recorder PUBLIC PRESENT John Quast Tony Shapiro Ron Wambolt Roger Hertrich Stan Piha 1. INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTS BY CHAIR Commissioners and staff introduced themselves. Chair Yamamoto welcomed new Commissioner Mary Monfort. 2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA – NONE 3. APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 6 AND JANUARY 13, 2010 COMMISSIONER ST. CLAIR-AYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 6 AND JANUARY 13, 2010. COMMISSIONER PIERCE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 1 Packet Page 231 of 248 Councilmember Wilson explained his view of economic development was in terms of attracting people to Edmonds to shop and live and doing that requires a vision. To reach that vision, it is necessary to answer the question who are we as a community, what are our assets and how can they be promoted, what are the liabilities and how can they be limited and can how all those things be tied together. With regard to the kind of community, Edmonds has three dominant characteristics, 1) frugal, will spend money for a good deal that makes sense and is a wise investment; 2) family centered, if it’s good for families its probably good for the community; and 3) modest, not out to be the biggest or best. With regard to assets and things to promote, he suggested the strongest asset was the waterfront area because it brought in tourists followed by downtown, the historic district, the school district which attracts families, and Stevens Hospital. He commented the importance of Stevens Hospital, envisioning it would be critical to the City’s future. The second most important asset is the fiber optic capacity and potential. The City’s biggest liabilities are, 1) it is long way from any place; it takes commitment to come to Edmonds, 2) there is high degree of leakage of commercial dollars, and 3) the retail stock is severely under capitalized; there needs to be contiguous retail downtown. The community can get around those three liabilities by focusing on Transit Oriented Developing, moving people rather than just cars, such as ensuring growth on SR 104 fosters bus service. With regard to leakage, he commented that was fundamentally internal/stakeholder marketing. With regard to retail stock, buildings downtown need to be redeveloped. With regard to how to tie everything together, his vision includes another fountain/roundabout at Sunset & Main with retail throughout that corridor to provide a pedestrian experience for that five block area. He envisioned that would begin to change the dynamics and economics of how the waterfront, the Skippers, Antique Mall and Harbor Square connect to downtown. Even if a property owner could redevelop under the current code, it was unlikely because they could go elsewhere and make more profit. He concluded as a result, the community was under-developed. A critical question for the EDC is how to change the economics to support development when the Council is not willing to change height limits. He suggested it could be done by adding public assets to incentivize redevelopment such as a fountain/roundabout at Sunset & Main, a sculpture garden anchored at Sunset & Main, etc. For the neighborhoods, Councilmember Wilson suggested not much needed to be done other than to continue to invest in things that draw people such as sidewalk construction, traffic speed mitigation, etc. which in turn increases property values and provides funds for basic services. Councilmember Wilson commented an easy question for the EDC to address is how make the Stevens Hospital area a hub for healthcare activity in Snohomish County. Solving that issue would improve the City’s future. Transit Oriented Development is another important element. With regard to the process, the Council is counting on the EDC to bring them solutions, something that can be implemented right away. He urged the EDC to tackle the hard questions themselves rather than bringing them to the Council. He encouraged the EDC to ask the Council for additional resources and to do more work, to work harder and to work faster. He questioned how the EDC could provide a solution by December 1, 2010 meeting only once a month. He encouraged the EDC to inform the Council what they needed money, staff, consultants, etc. He summarized he was willing to do anything he can to support the EDC’s effort. Commissioner Hall commented it all came down to the Council as the City would need to invest money via a levy, bond, etc. for improvements such as Councilmember Wilson’s suggestion for a fountain/roundabout at Sunset & Main. Councilmember Wilson agreed funding will definitely be an issue. He suggested the EDC reach an agreement on a project such as how to connect the 5th to Sunset corridor on Main. He acknowledged a levy will be necessary and he envisioned it would pass as soon as Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 2 Packet Page 232 of 248 April if the Council placed it on the April ballot because Edmonds citizens support a good deal. Commissioner Hall suggested the EDC provide the Council a recommended priority for projects to include in a levy. Commissioner St. Clair-Ayers asked if there were any contingency funds available to support implement of something or did the EDC first have to identify something to cut from the budget. Councilmember Wilson responded the Council wanted to hear the EDC’s proposals even if they required financial resources. He was willing to work on identifying extra money to implement a good proposal. Commissioner Faires explained the EDC was seeking guidance from the Council regarding strategies that would ultimately be successful. The EDC has assumed the Council is not supportive of increasing building heights in the BC zone. Councilmember Wilson suggested the EDC begin without increasing height limits. He relayed there was no support on the Council for a height increase at 5th & Main, there may be some openness to height increases at Sunset & Main although it was unlikely a majority of the Council would support it, and he was open to hearing the Port’s case for an increase in the height limits at Harbor Square. Commissioner Witenberg commented the EDC takes its responsibility seriously; they presented the Council six unanimous recommendations and asked for the Council’s feedback. He recognized each Councilmember had his/her opinion about specific issues; the EDC is seeking guidance from the Council as whole with regard to the six recommendations. He suggested the Council adopt a resolution supporting the EDC’s recommendation which would send a message to the community that the Council supported the EDC. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was very impressed with the diversity of the EDC. She explained when she was elected, it was suggested she may want to change the EDC appointments made by the Councilmember she replaced. She chose not to due to the importance of maintaining consistency and diversity. With regard to the EDC’s six recommendations, first, she supported an Economic Development Director position, but acknowledged it depended on the City’s finances. She also expressed support for developing a Strategic Plan and updating it annually. She supported development of Neighborhood Business Center Plans, pointing out her interest in developing other areas of the City in addition to the downtown core. Firdale Village was a great start. With regard to Harbor Square, she was interested to see what comes out of that process; envisioning redevelopment of Harbor Square would demonstrate the impact of the economy on the City. With regard to the fiber optic network, she recognized it would generate revenue but the question remains whether the City can afford to pursue it. With regard to green initiatives, she supported bringing green development/businesses to the City. Edmonds is a transportation hub; Highway 99 is a great location for green businesses due to the variety of transportation modes. She encouraged the EDC to look hard at development throughout the City and not get sidetracked on the old Safeway property. She suggested the EDC work on areas where they could make changes such as Harbor Square or Five Corners. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her appreciation for the EDC efforts and encouraged the EDC to come to Council with a solid plan, noting if EDC could not agree it was unlikely the Council would agree. She summarized the current Council was progressive and was willing to take steps to improve the future. She encouraged the EDC not to throw the hard questions at Council expecting an easy solution. Councilmember Plunkett commented he receives the EDC’s minutes and listens to recordings of the meetings, remarking the EDC did a great job discussing and interacting. He was encouraged with the future of economic development in Edmonds due to the EDC’s presentation of a work product. His understanding was the EDC was looking for direction from the Council whether they were on the right Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 3 Packet Page 233 of 248 track. With regard to a full-time Economic Development Director, he explained the Council has adopted an Economic Development Plan, specifically Section C speaks to that issue and he believed the Council would like to move forward in that direction. With regard to developing, reviewing and annually updating a Strategic Plan, he pointed out the adopted Economic Development Plan refers to an annual update. The Planning Board has a placeholder on their agenda for updating the Economic Development Plan. With regard to initiating Neighborhood Business Center Plans, Councilmember Plunkett advised Sections 2B and 2H of the Economic Development Plan address that. With regard to supporting the process for redevelopment of Harbor Square, he pointed out Sections 2A, 2D, 3A addressed redevelopment opportunities such as Harbor Square. Regarding fiber optics, he pointed out this was addressed in Section 3B of the existing Economic Development Plan. He provided a brief update regarding the fiber project, explaining the issue has been in court for the past year. Improvements the City has realized due to the availability of fiber optics include the ability for the Municipal Court to conduct video arraignments. The original intent was to get five non-profit, governmental and educational institutions online which would provide a net profit. After three were online, the costs investment requirements increased. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines is in the process of reanalyzing costs/investments before the City moves forward. If fiber optics makes economic sense, there is tremendous revenue potential. With regard to developing a community vision, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out that was addressed in Section 4B of the Economic Development Plan. He concluded the Council endorsed the EDC’s six proposals, the EDC had captured what was already reflected in Council policy and was headed in the right direction and he encouraged them to move forward. Commissioner Pierce referred to Councilmember Plunkett’s indication that Section 2B and 2H of the Economic Development Plan address Neighborhood Business Centers, explaining the EDC wants to implement plans for Neighborhood Business Centers. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Comprehensive Plan was changed in some areas such as Five Corners; now the zoning needs to be changed. He supported having the property owners at Five Corners participate in that cost. Commissioner Pierce pointed it may be preferable to have a City-driven rather than property owner- driven process so that the zoning, etc. would be ready when the economy rebounds as well as to accommodate a community outreach effort. Councilmember Peterson asked when the Economic Development Plan was adopted. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton answered December 2006. Councilmember Peterson pointed out in December 2006 the economy was on fire, yet nothing was done. The City now has an opportunity to lay the groundwork for when the economy rebounds. He disagreed that the EDC needed to make the hard decisions; Councilmembers are the elected officials, they need to make the hard decisions, lead the charge and find the money. He expressed his support for an Economic Development Director, commenting the City needed to make that investment to be able to compete with surrounding communities when the economy rebounds. He was uncertain how the position would be funded but felt it was up to the Council and the Mayor to comb through the budget to identify funds. He also supported funding a grant writer position, noting many grant processes require a great deal of follow-up. In the new economy, grants will be important part of municipal funding and in the long term, a grant writer position would pay for itself. With regard to annual review of a Strategic Plan, he was unaware that the City had a Strategic Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides a long range view but a Strategic Plan could provide a short term action plan that includes priorities and estimates. He noted a Strategic Plan was not just a wish list; it also included ways to achieve the items in the plan. He summarized the importance of the City Council taking Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 4 Packet Page 234 of 248 a leadership role in incorporating information from the EDC, Planning Board, organizations outside City government etc. into action items. Regarding Neighborhood Center Plans, he explained the City already changed the Comprehensive Plan designation for Five Corners, now the zoning needs to be changed. He suggested the City take advantage of the down economy to work on code and zoning changes to put Edmonds on the leading edge with regard to green buildings. Firdale Village was a great first step but that was owner-driven. He preferred zoning and redevelopment opportunities be citizen-driven. He was concerned that asking property owners to contribute financially may taint the process such as happened with the Work Group of 33. Although that group had many great ideas, their ideas were suspect because they were viewed as developer manipulation. He suggested creating a vision by asking for input from neighborhoods. With regard to Harbor Square, he recognized that as an excellent opportunity and an example of how the City could better partner with the Port and environmental groups such as Friends of the Edmonds Marsh. The Port has done a great job and he did not want to hamper that process and he wanted the Council to be willing to have tough discussions such as about building heights. If the Council was not interested in considering increased building heights for Harbor Square, he suggested Council state that now. He supported all six recommendations; if the Council as a whole did not, he recommended they make that clear so that the EDC can concentrate on the recommendations the Council does support. Regarding fiber optics, he deferred to Councilmember Plunkett’s comments. He acknowledged fiber optics was changing fast and he was hopefully there would be opportunity to generate revenue and possibly an opportunity to leverage new development. With regard to community vision, he commented the organization Imagine Edmonds wants to bring in a professional who would gathers stakeholders and citizens together to develop a community vision. The Edmonds Bowl has been the center of attention in many years but there is a lack of connection to the remainder of the City which results in commercial leakage. He summarized the EDC provided an action plan, it is up to the Council to implement it. He understood the EDC needed the Council to voice their support for the EDC’s efforts and be willing to make what may be unpopular decisions to the minority but the right decision for the majority. Commissioner Zagorski commented the EDC was aware the City has an adopted Economic Development Plan; the EDC is interested in an action plan. The EDC’s recommendations were what could be worked on and accomplished during 2010. Councilmember Peterson urged the EDC to keep the Council on task with regard to the action items. Mr. Clifton pointed out Appendix 1 contains five pages of additional ideas/proposals for economic development. Out of all those ideas, these are the six that the EDC wanted action taken on this year. If any of the six are a lesser priority than those in Appendix 1, he requested the Council inform the EDC. The EDC is seeking the Council’s assistance in implementing these six items. Commissioner Wolfe referred to Council President Bernheim’s letter to the EDC that references plans for community meetings and asked if the Council was supportive of that idea. Councilmember Peterson provided an example of community meetings held by Shoreline regarding development on Hwy. 99 that involved a UW graduate student program. Commissioner Wolfe suggested the Economic Development Commissioners be involved in those meetings. Councilmember Buckshnis announced Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and she plan to hold Town Meetings the last Friday of each month from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at various locations throughout the community for the purpose of engaging the community. Commissioner Vance suggested that could be a venue for gathering community feedback on the EDC’s specific efforts. Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 5 Packet Page 235 of 248 Commissioner Larman commented the EDC was asking the City Council for clear, simple direction but Councilmembers were dancing around the question and not providing clear direction. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was impressed with the EDC’s efforts. She agreed with Commissioner Larman’s comment, advising she asked to be the Council representative to this Commission and believed all six recommendations were doable. She agreed the City needed a full-time Economic Development Director; the budget is tight and the Council is working on implementation of a fiscal policy. In the interim, she suggested utilizing Imagine Edmonds volunteers. The most important task is to develop a brand for the City, whether it is an art community, a festival city, the city by the shore, a runners’ paradise, etc. With regard to developing and annually updating a Strategic Plan, she planned to hold monthly community meetings to gather public input. The Comprehensive Plan designation was changed for Five Corners, now the zoning needs to be changed. The Council also needs to develop a fiscal policy because if the budget is controlled, there are funds for these efforts. She agreed the City needed to develop a Strategic Plan. With regard to initiating Neighborhood Plans, she expressed support for a roundabout at Five Corners. She suggested the EDC make a proposal regarding what they wanted at Five Corners. She stressed the importance of soliciting businesses who want to move into the City such as McMenamins, Fred Meyer, Walgreens, Traders Joes, etc. and ask them what they need before buildings are constructed. She commented on the need to encourage retail traffic throughout the entire corridor and the value of the Skippers property to the community. The Town Hall meetings are intended to gather input from residents outside downtown. With regard to Harbor Square, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested being imaginative. She agreed Harbor Square was a good first step. She agreed with Councilmember Plunkett that the fiber optics project needs to be reanalyzed. With regard to being a green community, she recommended moving forward with that because it is the future. She assured the Council will work with the EDC to get things done this year. Councilmember Orvis suggested utilizing the City’s strengths such as its history, arts, and the environment to bring visitors to the City and to formulate a brand. He expressed support for planning that involved the public. He was supportive of moving forward with Neighborhood Center Plans, acknowledging he has not always been supportive of Neighborhood Plans primarily due to the degree. He suggested working with the areas around the Neighborhood Centers to ensure they achieved what they wanted. He commented on the importance of stepbacks which he viewed as the key to making development in Neighborhood Centers work. With regard to development on the waterfront; he was satisfied with the current heights and would not support an increase. He explained only a portion of the waterfront was 25+5 feet; south of Dayton the height limit was 35 feet, the height limit in the Marsh with a CUP is 60 feet, south of the Marsh the height limit is 45 feet and up on the hill up to 48 feet is allowed. There is also a high rise node in the CG1 and CG2 zones that allow heights as high as a developer wanted with CUP. He supported moving forward with fiber optics and he supported green development, noting that was one of the City’s strengths. Commissioner Vance asked how Councilmembers defined “tourist.” Councilmember Buckshnis answered she and her husband are perfect tourists; they take numerous day trips to places such as Port Townsend, Leavenworth, Poulsbo, go to brew pubs, enjoy the scenery, shop, etc. A bigger hotel in Edmonds would bring in more tourism. She remarked the Edmonds Center for the Arts and development of the 4th Avenue Corridor could make Edmonds a huge art community combined with its history and Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 6 Packet Page 236 of 248 green initiatives. Commissioner Vance commented his definition of a tourist was to attract them and take their money. Councilmember Plunkett commented the key to tourism is having things that attracts visitors and brings them back such as Rick Steves Day. Councilmember Peterson commented tourism was important to him as a downtown business owner. However, is not the answer, it is important part of the answer but the City needs to concentrate on economic development that builds a stronger foundation, brings in jobs, addresses leakage, etc. The City needed to offer things that bring visitors to the City on a consistent basis. Councilmember Orvis explained his definition of a tourist was someone who comes to the City, spends money, and possibly moves here. There are opportunities for increased density which also helps businesses. He referred to an article on his blog regarding areas with taller buildings that have higher property taxes than Edmonds. Commissioner Senderoff commented a tourist was also someone who lives in Edmonds but does not generally go downtown, to Hwy. 99, or the waterfront but something attracts them and they begin going to those areas on a regular basis. The answer is not necessarily major density in Neighborhood Centers but the City needs to do a better job of marketing to residents and local tourists. Commissioner Gardea asked why Councilmember Orvis was not always supportive of Neighborhood Plans. Councilmember Orvis answered it has been an issue of degree – whether it was necessary to have commercial on the first floor with two stories or three stories of residential. For example in Five Corners he felt it should have only been two stories of residential. He noted with stepbacks a building could look like a three story building in the front with four stories in the back. He did not support the Firdale Village plan because he felt there were not enough building stepbacks. Mr. Clifton summarized five of the six Councilmembers expressed general support for addressing these six items this year. If so, from an implementation perspective, the issue was identifying funding and staff resources. Councilmember Buckshnis advised Councilmember Plunkett and she were working on financial policies at the Council Finance Committee. In response to a question, Mr. Clifton explained approximately 40% of his time is devoted to Community Services, 40% to economic development and 20% to engineering and planning issues. Councilmember Orvis commented his concern regarding development in Neighborhood Centers was less about height and more about how it would look to the immediate neighbors. He offered to present information regarding building heights and stepbacks at a future EDC meeting. With regard to funding, Commissioner St. Clair-Ayers relayed that Council President Bernheim suggested the EDC identify budget cuts to fund the Economic Development Director position. Councilmember Plunkett responded the EDC could make suggestions but agreed that was the Council’s responsibility. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested utilizing Imagine Edmonds. With regard to the sections of the Economic Development Plan cited by Councilmember Plunkett that align with the EDC’s recommendations, Commissioner St. Clair-Ayers suggested posting quarterly status reports on the goals in the Economic Development Plan. She recalled one of cities who made a presentation to the EDC said that was the most power tool for keeping progress/lack of progress visible and ensuring decisions were in line with those goals. Councilmember Peterson commented EDC will need to ensure issues are discussed and acted upon by the Council. Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 7 Packet Page 237 of 248 Commissioner Faires commented on the importance of establishing reasonable expectations. The EDC developed six initiatives; the heavy lifting has not yet started. The EDC is seeking the Council concurrence that they will move forward with the EDC. Commissioner Witenberg explained the EDC’s and Council’s expectation is transparency and community involvement. He suggested the Council pass a resolution expressing support for the six initiatives and urge the community to support them. Quarterly progress reports will reflect implementation of initiatives so they do not get overlooked. He assured Mr. Clifton has identified businesses; other cities have a full- time Economic Development Director and the budget to identify businesses and entice them to their community with shovel-ready zoned properties. Councilmember Buckshnis assured the Finance Committee was in the process of developing a fiscal policy; there are financial issues that need to be addressed. . Chair Yamamoto commented there are other options such as restructuring. It will take money to make money. Commissioner Wolfe agreed with Commissioner Witenberg’s suggestion regarding a resolution. She suggested establishing citizen groups comprised of three members to talk to prospective businesses to learn what they need. Commissioner Senderoff agreed it appeared the Council supports the six points. He clarified the Strategic Plan was an Action Plan for the current year. He envisioned a Strategic Plan that would establish goals with measurable elements for each and suggested formulating an Action Plan be one of the EDC’s action items; goals could include developing a brand, increasing hotel stays by a certain percentage, etc. Chair Yamamoto cautioned against this effort meeting the same fate as other economic development plans where nothing is done. Commissioner St. Clair-Ayers commented it would send a more powerful message to the community if the Council expressed support for the six recommendations with one voice. Chair Yamamoto offered to contact Council President regarding developing and scheduling a resolution of support on the Council’s agenda. Commissioner Vance offered to do a business case on fiber optics, not whether the City could make money but its use as an economic development tool. Mr. Clifton commented when the EDC met only on a monthly basis, it was difficult to move in an expeditious manner. Consideration is being given to creating a focus group to develop a draft framework of implementation measures that could be presented to EDC. Councilmember Peterson suggested creating an Action Plan for this year and a Strategic Plan for the next 3-5 years. 5. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS Future agenda topics include Survey Monkey and Councilmember Orvis’ height and stepback PowerPoint presentations. 6. MISCELLANEOUS – None 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, referred to a comment regarding shovel-ready zoned projects, explaining he was working with a doctor’s group on a development near Stevens Hospital. There is property on 220th that is zoned single family but is within the boundary of the hospital zone, yet the Comprehensive Plan Page 8 Packet Page 238 of 248 Economic Development Commission Draft Minutes February 17, 2010 Page 9 does not permit medical offices. To change the Comprehensive Plan and a rezone process would put the development on hold for two years. He suggested proactive involvement by staff to change Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning to allow the hospital zone to expand and accommodate growth that affiliation with Swedish Hospital will bring. He suggested the City also look at under- developed parcels in the hospital area and proactively change the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Stan Piha, Hwy. 99 Task Force, explained he owned a transitional property that was burdened with existing zoning that was inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 99 Plan. He suggested looking at what other cities have done and are doing. He suggested the City could implement policies and programs in 2010 to get the economic engine moving without spending a great deal of money. Donna Breske, distributed materials regarding a site they purchased at 9330 218th Place SW and described their inability to obtain a building permit for the past three years and staff informing them that their lot needed to be the stormwater repository for surrounding 2.5 acres. 8. ADJOURN With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Packet Page 239 of 248 RESOLUTION NO: _______ PROPOSED Resolution in Support of January 2010 Economic Development Commission Recommendations WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has made economic and tourism development two of its top priorities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Edmonds desires to find appropriate ways to maintain existing businesses, attract new businesses and industries, find new sources of and increase city revenues, increase tourism, and improve the quality of life for the citizens of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Edmonds adopted Ordinance 3735 on June 2, 2009 establishing the City of Edmonds Economic Development Commission; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission, as an appointed body intended to represent the views of the City Council and Mayor of Edmonds, have forwarded their unanimous recommendations for the City Council’s consideration and endorsement; and WHEREAS, these recommendations represent actionable items for the year 2010; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Edmonds City Council shall act on the work of the Economic Development Commission and its recommendations including, but not limited to; 1. Ensure that the City’s economic development director position can devote full time to economic development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and activities, 2. Develop a strategic plan and commit to reviewing/updating this plan every year, this includes setting goals and continually assessing progress metrics. 3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center), Perrinville, and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to attract redevelopment. 4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that recognizes the need to generate revenue while emphasizing environmental/community needs and concerns. 5. Initiate and fund a business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optic network. 6. Initiate and fund a business/marketing plan for tourism development. 7. Develop a community vision that addresses quality of life and growth objectives while furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives. Now therefore be it further resolved that the Edmonds City Council shall fund these goals for the first year using $100,000 from funds received by the City from the Fire Department sale to Fire District One and commits to find ongoing funding for the following years. Passed, Approved, and Adopted this _____ day of ___________, 2010... ____________________________________ MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 240 of 248 AM-2902 13. Report on City Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:03/16/2010 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of March 9, 2010. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are copies of minutes from the following City Council Committee Meetings: •03-09-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee •03-09-10 Finance Committee •03-09-10 Public Safety Committee Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: CSDS Committee Minutes Link: Finance Committee Minutes Link: Public Safety Committee Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 11:47 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/11/2010 12:09 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/11/2010 02:28 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/11/2010 11:29 AM Final Approval Date: 03/11/2010 Packet Page 241 of 248 M I N U T E S Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Noel Miller, Public Works Director Council Member Dave Orvis Rob English, City Engineer Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr Rob Chave, Planning Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager The committee convened at 6:50 p.m. E. Further discussion with Climate Solutions. (This item was moved to the beginning of the agenda to enable the presenter to meet another appointment) Eileen Quigley, representing Climate Solutions, reviewed her organization’s purpose and indicated that the next step for Climate Solutions would be to develop a proposal for the city to formally consider. This would be done if the city believes that there is an interest in pursuing this collaboration. The Committee indicated that they believe the Council is interested; Ms. Quigley indicated that Climate Solutions would proceed to develop a proposal for city consideration. ACTION: The Committee indicated that the city is interested in exploring a potential partnership with Climate Solutions, and that Climate Solutions should proceed to the next step of preparing a formal proposal for further Council consideration. A. Discussion on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18. The City Attorney reviewed the proposed amendments to the Title 18 Appeal Provisions and answered questions raised by the Council Members. Council Member Orvis recommended raising the charge from $1.00 per month to $20.00 per month for unlawful utility connections under Section 18.10.030. Council Member Peterson concurred with the recommendation. The Committee also discussed the current penalties provided in Section 18.45.070 for illegal tree cutting. The current fine, established some years back, is $1,000 per day or $500 per tree, with that amount tripling to $3,000 per day and $1,500 per tree for clearing in a critical area or critical area buffer. Given recent discussions with Council regarding the value of trees and the City’s experience in the Point Wells Development, staff suggested that the appropriate penalty for illegal clearing be considered when the City Council reviews tree issues on an upcoming agenda. ACTION: The CS/DS committee recommended this item be placed on an upcoming Council meeting for consideration and approval. B. Review of transportation capital project funding options. In 2009, the Transportation Plan identified many different transportation improvement projects over the next 16 years such as Walkway, Bikeway, Concurrency, and Operations and Maintenance projects. The total cost of all these projects was $105M, with a $64M shortfall. Mr. Bertrand Hauss (Transportation Engineer) discussed the option of increasing Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Packet Page 242 of 248 CS/DS Committee Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 2 2 revenue to fund transportation improvement projects. The initial $20 TBD vehicle license fee was approved by City Council in 2008, but this revenue is only for Operations and Maintenance activities. Any additional TBD revenue (needs voter approval) would help fund transportation projects. He reviewed a chart that indicates potential projects that could be funded with different TBD options ($20, $40, $60, and $80). Mr. Don Fiene, Chair of the Transportation Citizens Advisory Committee, discussed another funding option, consisting of an even split of the REET-2 funding between the Transportation Fund and Parks Fund. Currently, the transfer to Fund 112 only takes place when the REET-2 amount is above $750,000 with the initial $750,000 going to Parks. He also talked about the Olympic View Franchise Fee. ACTION: The CS/DS committee recommended this item be scheduled for discussion during the TBD meeting on 03/23/10. C. Discussion on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees. A Public Hearing is forthcoming in order to implement the updated Traffic Impact Fee Rates approved with the adoption of the 2009 Transportation Plan. Staff is also proposing changes to Section 18.82.030 regarding the administration and collection of traffic impact fees. Mr. Bertrand Hauss (Transportation Engineer) discussed the change to Section 18.82.030-B (Section 18.82-030- B(1) in the ordinance). This change will create a more consistent procedure and the processing will become more efficient. Mrs. Jeannie McConnell (Engineering Program Manager) explained the change to Section 18.82.30(E) (Section 18.82-030-B in the ordinance).She stated that the proposed code revision will allow the City to collect impact fees based on current rates and would not allow vesting of fees based on rates that are in effect at the time of application. This approach is consistent with Washington court rulings which have repeatedly held that impact fees are not the type of development regulations to which a project applicant would vest. She concluded by saying that the proposed code revision also establishes issuance of a business license as a means of collecting traffic impact fees. The current code doesn’t allow for collection of impact fees if a building permit isn’t issued. ACTION: The CS/DS committee recommended this item be placed on an upcoming Council meeting for a public hearing and consideration. D. Discussion of a partnership with Westgate Elementary to develop upgraded neighborhood park elements at the school site. Parks Director McIntosh discussed this partnership proposal and the community objectives of safety, playability, and enhancing the local recreation experience that these types of projects bring. In many cases, such as at Westgate Elementary, school grounds help fulfill neighborhood park needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan and this is an excellent way to leverage City and individual school resources to meet common goals. Councilmembers Peterson and Orvis concurred. The $25,000 budgeted in the City’s 2009-2010 budget for partnership projects combined with funds raised by the Westgate parents and community will enable an additional matching grant from voter approved School District bonds for Capital Partnerships. The total playground and play area improvements project budget will be approximately $190,000. ACTION: The CS/DS Committee recommended placing this partnership project on an upcoming City Council Consent agenda authorizing the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with Edmonds School District #15 to assist in the renovation of the Westgate Elementary playground. Packet Page 243 of 248 CS/DS Committee Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 3 3 F. Proposed draft sign code amendments to clarify definitions and establish criteria for wall graphic murals or artwork. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and Planning Manager Rob Chave discussed a draft outline of proposed amendments in the sign code to clarify how murals and artwork are handled with the sign code with respect to private entities putting murals on privately owned properties. There are several approaches cities take to regulating murals on private properties and at present the City of Edmonds does this through the sign code. Staff suggested that the definition of non-commercial wall graphic which applies to murals include the term mural or artwork, and that the administrative standards for review be outlined in the sign code so that potential applicants will know what is expected in the permit application process. The proposed amendments provide more detail and clarification to the existing sign code with regard to murals and artwork. One significant change is the addition of language to allow some inclusion of letters and words if part of the artistic intent, which is currently not allowed. Councilmembers Orvis and Peterson agreed that the draft amendments provide clarification and that further discussion should take place at Planning Board. ACTION: The CS/DS Committee recommended that this item be sent to the Planning Board and hold a public hearing at Planning Board. The Committee meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Packet Page 244 of 248 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2010 6:50 PM R:\COUNCIL\FINANCE COMMITTEE\03-09-2010\3-09-10 MINUTES.DOCX Present: Councilmember Bernheim Councilmember Buckshnis Staff: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director, Finance and Information Services Brian McIntosh, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Public: Ron Wambolt Bob Stevenson Melissa Johnson Roger Hertrich Councilmember Bernheim called the meeting to order at 6:50 PM. A. Discussion regarding clarification of funding Cemetery operations through Funds 130 and 610 Brian McIntosh, Director, Parks and Recreation Department briefed the Committee on the history of cemetery’s operations and funding sources and uses. Director McIntosh indicated that current law needed to be amended to reflect the cemetery’s long standing practices; and this situation was the result of an oversight when the current law was drafted. The Committee agreed to the change in current law. The Committee also requested that the Cemetery Fund be renamed to the Cemetery Improvement and Maintenance Fund. Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for approval on the Consent Agenda for the 03/23/2010 Agenda. B. Fire District 1 segregation fund proposal The Committee requested that the approximated $596,000 remaining as a result of the sale of fire service related assets be segregated in a separate fund. Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for action on the 4/06/2010 Agenda. Subsequent to the Committee meeting Council President Bernheim placed the item on the 03/23/2010 Agenda. Item C: General Fund Report for the two months ending February 28, 2010 Lorenzo Hines presented the revenue and expenditure trends of the General Fund for period, as well as responded to questions on same. For information only, no further action required. D. Edmonds Fiscal Policies Councilmember Buckshnis presented a draft of the Edmonds fiscal policies for comment. Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for action on an Agenda to be named. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM. Packet Page 245 of 248 Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Page 1 of 3 Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Council Member D. J. Wilson, Committee Chair Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Council Member Steve Bernheim Council Member Diane Buckshnis Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon Public Present: Mike McGinnis, Police Foundation Don Eager, Police Foundation Bruce Witenberg, Police Foundation Barry Brandt The meeting was called to order by Chair Wilson at 6:55 p.m. A. Styrofoam Ban The Committee discussed the proposed ordinance for banning Styrofoam from the City of Edmonds. At the February 5-6, 2010 Council Retreat, the Council had expressed interest in moving forward with a Styrofoam ban. Ms. Fraley-Monillas was interested in a grandfather clause in the ordinance that would allow businesses that have Styrofoam products to exhaust their current supply. Mr. Wilson stated that a one year run-out of Styrofoam products is what he would like to see in the ordinance. That is similar to what is in the Issaquah and Seattle ordinances, and in the proposed ordinance written by Mr. Bernheim. Mr. Wilson suggested that the ordinance be moved directly to the Council for discussion of the effective date of the ordinance. One suggestion was to have the effective date at signing, but not enforce the ordinance until May 1, 2011, giving businesses time to deplete their inventory of Styrofoam products. Ms. Fraley-Monillas discussed the effective date and thought it best to follow the proposed draft ordinance by Mr. Bernheim. Both Council members felt that businesses needed time to reduce their supply of Styrofoam products, and one year after signing of the ordinance was sufficient before enforcement started. Ms. Fraley-Monillas also felt that having a waiver process in the ordinance was important. Packet Page 246 of 248 Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Page 2 of 3 The discussion then moved to the penalty portion of the ordinance. Ms. Fraley- Monillas felt the fine language in the proposed ordinance was satisfactory at $100 for a first offense and $300 for any further offenses. Ms. Fraley-Monillas made the point if you have fines in the ordinance and don’t enforce them, then why have the fines. Action: Move to full Council for discussion. B. Contract with Orchid Cellmark for Touch DNA Testing. ACOP Gannon discussed the reason for the request and how the Police Department will use Orchid Cellmark to help identify suspects in property crimes. The testing process used by Orchid Cellmark is sensitive enough to detect DNA left at a crime scene on items touched by a suspect. The Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory has approved the scientific testing process that Orchid Cellmark uses to enter DNA data into the national data base (CODIS). The cost of the testing is based on the number of samples submitted by the Department. There is no charge if samples are not submitted to Orchid Cellmark. ACOP Gannon was asked what the State Crime Laboratory charges for DNA testing. He responded there is no cost for samples submitted to the State Crime Lab, but because of its backlog of cases, the State Crime Lab will process few DNA samples for property crimes and the turnaround time can be lengthy. With no other discussion on the subject, ACOP Gannon asked that the contract be approved for the next consent agenda. He also advised that the contract had been reviewed and approved as to form by the city attorney. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fraley-Monillas approved the request to go to the consent agenda. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. C. Amendment of EMC 5.05, Animal Control ACOP Gannon explained the proposed changes to EMC 5.05.121 and 5.05.123 (Potentially Dangerous Dog) to provide for an appeal process should a dog be declared potentially dangerous. While this declaration is tantamount to a warning, recent court decisions support a provision for appeal in the interest of due process. This action is consistent with those taken in and by neighboring jurisdictions. The amended ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fraley-Monillas were further advised that the amended ordinance had been reviewed and approved as to form by the city attorney. Packet Page 247 of 248 Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Page 3 of 3 ACOP Gannon asked that the amended ordinance be placed on the consent agenda for approval by the full Council. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fraley-Monillas approved the request to place this item on the consent agenda. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. D. Edmonds Night Out Supplemental Appropriation ACOP Gannon reviewed the history of Edmonds Night Out, which had been sponsored by local Edmonds businesses, and organized by the Police Foundation. He explained that when the Crime Prevention program was cut from the Police Department 2009-2010 budget, the funds for Night Out were also cut. Edmonds Night Out was not held in 2009. He explained that the Police Department supports the Night Out, and is asking for a $3500 appropriation from Council Contingency or other designated General Fund source to cover the costs of an Edmonds Night Out event in 2010. The city has traditionally supported Edmonds Night Out by providing a limited number of police officers to assist with event logistics. Some of that assistance involved limited overtime (est. $1500) since there are insufficient regular on-duty staff to attend Night Out, as well as to be available for 911 calls. The Police Department had also included as part of its previous annual budgets a $2000 appropriation specifically for defraying some of the Police Foundation's hard costs for the event. If authorized by the Council, $2,000 of the appropriation would be used to defray some of the Police Foundation’s costs for the event. The remaining $1500 would fund police officer overtime. Mr. Wilson felt the funding should come from reserve funds (ending balance from the 2009 budget). Both Ms. Fraley-Monillas and Mr. Wilson approved this agenda item for the consent agenda at the next Council Meeting. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Packet Page 248 of 248