2010.04.20 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
APRIL 20, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. AM-2977
(5 Minutes)
Community Service Announcement - Edmonds Bicycle Group
3. AM-2976
(5 Minutes)
Community Service Announcement - Cascade Bicycle Club
4.Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-2992 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2010.
C. AM-2993 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2010.
D. AM-2997 Approval of claim checks #118163 through #118257 dated April 8, 2010 for $336,677.94,
and #118258 through #118440 dated April 15, 2010 for $309,906.00. Approval of payroll
direct deposits and checks #49192 through #49230 for the pay period of March 16 - March
31, 2010 for $644,165.25.
E. AM-2966 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Gavin Hesse (amount undetermined),
Robert E. Thomas (amount undetermined), and Tony Carabello ($4,877.49).
F. AM-2988 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Edmonds-South Snohomish County
Historical Society for the 2010 Edmonds Market.
G. AM-2989 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Edmonds Arts Festival Association
for the 2010 Edmonds Arts Festival.
H. AM-2995 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce for the 4th of July parade and fireworks display.
I. AM-2991 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce for the 2010 Taste of Edmonds.
J. AM-2994 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce for the 2010 Classic Car Show.
K. AM-2979 Authorization for Mayor to sign easement with Public Utilities District #1 of Snohomish
Packet Page 1 of 465
K. AM-2979 Authorization for Mayor to sign easement with Public Utilities District #1 of Snohomish
County for portions of the Pacific Northwest Traction Company right-of-way for purposes of
construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project from 76th Avenue
West to Mathay Ballinger Park, and authorization for the City Clerk to record said easement.
L. AM-3001 Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal Argeement.
M. AM-3000 South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement.
N. AM-2996 Approval of 2010 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi.
O. AM-2982 Proposed Ordinance and Fee Resolution for 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.
P. AM-2970
(5 Minutes)
Resolution in support of bicycle skills and safety training.
Q. AM-2985 Proclamation in honor of Native Plant Appreciation Week, April 25 - May 1, 2010.
5. AM-2984
(5 Minutes)
Proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, 2010.
6. AM-2887
(20 Minutes)
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Edmonds City Code 5.05.060: Dogs on
Public Grounds.
7. AM-2986
(30 Minutes)
Public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapter 18.82 (Traffic Impact Fees) of the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
8. AM-2980
(30 Minutes)
Public Hearing on a proposed Ordinance to adopt a revised Edmonds Community
Developement Code Chapter 18.30, Stormwater Management.
9. AM-2998
(10 Minutes)
Public comment regarding possible purchase of Skipper's property.
10. AM-2917
(10 Minutes)
Public comment on budget cuts.
11. AM-2949
(45 Minutes)
Council review of levy options.
12.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
13. AM-2950
(20 Minutes)
Quarterly update on activities of Cascade Land Conservancy and Sustainable Edmonds.
14. AM-2999 Report on City Council Committee Meetings of April 13, 2010.
15. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
16. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 465
AM-2977 2.
CSA - Edmonds Bicycle Group
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement - Edmonds Bicycle Group
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
CSA - Edmonds Bicycle Group
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/12/2010 10:19
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 3 of 465
AM-2976 3.
CSA - Cascade Bicycle Club
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement - Cascade Bicycle Club
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
CSA - Cascade Bicycle Club
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/12/2010 08:49
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 4 of 465
AM-2992 4.B.
Approve 04-06-10 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
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 April 6, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 04-06-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 11:47 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/15/2010 10:32
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 5 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 6, 2010
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive
session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. He stated the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately one hour and would be held in the Jury Meeting 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 Haakenson, and
Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others
present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Stephen Clifton, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:57 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag
salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson relayed the following changes to the agenda:
Move Consent Agenda Item 2K to Agenda Item 5B
Move Agenda Item 12 to Agenda Item 5C
Add a Presentation on Downtown Redevelopment by Councilmember Wilson as Agenda Item
5D.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Packet Page 6 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117851 THROUGH #118007 DATED MARCH 25,
2010 FOR $878,424.05, AND #118008 THROUGH #118162 DATED APRIL 1, 2010 FOR
$465,748.70.
D. ACCEPTANCE OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
MARCH 2010.
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A STATE OF WASHINGTON
HERITAGE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND (HCPF) GRANT AGREEMENT TO RESTORE
THE EDMONDS MUSEUM EXTERIOR.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY
HOTEL/MOTEL FUND GRANT OF $1,885 FOR PROMOTION OF THE ARTS
COMMISSION WRITE ON THE SOUND 2010 CONFERENCE.
G. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR
CENTER (SCSC) MAIN ENTRY REPAIRS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT.
I. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS A CITY VEHICLE AND TO CONTRACT WITH
JAMES G. MURPHY AUCTIONEERS.
L. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF PATRIOTS DAY, APRIL 19, 2010.
ITEM J: RESOLUTION NO. 1227 – URGING THE WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO ABANDON HIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE PATIENT
PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ENACTED INTO LAW ON MARCH
23, 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett pulled this item as he did not support the resolution.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J.
Councilmember Peterson commented this was not a discussion regarding healthcare but the use of state
funds. He relayed that few people felt there was merit to this lawsuit and that it was a waste of state funds.
Councilmember Plunkett advised state funds associated with the lawsuit were negligible as other states
were pursuing the lawsuit. The Washington State Attorney General was not providing a friendly brief,
only consultation and no state funds being expended.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Staff Introduction
Mayor Haakenson introduced Leonard Yarberry, the City’s new Building Official. Mr. Yarberry briefly
described his background.
Packet Page 7 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 3
3. SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU ANNUAL REPORT
Amy Spain, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, provided statistics regarding tourism in Snohomish
County including a nearly 6% growth in tourism in 2008 (2009 figures not yet available) for a total
economic impact of $911.6 million. She described the impacts of tourism in Snohomish County on
transportation/fuel, restaurants, retail sales, recreation and entertainment as well as employment and local
and state taxes. She noted Snohomish County Tourism Bureau (SCTB) is the least funded tourism
organization in the State and Washington State Tourism is one of the least funded in the nation. The State
Tourism Office is in jeopardy of losing its funding.
She relayed in 2009 there had been a 62% increase in responses to ads and over 430,000 visits to their
websites, a 31% increase over the previous year. Visitor Centers the SCTB manages experienced a 3%
increase in visitors served in 2009 compared to a 3% decrease countywide. SCTB achieved over
$200,000 in free media coverage as a result of their public relations efforts. The off season discount
lodging program advertised to the Canadian market, Rooms at Par, decreased by over 50%. Convention
sales decreased approximately 20% and hotel occupancy was down 8.1% for 2009 along with hotel/motel
lodging taxes.
Trade shows that Bureau staff attended in 2009 generated over 600 leads, included distribution of over
3600 Visitor Guide and Bureau staff provided assistance to 26 groups with their conference needs. She
described unsuccessful efforts to host Olympic teams. She commented on the Snohomish County
Tourism Promotion area; the Snohomish County Council recently adopted a resolution to continue that
process.
Ms. Spain reported on tourism development for individual leisure travel, describing advertising marketed
to various publications that generated over 15,000 requests for information, up 62% over the previous
year, and over 11,000 hits to their Rooms at Par and Your Great Escape websites. She described media
buys in various publications identified to reach the demographic and geographic of their target audience.
She provided their primary website, www.snohomish.org, www.snohomishcountywewddings.com, a
website directed to the wedding market, www.RoomsatPar.com directed at the Canadian market and
www.YourGreatEscapes. She provided a comparison of website visits in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that
illustrate a nearly 100% increase in that three year period. SCTB recently developed a mobi site for
handheld devices and Facebook pages for Snohomish.org, the Snohomish County Sports Commission and
the Snohomish County weddings websites.
She commented on distribution of the annual Visitor Guide, seasonal calendars, and new guides for 2009:
Arts, Cultural and Heritage and Tribal attractions in Snohomish County, and a hiking guide. She
described public relation and media efforts; publication of StoryLine, a bimonthly media newsletter
distributed to travel writers; volunteer hours and services provided at four Visitor Centers; donations from
area businesses; and education provided to the tourism community.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if statistics were available for the first quarter of 2010. Ms. Spain
answered unfortunately there continued to be a decline in occupancy and revenue. February figures
reflected an increase in King County, a slight decrease in Pierce County and a significant decrease, nearly
10%, in Snohomish County. She referenced information provided to the Council that anticipated a 1-3%
decline in occupancy in 2010 nationwide. A recent presentation from the King County Tourism Bureau
and the Vice President of Operations for Starwood Hotels International that also projected a 1-3% decline
in 2010.
Packet Page 8 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 4
4. CONTINUED 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.
City Engineer Rob English explained at the conclusion of the March 16 Council meeting, staff met with
Councilmembers Wilson and Peterson and developed several changes to the ordinance and administrative
policies based on Council input and feedback provided at the public hearing. He summarized the
proposed changes:
1. Removed the 11:00 p.m. restriction. Tables, chairs, etc. can remain in the right-of-way until the close
of business.
2. The right-of-way use fee was reduced to $0.50/square foot per month (plus 12.84% leasehold excise
tax) for exclusive outdoor dining. The original right-of-way use fee was based on the fee charged the
vendor at the ferry holding lanes; this was reduced as it was felt the vendor at the ferry holding lanes
did not pay property taxes that businesses downtown do.
3. An applicant requesting to place art work in the right-of-way will not be required to provide
documentation showing property ownership adjacent to the City right-of-way as there may not be an
adjoining property owner associated with the art work.
4. Minor revisions to the term art work and submittal requirements for the Edmonds Art Commission.
5. Revised the administrative policy to require sketches rather than a scaled plan.
6. The clear zone for pedestrian passage around tables and chairs can be reduced to 4 feet in front of
obstacles (street trees, signs, street lights, etc).
7. The area in front of businesses where general encroachments can be placed without having to be
moved was increased from 24-inches to 36-inches.
Staff developed one additional change and proposed it be included in the final ordinance: art work in the
right-of-way would be exempted from the current requirement to record an encroachment permit at
Snohomish County.
Council President Bernheim recalled at the March 16 meeting he inquired whether revisions could be
made to the regulations to allow the use of a parking space to widen the area available to a restaurant
beyond the sidewalk. He asked if any changes were made to address that issue. Mr. English answered
there were not. Councilmember Peterson commented at the meeting Councilmember Wilson and he had
with staff, it was decided that was out of the scope of the immediate interest in getting outdoor seating in
place for the upcoming summer season but could be a future topic of discussion. He thanked Mr. English,
Mr. Clifton and Ms. Chapin for their assistance in developing the revisions.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the revision that would allow tables and chairs to remain in the right-
of-way until the close of business, pointing out during a special event, businesses may not be open. He
suggested the regulations address circumstances that may occur as part of a special event.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed the owner of the restaurant that had outdoor dining area last year was
unhappy that no one from the City contacted him to solicit his input. Next, Mr. Hertrich inquired whether
the ordinance allows tables and chairs to remain in the right-of-way until the close of business or 11:00
p.m., whichever was earlier. He recommended the ordinance allow tables and chairs to remain in the
right-of-way until the close of business.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Packet Page 9 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 5
In response to Mr. Rutledge, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City typically addressed special
events via individual contracts with the organization such as the Arts Festival, Hot Autumn Nites, the
Summer Market, etc.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment, Mr. English explained the 11:00 p.m. restriction was removed
and items could remain in the right-of-way until the close of business.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND FEE RESOLUTION FOR
ADOPTION ON THE APRIL 20, 2010 CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5A. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TITLE 18, PROCEDURES.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was the second time this had been presented to the Council and
the ordinance had been reviewed line-by-line by the Community Services/Development Services
Committee. The packet includes a comparison of the existing code and the proposed code as well as a
matrix of the changes. Staff reviewed the entire ordinance in an effort to provide clear reference to appeal
procedures in each section. Their effort was based on two premises: 1) these are engineering permits that
are not discretionary and appeal from those permits is generally to the Hearing Examiner, and 2) rights
were not expanded except in the area of a variance/waiver of street grade to allow a steeper street grade
where notification to properties within 300 feet of the proposed grade change was added.
The code previously contained a very nominal fee for an illegal hookup to the City’s sewer system; this
penalty was increased significantly. Mr. Snyder emphasized the appeal procedures in Title 18 will control
unless the engineering requirement is part of a larger application such as a subdivision, PRD or other
development application. In that case, the appeal would be part of that packaged review. The appeal
procedures in Title 18 apply if a request is a standalone and not part of a larger application.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to visibility blockage in Section 18.85.060 regarding an owner who
fails to prune to prevent visibility blockage. He questioned whose visibility this referred to and who
would be penalized. Next, he agreed with increasing the penalties for illegal tree cutting and inquired
about the amount charged for the illegal tree removal on the Pt. Edwards site versus the amount that
would be charged under the proposed ordinance. He suggested the code specifically address illegal tree
removal in a critical area, recalling tree removal on the Pt. Edwards site was not only in a critical area but
also removed a wildlife corridor.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, was hopeful the code was written in a manner so that when a PRD or a project
was proposed, the requirements could be enforced. For example, in a recently proposed PRD adjacent to a
neighborhood with underground wiring, she made an effort to ensure the PRD also had underground
wiring. This effort failed at the Hearing Examiner but succeeded at Superior Court. In her experience, a
PRD application was often approved and then the applicant requested a variance to the underground
wiring requirement which was granted separate from the PFD application with no public notice. She
urged the City to write the ordinance so that the public was notified if an applicant requested a variance at
a later date.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to a case currently under review by the Hearing Examiner in which the
Hearing Examiner asked for an extension of the 10 day period in which she issues a decision. That case
involves land clearing and tree removal. He anticipated the case would be appealed to the City Council.
Packet Page 10 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 6
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s question about visibility blockage, Mr. Snyder explained the proposed
revisions address where in the code penalties can be found. Visibility blockage is defined elsewhere in the
code; visibility blockage refers to impediments to the view of the public as it travels on public or private
easements. The Community Services/Development Services Committee recommended an increase in the
penalty for an illegal sewer connection fee. The Committee also discussed whether the penalty for illegal
tree cutting was adequate, currently $1000/day and $500/tree and tripled to $3000/day or $1500/tree for
clearing in a critical area. Recent discussions of tree value in Native Growth Protection Easements
indicated those penalties are somewhat low. An upcoming Council agenda will include a discussion
regarding trees in general and the Committee felt it would be appropriate to discuss tree value and
whether to raise the penalty at that time. The revisions to Title 18 were intended to provide clear appeal
references and not make substantive changes. Council President Bernheim advised that discussion was
scheduled for the May Community Services/Development Services Committee meeting.
With regard to Ms. Petso’s comment, a variance in a subdivision or PRD from the City’s requirements
should be considered as a waiver in that process. The process in Title 18 is intended to be applicable only
to undergrounding requirement for individual homes and the extension of existing systems rather than
new subdivisions.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3788. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
COORDINATING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 AND TITLE 20 BY AMENDING ECDC
SECTION 18.00.020(C); AMENDING 18.10.010 SEWER CONNECTIONS, SECTION E
HEARING; AMENDING 18.10.030 UNLAWFUL CONNECTIONS; AMENDING 18.30.065
EXCEPTIONS TO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING 18.30.080 ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS, (C) CIVIL PENALTY; AMENDING 18.30.130(C); AMENDING 18.40.120
PROHIBITED ROCKERIES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (B) AND (C) AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION (D); AMENDING SECTION 18.45.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES; AMENDING
CHAPTER 18.60 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 18.60.050 DECISION AND APPEAL;
AMENDING SECTION 18.70.030 (D) APPEAL; AMENDING SECTION 18.80.060 DRIVEWAY
AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS, BY AMENDING SECTION (D) AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION (E) APPEALS; SECTION 18.80.070 STREET SLOPE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION
18.85.060 VISIBILITY BLOCKAGE, (B) ENFORCEMENT; SECTION 18.95.030 TO ADD A NEW
SUBSECTION (C), AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
5B. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE
OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES
(Formerly Consent Agenda Item 2K)
Council President Bernheim explained there were two issues proposed by this ordinance, 1) returning the
appeal of a PRD to the City Council, making it a type III-B application rather that the current III-A where
appeals are to the Hearing Examiner, and 2) clarifying the language so that PRD perimeter buffers are
separate from setback requirements. He explained under the current ambiguous language, a property
owner on the perimeter of a PRD may find their backyard is comprised of the setback and perimeter
buffer. If the intent is to have a perimeter buffer as compensation for the increased density allowed in a
PRD, the perimeter buffer should be separate from backyards and setbacks. He proposed the Council
adopt the Option 1 ordinance included in the packet that would adopt these two revisions on an interim
Packet Page 11 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 7
basis and to schedule a public hearing within the next 1-2 months. He explained the options before the
Council were to adopt the interim ordinance tonight and have these two provisions in place for a six
month period pending a public hearing and further discussion/action. If no further action was taken, the
provisions would expire in six months. The other option was not to adopt the interim ordinance and set a
public hearing prior to any further action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787, ALTERNATIVE 1 IN THE COUNCIL
PACKET.
Mr. Snyder clarified PRD’s allow concentrated density not enhanced density. He explained Council
President Bernheim’s direction to the City Attorney’s office was to prepare an ordinance for public
hearing; it was unclear whether the intent was a public hearing tonight or on a future date. The ordinances
provide both options. Council President Bernheim advised a public hearing would be scheduled for a
future date. Mr. Snyder advised the date of the public hearing was not included in the ordinance; a date
within 60 days should be inserted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3787 – AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE
OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
5C. FISCAL POLICIES (Formerly Agenda Item 12)
Councilmember Buckshnis explained at the Council retreat she was asked to prepare fiscal policies. After
conducting a great deal of research of other cities’ fiscal policies, and discussion with Finance Director
Lorenzo Hines and Councilmember Plunkett she drafted fiscal policies and resolution. After reviewing
the policies, City Attorney Scott Snyder drafted an alternate resolution as well as an ordinance. She
identified sections of her proposed fiscal policies that Mr. Snyder separated into a resolution and an
ordinance and his addition of a section that states the forms and information must be compliant with the
requirements established by the State Auditor. She relayed the conversation Mr. Hines and she had
regarding modified accrual accounting and full accrual accounting; modified accrual accounting is
typically used in municipalities because there is not a net worth or income statement.
She reviewed the changes that would occur when the policies were adopted:
Improved report labeling. She displayed City of Redmond’s reports that are labeled Monthly All
Recap Funds, the month, biennium budget. By comparison, Edmonds’ reports are labeled
Example B.
Including financial information on the City’s website. She displayed financial information
available on the City of Lake Oswego’s website that included budget projections and details that
help the citizens understand the city’s financial condition. The goal will be to provide information
in the finance section of the City’s website.
Providing the fund flow of the General Fund.
Improved narrative of trends and indicators. She displayed the City of Des Moines quarterly
report that provides explanation of revenue and expenses. This provides a framework to support
the City’s financials.
She summarized providing this information on the City’s website would allow citizens to become more
familiar with the City’s financial condition.
Packet Page 12 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 8
Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Buckshnis’ efforts to improve the
transparency of the City’s financial policies. He pointed out the City did not have a Finance Director for
several months which increased the difficulty in understanding the City’s current finances.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what the financial policies would provide the Council and citizens that did
not currently exist. Councilmember Buckshnis responded one of the primary items is the cashflow in the
General Fund. Another is adding the information to the City’s website. She anticipated a levy would be
necessary; in order for a levy to be successful, it will be important for the Council to provide a roadmap
for citizens to educate them regarding the City’s financial condition.
Councilmember Plunkett commented some Councilmembers would like to have certain conditions met
before a levy is place on the ballot. He referred to his interest in labor negotiations and changing the
City’s form of government to Council-Manager. He recognized Councilmember Buckshnis’ focus has
been on the City’s financial policies. He observed Councilmember Buckshnis would be more comfortable
with a levy with improved transparency of the City fiscal policies. Councilmember Buckshnis responded
she envisioned a levy will be needed in the future but until she had a better understanding of the City’s
financial situation and assumptions, she was unable to comment. The fiscal policies are a roadmap to
assist citizens in understanding the City’s financial condition.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why a resolution and an ordinance were necessary. City Attorney Scott
Snyder referred to his memo, summarizing the Council had certain defined budgetary authority. The
powers the Council has under State statute are specified in the ordinance. For example, the Council could
by ordinance define when reports would be provided; under State statute it can be no less than quarterly.
Councilmember Buckshnis has summarized what the City’s financial reporting should look like in a
citizen/user-friendly format; those policies are contained in the resolution. Mr. Snyder clarified the
Council could not require the Finance Director to provide monthly accounting but the Council could
request it. The items the Council does not have the authority to require are contained in the resolution as
requests or standards.
Council President Bernheim clarified the recommended action was approval of Attachments 6, the
resolution prepared by the City Attorney and Attachment 7, the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3789, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.04,
FINANCIAL REPORTING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1226, ADOPTING A FINANCIAL POLICY. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5D. PRESENTATION ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
Councilmember Plunkett questioned why this was added to the agenda at the last minute and why no
information was provided to the Council. Council President Bernheim answered it was added to the
agenda at Councilmember Wilson’s request to introduce the topic of land acquisition as it relates to
economic development.
Councilmember Wilson displayed a PowerPoint presentation entitled The Future of Edmonds Downtown
Activity Center. He explained three weeks ago, the Council directed Council President Bernheim,
Councilmember Buckshnis and him as a committee to review possible land acquisition. A meeting was
held on March 25 that included Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Buckshnis and him,
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manager Rob Chave,
Packet Page 13 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 9
Mayor Haakenson, two Port Commissioners and the Port’s Executive Director, and representatives of the
State. The intent was to get as many of the parties who represent the public and are interested in the
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, the area from the Port on the south to the Skipper’s property on
the north, together around a table. This same presentation was provided at that meeting.
The PowerPoint is being presented to the Council tonight to kickoff an expedited community visioning
process that could reach a conclusion by yearend regarding what the waterfront area could look like as
well as meet the Economic Development Commission’s recommendation for a community visioning
process. The presentation was being made tonight in response to a public records request and a suggestion
that secret meetings were being conducted. Rather than have misinformation circulating, it was
determined it would be appropriate to present this information tonight.
Councilmember Wilson clarified this was not his presentation, it was not the committee’s presentation, it
was an attempt to compile all the information that has been heard in the community. There is no political
agenda, the intent is a fair and open conversation.
Councilmember Wilson explained the presentation addressed four topics:
Assumptions: Interests and goals
Current “state of play”
Future: Thought Exercise or hypothetical
Bottom line
Councilmember Wilson identified the properties under discussion today: Skippers, DOT parking lot and
Harbor Square, recognizing success with those three could lead to future discussion of the Safeway,
Senior Center, Sound Transit, DOT parking at Port and lower Unocal properties. He explained there were
willing players with regard to the three properties (Skippers, DOT parking lot and Harbor Square).
Councilmember Wilson identified the interests and goals of the parties who participated in the meeting:
City of Edmonds
o Do no harm – make sure something very bad doesn’t happen at Skippers or other properties
o Ideal – an engaging public space
Doorway to Edmonds from ferry
An integration of downtown to the Port area
o Common sense , innovative, frugal
Port of Edmonds
o Financial – make Harbor Square increasingly viable
Purchase of land and buildings expensive
Limited occupancy depresses Port budget activities
o Vision – create a vibrant waterfront
Leave a lasting legacy
A new element of the Edmonds community
o Economic development – be a catalyst and driver of economic activity for the community
Department of Transportation/Washington State Ferries
o Add to the safety of ferry passengers
Fund the creation of a pedestrian overpass
Not directly tied to economic development
o Take advantage of situations which offer worthy return on investment like the Edmonds
facility does
Councilmember Wilson reviewed the current state of play for each property:
Packet Page 14 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 10
Skippers
o Owned by the bank
o Offer made and declined for $1 million
o Many interested developers, including various Councilmember and others
Talk about a visioning exercise by City and citizens
Finding the resources is a challenge
WSDOT Property
o Moving toward an exchange for a pedestrian overpass
Deadline for engagement appears to be April 15
Appears to be on a very ambitious and aggressive timeline
Harbor Square
o Interest by Port of Edmonds to bring a redevelopment proposal to the City
o Discussion is around increasing heights to allow for five stories on the property
o Vacancies on site and state of buildings is a significant drain on Port resources
McCaw Foundation
o Invest in project which makes sense from a social impact perspective as well as a financial
return perspective
Project must serve a social good
Money is not the whole reason projects take place
o Committed to northwest communities
Councilmember Wilson reviewed a “thought exercise,” assuring it was not a proposal, it was a purely
hypothetical “what if.” Assumptions in the thought exercise include:
We should work together where we can
o Lot of interested parties
o Sum is greater than the component parts
A little complicated but not really
o Public-private partnerships sometimes take a little extra work
o Tries to keep everyone at the table
Steps in the thought exercise include:
Port of Edmonds wins contract to build pedestrian overpass
o Gets DOT property in exchange upon completion
o No immediate cost
o Timeline: immediate
Proposal includes overpass to connect with Skippers property
Also includes a southerly connector
Port of Edmonds signs option to purchase Skippers property
o Timeline: immediate
o Immediate cost: minimal
Likely through a bank financing mechanism
Includes key commitment from City leaders on future
Port of Edmonds, City Council initiate a visioning process for three parcels (Harbor Square,
Skippers and DOT)
o Process includes citizens, Sound Transit and Community Transit
o Timeline: definite end date of August/September
o Cost: $40,000-$100,000, possibly split between the City, Port and McCaw
May be value in having philanthropic “glue”
Models include the levy work group, Group of 33
Three Council representatives commit to:
o Willingness to go to 5 stories at Harbor Square
Packet Page 15 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 11
o Willingness to go to 38 feet at the DOT site
o Must be within the right context, package, vision
o Not a blank check
o Return on investment driven by social interest rather than purely financial
Council goes to voters with a levy in August
o City’s top priority is operational revenue stability
o Should not make a major acquisition of property before levy revenues are secured
Mixed message to the public and staff
Council threaten City’s primary concern of financial stability
Following a successful levy, City Council uses councilmatic bonds to purchase Skippers property
(possibly DOT too) from the Port
o Eliminates Port’s liability with bank
o City’s commitment allows initial flexible financing between bank and Port
Takes property off market but does not hinder levy campaign
Requires a good faith effort and engagement by all parties
Includes commitment from three Council representatives to purchase from bank
Vision process concludes in the fall
o Integrated development of Skippers and DOT properties and Harbor Square
o Moves Community Transit bus outflow back to James (Councilmember Wilson displayed
maps to illustrate this and the next point)
Makes James a hub for bus traffic in and out
Reduces asphalt and car traffic at Main Street
o Significantly public utility of space at Main and Sunset
Connects foot traffic from ferry to downtown
Draws foot traffic to the DOT parcel
Rezone and Developer Agreement move through the Council
o Begin in late fall and conclude by end of the year
o Includes updated agreements with Community Transit/Sound Transit as needed
o Includes changes to James Street as needed
Port issues RFP for developer
o Rebuild Harbor Square, DOT/Skippers in exchange for compensation
Maybe cash
Could be condominiums/real estate such as 5th floor at Harbor Square, building or area at
DOT
o Work to begin during second quarter of 2012
o Includes pedestrian overpass for ferry
Councilmember Wilson reviewed the bottom line of the above thought exercise:
City of Edmonds
o Controls shape of Skippers/DOT development
Owns land at Skippers and possibly DOT
Ensures a public utility of Skippers that integrates with the DOT property, ferry
pedestrian bridge
o Gets 1-2 new public spaces/buildings
Little to no financial liability to develop parcels
Community vision implemented
o Secures interest in site without threatening viability of an operations levy
WSF/DOT
o Gets pedestrian overpass
Integrates into building on east side of tracks
Not just a landing to street
Packet Page 16 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 12
o Gets two pathways for foot traffic
One path to Skippers property
One bridge southward toward the Sound Transit/Community Transit connection
o No additional cost
Port of Edmonds
o Redevelopment of Harbor Square up to five stories
Once rezoned by City, immediate multimillion dollar increase to assets on balance sheet
Gets predictability, commitments for projects where non would otherwise exist
o Project that integrates into northerly parcels
Councilmember Wilson summarized this thought exercise was one way to reach a community vision, the
City implements the vision and the public entities (State, Port and City) come together perhaps with a
philanthropic organization. He assured the intent of this thought exercise was to begin a conversation that
may lead the community forward.
Councilmember Plunkett asked who set up the meeting between the Councilmembers, staff, the Port and
the State. Council President Bernheim responded Councilmember Wilson had. Councilmember Plunkett
referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment regarding the intent to get public representatives around a
table, pointing out meetings such as this needed to be public. Council President Bernheim explained
Councilmembers Wilson and Buckshnis and he had been delegated by the Council to explore options and
were using their discretion in how they explored the options. Other meetings have been held with citizens,
residents, experts, and others in an effort to gather ideas with the goal of presenting to the public in the
future. He assured Councilmember Plunkett’s comments would be considered by the committee but they
did not intend to have all their discussions announced as public meetings. He assured no decisions were
being made in any of the committee’s meetings. The committee plans to provide the Council and the
public periodic updates on the information they gather.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the meeting did not violate the Open Public Meetings Act,
however, he was uncomfortable with the appearance of a private meeting between three Councilmembers,
City staff, Port Commissioners and DOT. He suggested future meetings be open to the public and
questioned why the same discussion could not occur in a public meeting that occurred in a private
meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the meeting was an informative gathering. She did not necessarily
agree with the information Councilmember Wilson provided but agreed with the spirit in which the
information was provided, an opportunity to think outside the box. For example, she did not support
placing a levy on the ballot in August until the City’s financials were reformed. The meeting was intended
to be fact-finding and Councilmember Wilson’s presentation was thought-provoking and opened up
discussion.
Councilmember Peterson recalled the Council’s objective of appointing three Councilmembers to a
committee was to present the Council with ideas. He was impressed that three Councilmember were able
to get the major players at the table at this early stage. No decisions were made, only ideas were
discussed. He recalled the Economic Development Commission and the public have encouraged the
Council to be bold; this was a bold step. Although he did not agree with the presentation in its entirety, he
agreed with the intent to get a conversation started and to involve the other parties including the Port,
DOT and citizens. He highlighted the suggestion for the City, Port, and perhaps the McCaw foundation
and other citizen groups to contribute to funding a professional visioning process, noting if the elected
officials and civic organizations led that process, it would be community driven instead of development
driven.
Packet Page 17 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her appreciation for the presentation, commenting she had no
problem with the three Councilmembers meeting with the Port and DOT. She was uncomfortable the
presentation appeared to be from the three Councilmembers but this discussion revealed there was not
consensus on the ideas.
Councilmember Wilson clarified none of the three Councilmembers agreed with all the material in the
presentation. The presentation was not a proposal; it was to collect what has been heard in the community
and begin working through it toward building a framework for a solution. He acknowledged the concepts
in the presentation may be politically uncomfortable, recognizing heights were a sensitive issue. He
supported talking about all possibilities particularly in the current climate where there is time, where there
is a group of citizens, the Economic Development Commission, interested in moving forward. He assured
this was the first Council meeting where this presentation could have been provided since the meeting. He
explained the reason some meetings were held in private was to respect the desire of some other parties
not to have everything they said be public. He envisioned members of the Council, Port and/or DOT may
behave differently in a public meeting. He urged the Council not to sidetrack the goodwill put forth by the
three Councilmembers with a quarrel over process.
Councilmember Plunkett requested the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the Council.
Council President Bernheim assured it would. Councilmember Plunkett commented he would be the first
one to sidetrack this process if it was not conducted in public. He did not support the idea that the Port
Commissioners or DOT representatives were uncomfortable speaking in public.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment that the presentation
collected what had been heard in the community however it appeared only to contain data from DOT, the
Port and Council. The community needs to be represented in this process, for example the Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, as development of that area would greatly impact the Marsh. She emphasized the City
consists of more than just the downtown corridor, there is Perrinville, Firdale Village, Ballinger, Aurora,
etc.; everyone needs to be involved.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, viewed Councilmember Wilson’s presentation as a preemptive strike. She
recalled two years ago the Council paused its discussion regarding whether to acquire the Skippers/
Safeway property to allow a willing partner, a private owner, to offer to participate. No offers have been
made by the private sector in those two years. She recalled the owner of the Safeway property was
interested in swapping open space for a height increase to 75 feet and has said he is not interested in
developing the property until the height limit is increased. The Skippers owner at that time was willing to
construct a green building for a height increase to 6 stories. Recently WSF expressed their willingness to
swap their parking lot for a pedestrian bridge. A potential builder commented at the WSF work meeting
that due to political dynamics a project was not feasible because the value of the land was not sufficient
under current zoning height limits. The market considers the Skippers property worthless at this time
unless the height limit is increased. She noted two years ago the residents requested the Council allow the
public the opportunity to say whether they wanted to purchase the property for public use. She
summarized tonight’s presentation and discussion was simply to evade a discussion regarding placing a
measure on the ballot to purchase the property. She suggested that item be struck from the minutes,
finding it highly improper as it was not on the agenda and no public notice had been provided. She
suggested the Council review the minutes of March 25, April 1, May 22, June 3 and August 5, 2008
where this subject has been discussed previously.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the Highway 99 task force appeared to have correctly identified the
problem, that Edmonds citizens spend their money in Lynnwood and Shoreline but misidentified the
solution as developing commercial property with mixed use transited oriented development. She
Packet Page 18 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 14
commented such developments would never be commercially viable, noting none of the money she
spends in Lynnwood and Shoreline is at mixed use developments; it is typically at Fred Meyer, the mall,
etc. She recommended abandoning mixed use transit oriented development as the solution. Next, she
explained the church softball league she has belonged to since her early 20s will either not be playing or
playing in Lynnwood or another city because Edmonds does not have any appropriately sized fields and
the School District, the City’s partner in providing park and recreation services, has a policy that adults
cannot rent elementary school fields. In the past they have used Westgate, Edmonds and Sherwood
Elementary fields for these pickup level softball games. She commented the fields at the Lynnwood
Athletic Complex are above what this league requires and the high school fields are not available. She
summarized pretending the School District would meet the City’s park and recreation needs was useless
and the City needed to plan for playfields for adults.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked those who contributed to the food drive at Top Foods, announcing they
sold 500 bags at $5 each. He recognized Channel 21, Channel 39 and the Edmonds Beacon who
advertised the event. With regard to labor negotiations, he recommended the City negotiate with its
unions in private.
Faye May, Imagine Edmonds, explained they are a small, active group of citizens who all have lived in
Edmonds at least 26 years and have a deep love for Edmonds’ uniqueness, charm, diversity, and
tremendous potential. She read a letter written by Imagine Edmonds member Jack Farris to the Hazel
Miller Foundation explaining Imagine Edmonds’ commitment to the pursuit of a positive future for the
community. Imagine Edmonds members volunteer their time and have no specific agenda other than to
preserve Edmonds specialness and lay the groundwork for the next 100 years. Their objective to engage
citizens throughout Edmonds in a process that combines positive energy, creativity and a shared
commitment to solutions that satisfy the diverse demands of economic development, fiscal viability,
aesthetics, environmental values and community. Imagine Edmonds is convinced that that the
Pomegranate Center has the experience and skill to contribute immensely to this process and their ability
to help the citizens of Edmonds build a better future for themselves, their children and grandchildren. The
starting point is to develop innovative approaches to difficult issues and land use but Imagine Edmonds is
convinced they will be building a stronger community that will be better equipped to meet challenges in
education, public safety and government. Imagine Edmond’s objectives meet the mission of the Hazel
Miller Foundation and will be able to leverage support from the Foundation in the form of a stronger,
more connected and engaged community. Ms. May added that Imagine Edmonds recently received a
letter of endorsement from Rick Steves supporting Imagine Edmonds and their request to the Hazel Miller
Foundation.
Craig Stewart, Imagine Edmonds, reported on a community meeting held in Shoreline conducted by
Pomegranate Center Executive Director Milenko Matanovic regarding public space and private space,
commenting the citizen engagement in that process was amazing. He emphasized the importance of
citizen engagement, envisioning without a master plan that is economically and environmentally
sustainable with substantial citizen involvement and engagement, the City would not get the private and
philanthropic support it could otherwise. He encouraged the Council to consider inviting Mr. Matanovic
to describe what the Pomegranate Center has to offer and what it has done in other cities.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, compared the committee of three Councilmembers discussing property
acquisition to the Group 33 where Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Wambolt participated in secret
meetings with the Port. He urged the Council not to follow Councilmember Wilson’s lead in acquiring the
waterfront property. He was opposed to discussion of increasing building heights in the waterfront as a
tradeoff. He suggested the Council purchase the Skippers property using the $4 billion available via the
federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program to purchase foreclosed property. He suggested the Council
avoid a partnership with the Port as their primary interest was increased building heights. He objected to
Packet Page 19 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 15
being refused entry to the meeting between the three Councilmembers, City staff, Port and DOT. He
anticipated his public records request was what motivated tonight’s presentation.
Councilmember Wilson commented Mr. Hertrich both urged the Council not to follow his lead to acquire
the property and then urged them to purchase the property. He explained meetings occasionally need to be
held just to get conversation flowing. The City did not need to partner with the Port but he envisioned it
would be better if the City did. Councilmember Wilson respected Mr. Hertrich’s watchdog role and urged
him to keep an open mind in this process. He offered to meet with Mr. Hertrich and to be as transparent as
possible. One of the reasons he made the presentation tonight was to avoid misinformation such as Mr.
Hertrich’s comment regarding secret meetings. He emphasized there was a difference between private
meetings and secret meetings.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed appreciation for Imagine Edmonds’ comments. He preferred the
Pomegranate Center’s approach and their interest in what is best for the community rather than an
approach that is created via private meetings. He preferred a direction that was created by citizens with
the assistance of a consultant such as the Pomegranate Center.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and she are holding Town Hall
meetings to engage the public. When she attended the committee meeting, she was unaware of the content
and assured no one would ever buy her vote. She also offered to review the information provided with
Mr. Hertrich. The information Councilmember Wilson presented was an effort to think outside the box.
Council President Bernheim commented on March 16 he proposed each Councilmember sponsor
neighborhood visioning meetings, an effort Councilmember Plunkett did not support. Councilmember
Plunkett responded he did not support that proposal as he was not interested in holding a neighborhood
meeting in one community; he was interested in broad-based community meetings that provide the
opportunity to develop a process. A broad community effort was needed in regard to the waterfront
properties that could not be accomplished via individual Councilmembers meeting with a group of
neighbors.
Councilmember Wilson recalled when Council President Bernheim established the committee, he agreed
to participate only if Councilmember Plunkett or Council President Bernheim participated;
Councilmember Plunkett declined to participate. Councilmember Wilson hoped Councilmember Plunkett
did not decline to participate in the community simply to highlight how bad those who were participating
were conducting the effort.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he declined to participate because he was not interested in
Councilmember Wilson leading an effort regarding the downtown waterfront. Councilmember Wilson
commented the 3-person committee was approved unanimously by the Council. He offered to exchange
positions with Councilmember Plunkett and allow him to lead the effort. Councilmember Plunkett
proposed the City hire the Pomegranate Center and work with Imagine Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson
asked how the consultant would be funded. Councilmember Plunkett offered to present a proposal to the
Council at a future meeting. Councilmember Wilson reiterated his offer to allow Councilmember Plunkett
to lead the effort. If Councilmember Plunkett preferred that he along with Council President Bernheim
and Councilmember Buckshnis continue that effort, he encouraged Councilmember Plunkett to support
them.
Mayor Haakenson commented he was bemused by Mr. Hertrich’s comments that he attends secret
meetings, explaining there were no requirements regarding what meetings he can attend.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Packet Page 20 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 16
7. PRESENTATION ON THE STATUS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH
Keeley O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, invited the Council, staff and the public to the first
public presentation by the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh on Thursday, April 8 at 7:30 p.m. at the Frances
Anderson Center. She identified the members of the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Susie Schafer,
Pilchuck Audubon; Laura Spehar, Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project; Alan Mearns, NOAA; Bonnie
Mearns, Edmonds citizen; Barbara Tipton, Edmonds citizen; Jon Houghton, Pentec Environmental;
Thayer Cueter, Just Frogs, Toads Too Foundation and herself, explaining they were all Edmonds
residents. She introduced Mr. Mearns, Mr. Houghton and Ms. Tipton.
The Friends of the Edmonds Marsh are asking the City for the following:
Assist with securing funding for feasibility studies and restoration opportunities, support letters,
joint grant applications
Help to leverage funding identified in CIP
Develop ideas for recreational opportunities; extending the boardwalk and pathways throughout
the Marsh is identified in several City documents
Integrate a restored marsh into storm water planning
Work jointly with Port of Edmonds on Harbor Square re-development
She displayed a satellite image showing the greater downtown Edmonds, the Marsh and adjacent
properties. She identified the following current conditions at the Marsh:
23.2 acres pocket estuary
Fed by Willow and Shellabarger Creeks that drain 833 acres
Provides a freshwater to saltwater gradient
Ditched and diked and tide gate
1380 feet ditched channel that the outlet of Willow Creek moves through on its way out to Puget
Sound before entering a 1300-1400 foot long 30-inch pipe under Marina Beach parking lot into
Puget Sound (Pentec Inv., 1998)
Ditching has limited salt tolerant vegetation
Contains invasive plant species
Intact riparian corridor in places
Recent restoration on Willow Creek
Boardwalk, view corridors and educational signage
Willow Creek hatchery and Community Demo Wildlife Garden
Multiple partnerships and community opportunities
She displayed a map developed as part of a historical change analysis provided via a project coordinated
with University of Washington and Puget Sound Partnership’s Puget Sound Near Shore Restoration
Project that overlays historical data on a current satellite image. Historically there was a 40+ acre barrier
estuary that extended up to what is currently Brackett’s landing. It was a barrier estuary due to the large
sand spit that maintained a shallow, low energy environment and uniquely rich habitat. Because these low
energy, low lying environments were easily filled and built upon, there has been nearly a 100% percent
loss of this type of habitat in Puget Sound.
She displayed a 1947 aerial photograph, pointing out there was no marina, no development between Main
and Dayton, no Harbor Square, Unocal oil and the pier and a different ferry terminal. She displayed and
compared a 1989 aerial photograph that shows the marina, Brackett’s Landing, the ferry terminal,
downtown core development, etc.
The Friends are advocating for restoration work including daylighting of Willow Creek into a more
natural stream system that provides a direct outlet to Puget Sound. Improving access to Willow Creek
Packet Page 21 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 17
would provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon, spawning habitat for Coho as well as habitat for
shorebirds, marine birds and waterfowl. She commented although many do not associate the Orca Whale
with the Edmonds Marsh, the bio diversity provided by unique systems like the Edmonds Marsh form the
foundation for the Puget Sound food web.
Ms. O’Connell provided catch trends for herring and commercial fisheries catch, and population trends
for indicator bird species Brant and Western Grebe, summarizing declining trends are being seen in these
indicator species within Puget Sound.
She listed the following benefits of restoration, explaining the $ signs represent money, generally federal,
available for restoration that benefits these species:
Chinook juvenile habitat $$$$
Coho spawning and rearing habitat $
Steelhead habitat $
Shorebird and migratory bird habitat $
GBH, bald eagle, and other resident bird habitat
Invertebrates (food web resources)
Native plants
Overall biodiversity
o Ecosystem support (food) for marine birds, mammals, and other fish
Opportunity for managing stormwater and stormwater conveyance and reducing flooding
downtown
Filter for toxins and improving water quality
Climate change preparedness
o Preserve ecological buffers and wetlands
o Increase capacity of stormwater collection and conveyance systems
o Restore wetlands for runoff storage and flood control
Carbon Sequestration
o Tidal salt marshes are extremely productive habitats that remove significant amounts of
carbon from the atmosphere
o Restoring tidal salt marshes is one of the most effective measure for sequestering carbon
o Tidal salt marshes release only negligible amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas
Opportunity for scientific research
Youth education opportunities
Community volunteerism
Opportunities for increasing passive recreation in the Marsh and connecting it to other natural
resources such as Marina Beach
Opportunity for positive impact on key Puget Sound species such as salmon and Orca Whales
Economic Impacts
She identified areas in the City’s Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Plan, Capital
Improvement Plan, and the Shoreline Master Program as well as the Port of Edmonds Master Plan that
reference the Edmonds Marsh.
Ms. O’Connell summarized restoration opportunities would improve juvenile salmon access, salmon
spawning habitat, shorebird and waterfowl habitat, stormwater conveyance to Puget Sound and reduce
flooding; as well as expand the area of native salt marsh, nearshore ecosystem at Edmonds waterfront,
and access, recreation and educational opportunities. She displayed a schematic that would address a fish
passage barrier problem at Pine Street on Willow Creek, channels that would leave the salt marsh and
connect to Puget Sound, and boardwalks systems.
Packet Page 22 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 18
She explained daylighting Willow Creek had been identified in several documents including the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) done for the Edmonds Crossing project. That EIS included
daylighting of Willows Creek as part of mitigation. As part of the second rail line being installed in
Edmonds, Sound Transit has used the EIS developed for Edmonds Crossing Sound Transit to site a 33-
foot span trestle bridge that will go under the new line and the existing line. Sound Transit will backfill
that awaiting opportunity to daylight Willow Creek. She explained that was the most costly and
prohibitive portion of completing the restoration project and would be done at no cost by Sound Transit as
part of their mitigation.
The Friends of the Edmonds Marsh are committed to the following:
Raising awareness of this rich, rare and irreplaceable resource
Advocating for identified restoration opportunities
Engaging stakeholders
Securing funding for a feasibility study to understand the system and move toward “shovel-
ready” projects
Maximizing unique potentials for the community
Fostering long-term stewardship of the Marsh
Stakeholders include:
City of Edmonds
Port of Edmonds
Sound Transit, BNSF
$$ - PSP, PSNRP, WRIA 8, Shared Strategy, DOE, WDFW
UW, EdCC, Battelle, NOAA, local K-12 schools
Local Tribes- Tulalip Tribe
$$- Snohomish Marine Resources Committee
Elected officials
Edmonds community and user groups- birders, walkers, Willow Creek hatchery/Laebugtens
Salmon chapter
Councilmember Buckshnis requested a copy of Ms. McConnell’s PowerPoint presentation, explaining
WRIA 8 has daylighting of Willow Creek on their 10-year plan and she would like to move it to their 3-
year plan.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Friends of Edmonds Marsh had been invited to any meetings
or discussions with anyone interested in developing the downtown waterfront properties and whether the
Friends had a role in those discussions. Ms. McConnell explained Friends of the Edmonds Marsh was a
group of people with a mutual interest. She envisioned the Friends being involved in those discussions
particularly with regard to how the Marsh can draw visitors to the City. The Marsh is an underutilized
resource for passive recreation and many people are unaware it exists.
Councilmember Plunkett commented some people’s vision for economic development is taller buildings,
others believe economic development is making Edmonds a more attractive place to visit and enjoy. Ms.
McConnell responded the Friends did not have a specific position on building heights. The Marsh has a
role in economic development particularly with regard to ecotourism, connectivity of the system and
showcasing the unique habitat.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he would be making a proposal with regard to using the Pomegranate
Center to begin a process for visioning development of the downtown waterfront properties and asked if a
representative of the Friends would be interested in participating in that process. Ms. McConnell
answered they would appreciate an invitation to be involved.
Packet Page 23 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 19
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Friends had received any grant funds. Ms. McConnell explained she
works for People for Puget Sound as a restoration ecologist and has a small grant ($4,000) via their
NOAA Restore America’s Estuaries Community Restoration Program that allows her to be involved in
the Marsh and staff time to pursue grant opportunities. People for Puget Sound may be the organization to
procure grants for the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh as they are a 501(c)(3) organization.
Councilmember Wilson recalled when he first moved to Edmonds in 1999, his first public meeting was
Friends of the Lund’s Gulch who were interested in the Edmonds Marsh. He is also a Board Member of
the Cascade Land Conservancy. As the Friends developed actionable ideas, he anticipated the Council
would be quick to take action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECYCLING UPDATE
Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher referred to handouts that include curbside recycling instructions and a
list of locations where that accept free drop-off and recycling of computers, monitors, laptops and TVs as
part of the State E-Cycle program. He also highlighted an electronic waste recycling event on April 24 &
25 from 10 am to 3 pm at the Edmonds Top Foods. TVs, computer monitors, CPUs, laptops and cell
phones will be accepted free; other electronics have a small disposal fee.
Mr. Fisher explained curbside recycling is 20 years old and has become a social norm. Curbside recycling
is convenient and easy; all accepted materials are mixed together in one container. Recycle has
traditionally been collected every other week on single family residential routes and the cost is included in
the overall garbage service cost. Recyclables represent up to 50% or more of typical household waste;
recyclables are not banned from garbage waste.
He explained garbage service is not mandatory in the City; it is estimated approximately 87% of single
family residences subscribe to garbage service. Of those customers, approximately 89-90% participated in
curbside recycling in 2009. Approximately 7,000 tons of recyclables were collected in Edmonds in 2009.
Another convenient curbside service provided to residents is yard waste. This service now includes food
waste and food-soiled papers. It is unknown how many people take advantage of food waste diversion
into yard waste collection.
Multi family properties also receive recycling as part of garbage service. There are 275 multi family
properties (apartments and condominiums) in Edmonds that have 5 units or more. Approximately 86%
have recycling collection available; 35 properties, or approximately 500 households, are not taking
advantage of recycling. He planned to reach out to those properties this year to encourage them to make
recycling available to their residents.
Allied Waste, who serves the majority of the Edmonds area, will be moving to a once-a-week recyclables
collection on single family routes in 2011. He is involved with a commercial outreach program to
promote the available food waste collection to businesses. Twenty businesses are participating now; over
1100 tons were diverted in 2009. The recycling program will continue to provide information and
education on other opportunities and options such as recycling batteries, cell phones, fluorescents, and
building materials.
Mr. Fisher emphasized the first two Rs in recycling (reduce and reuse) lead to more environmental
benefits. While recycling plays a large role in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, studies have shown
Packet Page 24 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 20
that waste prevention (or reduction) and reuse activities can prevent emissions altogether. Waste
prevention actions are often difficult to measure; they can range from reducing junk mail or opting out
from receiving unsolicited phone books to reusing durable bags when shopping and other positive habits
that prevent waste. He applauded the leadership the Council has shown in Snohomish County by acting to
reduce materials that have a negative impact on the environment.
Council President Bernheim inquired how the apartment and condominium complexes that did not
provide recycling receptacles could be encouraged to make recycling available. Mr. Fisher answered he
planned to reach out to those complexes with education to encourage them to participate. He commented
there were many reasons/barriers that precluded complexes from making that service available. He did
not plan any enforcement action to encourage them to participate and preferred an educational approach.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Mr. Fisher for his work on the Mayor’s Climate Change
Committee.
9. ALTERNATIVE WATER UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE DISCUSSION
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the City of Edmonds is in the process of updating its Water
Comprehensive Plan. Part of the plan update requires the City to review its water rate structure so that the
rates are in alignment to encourage customers to conserve water. For many years, the City has required
meters for each water service connection and charged a uniform rate for each unit of water sold. He
displayed a diagram illustrating the uniform rate where the unit cost remains the same regardless of water
usage. This is the minimum standard for a water rate structure under the Water Use Efficiency measures
established by the Department of Health regulations.
Under the water use efficiencies rules, the City is to consider and may elect to impose alternative rate
structures to further encourage water conservation. These rate structures are:
INCLINING BLOCK RATE CHARGE - This rate structure increases the unit price of water at
higher consumption levels. It sends a price signal to customers to keep their consumption at a
lower level or expend more money at higher rates than a customer who consumes a lesser amount
of water. He displayed a diagram illustrating the inclining block rate charge.
SEASONAL RATE CHARGE- This rate structure increases the unit price of water during the
drier summer months. It also sends a price signal to customers to use less water to irrigate
landscaping and to landscape with more drought tolerant plants. He displayed a diagram
illustrating the season rate structure.
Changing to an inclining or seasonal rate charge will have a dramatic cost impact to higher consumption
customers. Presently, the City is meeting its water use efficiency measures currently in effect and the per
capita average consumption is being reduced by over the stated goal of one percent (1%) per year. He
displayed a graph illustrating the citywide water consumption, noting since the early 1990s it had been on
a gradual downward trend. He also identified per capita consumption that has mirrored the downward
trend since 2003. He explained alternative rate structures are often adopted to avoid additional capital
costs due an increase in water supply needs. Because Edmonds’ water consumption has been declining,
there is no need for additional facilities and no economic justification for an alternative rate structure.
As part of the Water Comprehensive Plan Update, staff is currently working with its utility rate
consultant, FCS Group, to analyze the projected cost of service and capital expenditures for the next six
(6) years and develop water utility rates to support the projected expenditures. As part of this Water
Comprehensive Plan update, staff requests that City Council provide direction in regard to contracting
with FCS Group to develop alternative rate structures. The additional cost to the City to develop and
implement an alternative rate structure is estimated to cost $50,000 - $100,000.
Packet Page 25 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 21
Councilmember Wilson asked why it would cost $50,000 more to develop and implement an alternative
rate structure. Mr. Miller answered the cost for the consultant to develop an alternative rate structure is
approximately $40,000; the additional cost is to implement the rate structure. Councilmember Wilson
observed the cost of the standard rate study is $40,000 and the alternative rate study is an additional
$50,000. Mr. Miller explained the current scope of work for the rate consultant is a recommendation for
water rate increases based on the City’s existing rate structure. Doing a full cost of service analysis that
considers how much each customer class uses would require much more data analysis to develop a rate
recommendation for an alternative structure.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the rate study had already been put out to bid. Mr. Miller
answered it is done via a consultant selection process; FCS is already assisting with the Water
Comprehensive Plan Update. He anticipated hiring another consultant to consider an alternative rate
structure would require review of a great deal of information. Councilmember Wilson asked when the rate
consultant contract was signed. Mr. Miller answered it was approximately a year ago.
Council President Bernheim observed because of declining per-capita water usage, there was not a glaring
need to increase water revenue to pay for new or expanded facilities. He asked whether there was an
environmental, ecological or sustainability reason to promote even lower per-capital usage among
systems or if the water supply was sufficient for the foreseeable future that it is unnecessary to further
reduce per-capita use. Mr. Miller answered there was sufficient water supply. If that changed in the future
due to climate change, changes in rainfall, etc., an alternative rate structure that would further reduce
consumption could be considered.
Council President Bernheim asked whether the Water Comprehensive Plan anticipated a reduction in the
water supply in the next 10-15 years or was it anticipated water supplies would remain as plentiful as they
are today. He commented he was not interested in graduated, complex, expensive rates if there was not a
policy basis for promoting further water conservation. Mr. Miller answered the water planning outlook
done by Snohomish County is that even with growth in the county as well as factoring in some loss of
water supply due to climate change, water supplies are sufficient for the next 50 years.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the additional cost of the alternative rate structure analysis was
already budgeted. Mr. Miller answered it was not. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Water
Comprehensive Plan update requires the City to review its water rate structure to ensure rates are in
alignment to encourage customers to conserve water; the current rate structure is designed to encourage
water conservation. Mr. Miller agreed, pointing out the more a customer used, the more they paid.
Councilmember Peterson observed at some point water rates needed to be increased to pay for the City’s
aging infrastructure. He asked whether an alternative rate structures or an across-the-board increase
generated more revenue. Mr. Miller answered the step rate increases discouraged high consumption;
therefore the amount of water sold decreased which results in declining revenues. The unit cost of water
then must be increased higher than would be required for a uniform rate. The cost of operating the utility
is a fixed cost; the same number of employees, the same number of mains, hydrants, reservoirs, etc. Less
revenue due to reduced consumption forces rates to increase faster.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the flat rate diagram, clarifying even if the rate per unit declined,
customers who used more paid more. With an inclining block rate, a savvy consultant could create a step
that was revenue neutral. For lower income families who use little water, the inclining block rate would
provide a price break in their water rates. As incomes increase, water usage increases due to moving from
an apartment to a house, the lawn and landscaping that accompanies the house, etc. Commercial users,
especially car lots and carwashes typically use a great deal of water. If the burden of the rate is shifted to
commercial users and higher income users, lower income families could receive water service at a
reduced rate, clearly an economic policy that would support an inclining block rate. He disagreed the
Packet Page 26 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 22
additional cost to review and implement an alternate rate structure was $100,000 but would support
directing staff to pursue the inclining rate based not on environmental concerns but economic impacts.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Wilson and suggested capping the consultant
study at $50,000. She commented such uses water conservatively compared to her neighbors who have
automatic sprinkler systems.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas disagreed with Councilmembers Buckshnis and Wilson, pointing out the
neighbor that was operating their sprinklers paid more under the current rate structure because they used
more water. With regard to families living in apartments using less water, she pointed out families with
children often used more water due to increased laundry, showers, dishes, etc. She envisioned an inclining
rate would penalize those families and felt the current rate structure was fairer for families.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, pointing out the consultant would
need to determine at what point it was appropriate to have a step in the rate. He envisioned families with
typical household use would be in the first step, families with wide lawns may be in the next step, and
carwashes and car lots would be in a third step. A flat system that charges carwashes the same as
residential uses made less sense to him. The direction to the consultant would be to consider the water
usage of a typical family of four.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Wilson’s intent could be accomplished now
by charging commercial users a higher rate. She asked where the funds would come from for the
consultant study. Mayor Haakenson suggested it could be from the utility fund and the rate payers pay for
the study. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support that funding mechanism.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Mayor and staff did not recommend having the consultant
develop an alternate rate structure; the Mayor and staff recommend continuing to charge for water
consumption using a uniform water utility rate structure.
Council President Bernheim commented his primary objective was environmental. He was interested in
attempting to reduce water consumption via a rate structure if there was a need; however, the information
provided tonight does not illustrate a need to reduce water consumption. He noted an alternate rate study
could be conducted at anytime. He was satisfied with maintaining the existing rate structure.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, THAT THE COUNCIL DISPENSE WITH ANY EXTRA RATE REVIEW BASED
ON GRADUATED RATES AND KEEP THE UNIFORM RATE STRUCTURE. MOTION
CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
10. GREEN BUSINESS PARTNERS/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Councilmember Peterson explained three members of Sustainable Edmonds, Rich Senderoff, Rebecca
Wolfe, and Jeannie Blair, developed a Green Business Partner program that would recognize businesses
that use and embrace environmentally friendly business practices. Business categories are broken down
into: 1) Retail, Office, Light Industrial 2) Restaurants, Bars, Grocers and 3) Hotels, Motels, Hospitality.
The businesses would complete a checklist and if they met the criteria, they would be recognized by
Sustainable Edmonds and likely a partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and the City, with a
window sticker, extra presence on the Chamber’s website, etc. He applauded the citizens who developed
this program.
11. GREEN POWER PURCHASE BY THE CITY
Due to the late hour, Council President Bernheim suggested this item be rescheduled on a future agenda.
Packet Page 27 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 23
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
As a follow-up to his comments at a previous Council meeting regarding the City’s pension and retiree
healthcare liability, Councilmember Wilson explained Human Resources Director Debi Humann provided
an actuarial study conducted in 2009 that highlights the City’s liability. He explained there are a few
retirees who draw pension benefits and a large number who draw health benefits. He displayed a page
from the actuarial study that illustrates the pension liability is approximately $1.9 million; the liability for
LEOFF 1 is approximately $8.5 million, a total of approximately $10 million, the amount the City should
have been setting aside during those employees’ tenure.
Councilmember Wilson displayed other pages from the actuarial study that state the total liability for the
LEOFF 1 healthcare benefits is $8.7 million and total assets in the fund of $500,000, a shortfall of $8.2
million which previous decades of Councils have underfunded. Mayor Haakenson clarified this was only
for City firefighter employees of which there were only a few surviving. Councilmember Wilson advised
there were 35; the total actuarial liability for that small group of people is quite large. Mayor Haakenson
commented their average age is approximately 80.
He displayed a graph from the study that shows the total annual payments for the pension and healthcare;
beginning in 2009 and for the next 20 years, annual payments will steadily increase to approximately
$650,000/year. He displayed another chart that showed the fund balance, the investment return on the
balance, and the recommended City contribution. The actuarial study suggests the City will be paying for
these pensions and healthcare benefits through 2051.
He displayed a chart showing the ending balance 2007, 2008 and 2009, the amount the City should be
paying and the amount the City actually paid. Because the City pays the actual rather than the actuarial,
some years the actual could increase dramatically and there was nothing in the fund balance to cover that
amount. The shortfall in 2007 was $92,000; in 2008 it was $208,000, and $343,000 in 2009.
Extrapolating those amount over 30 years was how the $8.5 million unfunded liability was determined.
He displayed another page that illustrates how much the City is contributing, how much actuarially the
City is required to pay, approximately $560,000 and the percentage the City is contributing.
He referred to a statement on page 46 of the actuarial study that states the City has a positive obligation
and as a result of underfunding the account, it must be noted on the government-wide statement of net
assets. He questioned whether that was being done. He asked the Finance Committee to consider the
information he provided.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported 15 people attended the Town Hall meeting at the Corner Coffee Bar.
Some of the comments from the meeting were reported in the Edmonds Beacon. She anticipated the next
Town Hall meeting would be held in Firdale.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
Packet Page 28 of 465
AM-2993 4.C.
Approve 04-13-10 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
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 April 13, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 04-13-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 11:47 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/15/2010 10:33
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 29 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 13, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 13, 2010
At 5:00 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim announced that the City Council would meet in
executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. He stated that the
executive session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and would be held in the Jury
Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive
session were: Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim, Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis,
Peterson, and Wilson. Councilmember Plunkett participated via telephone. Others present were
City Attorney Scott Snyder, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen
Clifton, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 5:44 p.m.
The scheduled open session City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 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 (via telephone)
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Leif Bjorback, Assistant Building Official
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
MaryAnn Hardie, Human Resources Analyst
Kernen Lien, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
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 WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
Packet Page 30 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 13, 2010
Page 2
3. POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE WHICH MAY
INCLUDE APPROVAL OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATION
OF FUNDS FOR STUDIES AND CONSULTANT SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PURCHASE.
Councilmember Wilson suggested City Attorney Scott Snyder brief the Council and the public on the
purchase and sale agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim preferred the Council comment on the agreement
and consult Mr. Snyder if necessary.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she read the information provided by Natalie Shippen. The Council
has been in discussion for a number of meetings about purchasing the Skippers property. There are a
number of possible funding scenarios such as using the funds from the sale of assets to Fire District 1,
bonds, etc. She anticipated there would be further discussion regarding funding tonight.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim advised Councilmember Plunkett was participating in the Council meeting via
telephone.
MAYOR PRO TEM BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR $1.1
MILLION FOR THE SKIPPERS PROPERTY WITH A $50,000 EARNEST MONEY TO BE
DELIVERED NO LATER THAN 24 DAYS AFTER MUTUAL ACCEPTANCE; WITH A
PROVISION FOR A 30 DAY FEASIBILITY STUDY; WITH A PROVISION FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 30 DAY FEASIBILITY STUDY AT THE COST OF $10,000 TO BE APPLIED TO
THE PURCHASE PRICE IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD; WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF AN
ADDITIONAL 30 DAY FEASIBILITY PERIOD FOR AN ADDITIONAL $10,000 TO BE
CREDITED TO THE PURCHASE PRICE IF THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council had been holding executive sessions on this topic. He
agreed the Skippers site was an unusual piece of property, that it was important for the future
redevelopment of the near waterfront area and that it was a critical gateway into the community. He
pointed out the current condition of the site, asphalt and a vacant fast food restaurant, could not be much
worse and was not the window into the community he wanted. For those reasons, his presentation last
week, contrary to the perception/spin of some, was a framework for acquiring or guiding development of
the property. However, with a purchase price of $1.1 million, even if the Council is creative with funding
such as using the Fire District 1 funds, the projected ending cash balance for 2012 is in the red $500,000.
Councilmember Wilson found it premature to spend $1.1 million to purchase this parcel with no plans for
a levy or other alternative revenue source to address the fact that in 1-2 years the City will be unable to
keep the lights on. The budget that will be prepared this summer for 2011 and 2012 will require decisions
to be made regarding which departments stay or go and which staff members stay or are forced to leave.
He summarized purchasing a $1.1 million property was ambitious but premature until the Council
determined how it would foster redevelopment or how a proforma analysis would benefit the City.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson commented not only was the Council ill prepared for the looming
budget problem that has been discussed extensively for at least the past year, the Council was ill prepared
for what would be done with the property. He applauded the three Councilmembers who have been
working on this issue and the presentation made last week, however, the presentation demonstrated there
were at least 100 steps to be taken to reach the first step. Until the Council developed a vision for the
property with regard to what it would be used for, he was unable to put that much money at risk. Even
though it was a few thousand here and there for a feasibility study or an appraisal, he was unwilling to go
into the budget process, putting these funds at risk particularly in view of staff members who have made
Packet Page 31 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 13, 2010
Page 3
significant sacrifices over the past year. He acknowledged there could be a vision for the property in the
future that made sense as an investment for the City. But until that vision was presented, he could not
support a purchase and sale agreement that put the cart before the horse.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Council President Pro Tem Peterson’s comments, urging the
Council to stop being stagnant and start taking action. She refused to look at financials that were not
substantiated, commenting she has provided Finance Director Lorenzo Hines a number of examples of
financial information with background information to help her understand the City’s financial condition
but has yet to see a comprehensive analysis since September 2008. This is a critical piece of property and
she did not believe the City would be closing its doors or going into the red in 2012 as Councilmember
Wilson stated. She urged the Council to think about the future; this property is an investment for the
future.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in exploring the need for this property and what could be
done with it and viewed the sale and purchase agreement as a win-win situation. If the Council chose to
back out for any reason, that could be done. She was disturbed with the thought of using the remaining
$600,000 Fire District 1 funds for staff, wages, to keep the lights on, departments, etc. Those were one-
time funds that should benefit the citizens and not be used for City operations.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented little has been done over the past few years until a few
months ago the fear that the City would run out of money was voiced. The Council established a levy
work group last year that recommended the Council proceed with a levy; however, the Council at that
time voted against proceeding with a levy. She supported the City living within its budget, noting the City
has not lived within its budget recently. She was disappointed previous Councils had not kept the City on
budget. The Council needed to consider the City’s expenditures and make some decisions for the future.
She disagreed with using the funds from the sale of assets to Fire District 1 money to pay for daily
expenses.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comments regarding using funds
from the sale of assets to Fire District 1 to pay for daily expenses. He pointed out that was not the topic of
discussion today; the question was how to come up with $1.1 million cash to purchase this parcel. To
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ point that the City should live within its budget, he pointed out this
expenditure was not budgeted.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim commented although the Council did not have a levy in place at the moment,
when the Council last considered the levy, the decision was to postpone the levy until 2010. Under the
terms of the purchase and sale agreement, the City could withdraw without any penalty within 30 days of
extending the offer and would also be able to withdraw at a loss of $10,000/month for two consecutive
months thereafter. He agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that it is a leadership and future of the City
issue; the Council must be careful about passing up an opportunity to acquire properties with the potential
to be a gateway or an asset to the community as a whole. If the purchase and sale agreement is approved,
it is with the idea that a short amount of time is set aside to take public comment and consider the
Council’s values and priorities.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson agreed this was a crucial piece of property and that it was bad
business sense to use the sale of assets to pay for ongoing expenses. He commented if this opportunity
arose five years ago, the City likely could have purchased the property with REET 1 funds due to the
active real estate market. The economy has declined significantly since then and he questioned how it was
fiscally conservative for the Council to purchase this property in this economy and with many experts
saying commercial real estate has not reached the bubble that residential real estate has gone through over
the past year. He pointed out nearly every member of the Council either at a Council meeting or during
Packet Page 32 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 13, 2010
Page 4
their campaign has said that they were fiscally conservative. He questioned how this purchase was fiscally
conservative when due diligence had not yet been conducted.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson pointed out due diligence would cost more money, $7,000 for an
appraisal and $20,000-$50,000 for a proforma. He disagreed there was no risk in the first 30 days because
money would need to be expended to determine what the Council wanted to do with the property. In 60
days, it would cost another $10,000, and another $10,000 in 90 days. He disagreed with approving a
purchase and sale agreement and then deciding what to do, pointing out information from professionals,
estimated to cost $50,000, would be required to determine if it was a worthwhile purchase. He recalled
the big discussion last summer about the need for $50,000 to keep Yost Pool open, questioning how the
Council could now gamble $50,000 in this economic climate especially when the Council was facing
other issues such as upcoming bond payments and other investments that were not penciling out due to
the economy. If he could be assured this was a wise investment, he would support it but as a gamble, he
could not support it.
Councilmember Wilson noted a purchase and sale agreement was a legislative action over which the
executive has no veto authority. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Wilson pointed out Mayor
Haakenson could veto a bond ordinance or budget ordinance. Mr. Snyder agreed the Mayor could veto an
ordinance. Councilmember Wilson commented if there was a 4-3 vote, an executive veto was highly
likely. If there was an executive veto of a budget ordinance, the Council would be unable to fund the
purchase and would be out the $50,000 earnest money as well as $10,000/month until the Council got out
of the deal. He recalled some who argued against a levy last year did not want to pursue a levy at that
time because of the $80,000 cost of the election and the possibility it might not be successful. Now they
are unconcerned about losing $10,000 or $50,000. He urged Councilmembers to be consistent about the
fiscal conservativeness they exhibited during their campaign or during past comments.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was a fiscal conservative but was also a very wise person and
knew when something was a good investment. She pointed out there are also funds available in the
emergency fund, a fund that the Council voted last year to require be used only for an Act of God. The
Council could amend that ordinance to allow the funds to be used for the original intent under former
Mayor Laura Hall’s administration, for a shortfall in revenue or an economic catastrophe. She objected to
speculating what action Mayor Haakenson would take because he was not here. She supported the
Council purchasing the property for future generations; concluding this was sustainability, to give future
generations something that represented Edmonds as people exited the ferry.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not see this as a gamble but as an investment in the future. Referring
to past discussion regarding economic development and the future of Edmonds, she did not want the view
down Main Street in the future to be a parking lot and a Jack-in-the Box, the company that has been
considering purchasing the property. She wanted a gateway to the City on this site. If the goal was to have
people come to Edmonds to shop, live and stay, it needed to be a viable place to come. Past Councils have
purchased property for parks throughout the City; this was one of the most important pieces of property
the City could buy for economic development. It was not about whether the City could afford it or
whether it was a gamble, it was about reality. The Council can purchase the property and develop a
private-public partnership, bond or whatever later. She found it very close minded for Councilmembers to
support economic development and allow Jack-in-the-Box to locate on this corner.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Councilmember Wilson’s scenario regarding losing $50,000,
assumed if the Council approved the purchase and sale agreement and Mayor Haakenson vetoed it, the
Council could simply get out based on the feasibility contingency and the $50,000 earnest money would
be returned. Mr. Snyder explained Councilmember Wilson’s point was Mayor Haakenson could not veto
the purchase and sale agreement but could veto an ordinance to appropriate funds. It would be some time
Packet Page 33 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 13, 2010
Page 5
before those ordinances were presented to the Council, likely at the time of the mid-year budget
amendment. If the purchase and sale agreement is approved, the next action will be an appropriation.
Staff developed estimates for the consulting costs for the various feasibility stages; $25,000-$50,000 is
the estimated amount should the purchase and sale agreement be in place for 60-90 days before the
Council were to “pull the plug.”
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim acknowledged there were additional consultant fees, environmental
assessments, etc. the City would incur if the property were purchased.
Councilmember Orvis commented it was his belief the public wanted the City involved with the
waterfront and this was a good way to do it. The purchase would allow the Council to have more
influence on the waterfront and more leverage to get what they wanted. He recalled a presentation made
by Lora Petso in the past of a 30-foot tall building lot line to line, something he did not find very
attractive. He summarized if the Council wanted to control the site, there was no better way than to own
it.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the terms have already been negotiated; therefore, there was no
question whether it would be accepted. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim responded there was no binding
agreement to accept the proposed terms; an oral agreement for the purchase of real estate was not binding.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO
TEM PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Snyder requested the Council appropriate $50,000-$100,000 to represent the potential costs of the
transaction; individual contracts would be presented to the Council for approval in the future. The
Council’s first action will be to establish a process to determine a public use and assist in the feasibility
studies.
To Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment about a number of scenarios, Mr. Snyder explained no decision
had yet been made regarding financing because the Council could discuss the terms of real estate
agreements in executive session but could not make budget decisions. His advice to the Council has been
any discussion regarding financing should be made during an open public meeting.
MAYOR PRO TEM BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ALLOW FOR AN APPROPRIATION FROM SOME SOURCE OF $50,000-$100,000 TO
COVER THE COSTS OF THESE STUDIES, SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AT A LATER DATE.
Mr. Snyder clarified the budget adjustment would be at the time of the mid-year budget adjustment.
Individual contracts would be placed on the Council’s next Consent Agenda for approval.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was just the first “chunk of change” that was being outlaid to
purchase the property in addition to the acquisition costs, with no thought yet to the cost of development.
He pointed out $100,000 was the equivalent of one Police Officer; Edmonds has fewer Police Officers per
capita than any other comparable city. One of the reasons the ending cash balance is as high as it is, is
because positions have not been filled such as the Development Director, which is now in the process of
being filled at a cost of approximately $150,000/year with benefits. He anticipated the ending cash
balance of $500,000 in the red would only increase and the deficit would move closer to 2011. He
emphasized $100,000 here, $100,000 there represented jobs and service. He recognized the purchase was
the result of a sincere vision for the community but found it financially irresponsible given the current
numbers.
Packet Page 34 of 465
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 13, 2010
Page 6
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed this was the first chunk of change; her understanding was that
approximately $100,000 represented all the costs associated with the purchase. If necessary, the Fire
District 1 funds could be used.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson commented although there would be positive public reaction to the
Council’s action, he recalled Roger Hertrich’s comment that in difficult economic times, people
concentrated on food and shelter. He questioned how a $50,000-$100,000 expenditure fell into that
category. He objected to this expenditure when the Council was faced with budget shortfalls, other
outstanding debts and a Police Department with fewer officers per capita than comparable cities. He
summarized this expenditure was contrary to be being good stewards.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the EMS fees were not yet reflected in the budget and have been
estimated to be approximately $700,000. Until the Council got to the bottom of all the budget numbers,
she did not see a downside to this action.
As a taxpayer, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was irritated the Council passed budgets that put the City
in the red in a few years and left it up to this new Council to resolve the past. She summarized there
needed to be accountability and ethics and people needed to look at the future.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO
TEM PETERSON VOTING NO.
4. MAYOR’S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim had no report.
5. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis announced the next TGI Friday forum would be held in Firdale at Colonial
Pantry Family Restaurant on April 30 from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out there was typically audience comments at every Council meeting but
there was no public comment on tonight’s agenda. He asked if public comment was required at a public
meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim agreed there was no opportunity for audience comment on tonight’s
agenda, advising it was not required.
6. ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to Committee meetings at 6:35 p.m.
Packet Page 35 of 465
AM-2997 4.D.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposit and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #118163 through #118257 dated April 8, 2010 for $336,677.94, and
#118258 through #118440 dated April 15, 2010 for $309,906.00. Approval of payroll direct
deposits and checks #49192 through #49230 for the pay period of March 16 - March 31, 2010 for
$644,165.25.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$1,290,749.19
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $646,583.94
Payroll: $644,165.25
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 4-8-10
Link: Claim cks 4-15-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:09 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 02:16 PM APRV
Packet Page 36 of 465
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:22 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 04/15/2010 12:45
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 37 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118163 4/8/2010 072627 911 ETC INC 169296 MAR-10 911 DATABASE MAINT
Mar-10 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50
Total :101.50
118164 4/8/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 279643 RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL279677
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
118165 4/8/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 11007 BRONZE PLAQUE
CAST BRONZE PLAQUE - HARRISON
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 159.40
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 15.76
Total :181.66
118166 4/8/2010 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO11962 UKULELE CLASSES
UKULELE #11962
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 364.00
Total :364.00
118167 4/8/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4836546 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENTANCE 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
118168 4/8/2010 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 12902 BURIAL SUPPLIES
1Page:
Packet Page 38 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118168 4/8/2010 (Continued)001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
BURIAL SUPPLIES: RICHARDSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES13032
BURIAL SUPPLIES: MCNAMEE
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
Total :776.00
118169 4/8/2010 073075 BAILEY DUSKIN PEIFFLE &8366-001 100460 Mar-10 Fiber Proj Attny Fees
Mar-10 Fiber Proj Attny Fees
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 3,310.00
Total :3,310.00
118170 4/8/2010 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY12145 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
TAEKWON DO #12145
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 892.50
TAEKWON DO #12149
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 431.20
Total :1,323.70
118171 4/8/2010 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 7931 Aquatic Leads, #10-14 ad
Aquatic Leads, #10-14 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 18.88
Total :18.88
118172 4/8/2010 073190 BEMIS, ELLI 112 ARTWORK REPAIR
REPAIRING AN ORIGINAL PIECE BY GREG
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 80.00
Total :80.00
118173 4/8/2010 002258 BENS EVER READY 2416 INV#2416 EDMONDS PD
SERVICE 3-5 EXTINGUISHERS
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 36.00
RECHARGE 2 EXTINGUISHERS
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 5.32
2Page:
Packet Page 39 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :61.32118173 4/8/2010 002258 002258 BENS EVER READY
118174 4/8/2010 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0003098 E8GB.SERVICES 2/20-3/19/10
E8GB.Services 2/20-3/19/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 5,018.21
Total :5,018.21
118175 4/8/2010 071633 BLACK ROCK CABLE INC 15344 Apr-10 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St SW
Apr-10 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St SW
001.000.310.518.870.450.00 470.00
Franchise fee on Fiber Lease
001.000.310.518.870.450.00 23.50
Total :493.50
118176 4/8/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 800028 INV#800028 - EDMONDS PD - COMM BARS
COMM BAR - NO STAR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 39.00
COMM BARS - 1 GOLD STAR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 49.60
COMM BARS - 2 GOLD STARS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 65.00
COMM BARS - 3 GOLD STARS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 37.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 18.13
INV#802391 - EDMONDS PD - NAMETAGS802391
NAMETAGS - SCHEELE
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 18.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 1.71
REFUND CHG FOR NAMETAGS-SCHEELE802391-80
INCORRECT SPELLING ON NAMETAG
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -18.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -1.71
INV#803279 EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE803279
3Page:
Packet Page 40 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118176 4/8/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
L/S SHIRTS, SPD ZIP
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 179.74
WOOL UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 217.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 37.69
Total :643.36
118177 4/8/2010 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN0310 CLASSROOM VISITS
BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS
001.000.640.574.350.410.00 210.00
Total :210.00
118178 4/8/2010 068152 CADDY, OWEN T 03282010 INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY @ MARINA BEACH
INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY @ EDMONDS MARINA
127.000.640.575.500.410.00 2,000.00
Total :2,000.00
118179 4/8/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN03101029 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS PARTIES
HELIUM
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
118180 4/8/2010 067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC 406697 DISTRIBUTION OF EDMDS TOURISM BROCHURES
Distribution of Edmonds tourism
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 4,734.51
Total :4,734.51
118181 4/8/2010 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT 394679 Reimburse for UC Irvin Ext Course
Reimburse for UC Irvin Ext Course
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 900.00
Total :900.00
118182 4/8/2010 073192 CHURCH OF THE OPEN BIBLE ENG20080082 REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSIT
4Page:
Packet Page 41 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118182 4/8/2010 (Continued)073192 CHURCH OF THE OPEN BIBLE
A/P 656 Daley St Permit ENG20080082 St
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSITENG20080084
P/A 656 Daley St Permit ENG20080084 St
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :200.00
118183 4/8/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7809 INV#7809 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD
NEXTEL PHONES- NARCS 03/2010
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.43
INV#7810 CUST#1430 EDMONDS PD7810
VERIZON PHONES 03/10 - NARCS
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 79.67
Total :136.10
118184 4/8/2010 073186 CITY OF SPOKANE ADV K-9 MCCLURE ADVANCED K-9 HANDLER - MCLCURE - EDMONDS
REGISTRATION FOR 10/18-10/21/10
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 500.00
Total :500.00
118185 4/8/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2172936 SUPPLIES
TOILET TISSUE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 206.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.61
YOST POOL SUPPLIESW2175753
MULTI RATIO FOAM GUN/YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 126.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.02
Total :364.51
118186 4/8/2010 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 35214 CODE UPDATES
City Code Book Supplements
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 4,169.20
5Page:
Packet Page 42 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118186 4/8/2010 (Continued)064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 396.07
Total :4,565.27
118187 4/8/2010 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
BUNDLED CABLE SERVICES FOR EDMONDS
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 113.44
Total :113.44
118188 4/8/2010 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING MARCH 2010 DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY 02/10-03/10 EDMONDS
DRY CLEANING 02/10 - 03/10
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 807.45
Total :807.45
118189 4/8/2010 073195 CULVER, JAMES ENG20060462 REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSIT
P/A 7217 Meadowdale Beach Rd Permit
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
118190 4/8/2010 072189 DATASITE 65234 INV#65234 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 1- 64 GALLON TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
118191 4/8/2010 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 147172 INV#147172 - EDMONDS PD
REPAIR #GHD-03630~16
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.13
Total :82.13
118192 4/8/2010 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS March 2010 MARCH 2010 DRS
March 2010 DRS
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 136,935.86
Total :136,935.86
6Page:
Packet Page 43 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118193 4/8/2010 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 41 JA6953 L001 E9DA.WSDOT REVIEW/APPROVE PLANS
E9DA.WSDOT Review/Approve Plans
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 403.63
Total :403.63
118194 4/8/2010 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 032010 STATE LOBBYIST MARCH 2010
State lobbyist charges for March 2010
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,135.00
Total :4,135.00
118195 4/8/2010 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 10-1678.1 E0FB.SERVICES 3/8-3/28/10
E0FB.Services 3/8-3/28/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,400.00
Total :1,400.00
118196 4/8/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001066/1 EDMONDS PARKS
TAPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.14
EDMONDS PARKS001067/1
PADLOCK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.09
EDMONDS PARKS001068/1
BLANK COVERS, MISC. FASTENERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.66
Total :33.35
118197 4/8/2010 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 13238 March 2010 Luncheon
March 2010 Luncheon
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 17.50
Total :17.50
7Page:
Packet Page 44 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118198 4/8/2010 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 138293 INV#138293 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD
NEUTER DOG - IMPOUND #8032
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 85.00
NEUTER DOG - IMPOUND #8072
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 85.00
NEUTER CAT - IMPOUND #8063
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 44.75
Total :214.75
118199 4/8/2010 071719 EDNETICS INC 48343 NETWORK SEGMENTATION (VLAN PROJECT)
Develope IP schema, VLAN assignments,310-00135
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 8,000.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 760.00
Total :8,760.00
118200 4/8/2010 073193 EMERSON, BRIANA ENG20060465 REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSIT
P/A 7211 Meadowdale Beach Rd Permit
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
118201 4/8/2010 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG11869 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
BEGINNING TAEKWON DO #11869
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 88.20
Total :88.20
118202 4/8/2010 073194 FARIS, KAREN ENG20070326 REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSIT
P/A 215 10th St Permit ENG20070326 St
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
118203 4/8/2010 062290 FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE AND PRINT 517400008936 CEMETERY SIGN WORK
CEMETERY SIGN WORK
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.05
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 0.39
CEMETERY SIGN WORK517400008941
8Page:
Packet Page 45 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118203 4/8/2010 (Continued)062290 FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE AND PRINT
CEMETERY SIGN WORK
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 241.65
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 22.95
CEMETERY SIGNS517400008948
CEMETERY SIGN WORK
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 124.20
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 11.80
Total :405.04
118204 4/8/2010 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 153953 March 2010 Section 125 & Section 132
March 2010 Section 125 & Section 132
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 84.90
Total :84.90
118205 4/8/2010 012198 GFOA 0153002 300168462 / 300174370
Membership L Hines/D Sharp
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 250.00
Total :250.00
118206 4/8/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 22082 E9FG.SERVICES THRU 3/26/10
E9FG.Services thru 3/26/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,045.08
Total :2,045.08
118207 4/8/2010 073191 HUEBNER, EDWARD L ENG20080341 REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSIT
P/A 15723 70th Ave W Permit ENG20080341
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
118208 4/8/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81804281 COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 26.83
Total :26.83
9Page:
Packet Page 46 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118209 4/8/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81804278 C/A 467070-1003748A4
Finance Copier Rental 3/22-4/21/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07
Meter Charge 1/25-2/22/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 88.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 51.58
Total :594.46
118210 4/8/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5013777595 DSD recp copies
DSD recp copies
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 6.79
Total :6.79
118211 4/8/2010 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2898560 PRESCHOOL INTERNET
INTERNET ACCESS FOR MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118212 4/8/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 6677409 C/A 768421
PR1-1 City Phone Service thru 3/25/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 932.37
Total :932.37
118213 4/8/2010 016211 KESSELRING GUN SHOP 25630 INV#25630 - EDMONDS PD
SAF ALS BELT HOLSTER -RH
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 33.75
SAF ALS PADDLE HOLSTER - RH
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 46.88
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.42
Total :97.05
118214 4/8/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 03262010-01 INV#03262010-01 EDMONDS PD
42 CAR WASHES @$5.03 - 02/10
10Page:
Packet Page 47 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118214 4/8/2010 (Continued)017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 211.26
Total :211.26
118215 4/8/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 25958 E6DA.ON-CALL SERVICES THRU 11/21/09
E6DA.On-Call Services thru 11/21/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 3,262.30
Total :3,262.30
118216 4/8/2010 067475 LANDSVERK QUALITY HOMES INC ENG20070577 REFUND STREET CUT DEPOSIT
P/A 9005 196th St SW Permit ENG20070577
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
118217 4/8/2010 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20100331 INV# 1201641-20100331 EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM COMMITMENT 3/10
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
118218 4/8/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103893 Cups for Council Chambers
Cups for Council Chambers
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 8.30
Total :8.30
118219 4/8/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103897 DSD Office supplies
DSD Office supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 208.55
Total :208.55
118220 4/8/2010 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 699384 SUPPLIES
HOSE, WAND, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 191.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.16
11Page:
Packet Page 48 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :209.30118220 4/8/2010 018980 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
118221 4/8/2010 060909 MACHADO, DAVID L 3/31/10 Time loss paid back to D. Machado (for
Time loss paid back to D. Machado (for
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 308.38
Total :308.38
118222 4/8/2010 070381 MICHEL CONSTRUCTION INC ENG20060298 REFUND STREET CUT REFUND
P/A 21213 82nd Pl W Permit ENG20060298
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20060300
P/A 21215 82nd Pl W Permit ENG20060302
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20060302
P/A 21215 82nd Pl W Permit ENG20060302
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20060303
P/A 21211 82nd Pl W Permit ENG20060303
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20060308
P/A 21205 82nd Pl W Permit ENG20060308
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20070096
P/A 21207 82nd Pl W Permit ENG20070096
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20070097
P/A 21219 82nd pl W Permit ENG20070097
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
REFUND STREET CUT REFUNDENG20070150
P/A 616 Glen St Permit ENG20070150 St
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :800.00
118223 4/8/2010 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 09-1030-11 E8JB.SERVICES THRU 2/28/10
E8JB.Services thru 2/28/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 3,379.50
12Page:
Packet Page 49 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,379.50118223 4/8/2010 072746 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
118224 4/8/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-101939 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 115.95
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-101965
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 57.00
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-103206
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :362.82
118225 4/8/2010 073152 NORTHWEST GEOGRAPHICS INC 204 GIS ANALYST SUPPORT SERVICES
GIS Updates - Engineer Hours
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 595.00
Storm Hours
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 1,933.75
Sewer Hours
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,071.00
Water Hours
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,160.25
Total :4,760.00
118226 4/8/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 118 Planning Board Minutetaker 3/24/10
Planning Board Minutetaker 3/24/10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 256.00
Total :256.00
118227 4/8/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 993126 INV#993126 ACCT#520437 250POL-EDMONDS PD
MEAD REFILLABLE NOTEBOOK
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.32
ALUMINIUM CORKBOARD 4x3
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 74.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.92
INV#993174 ACCT#520437 250POL-EDMONDS PD993174
13Page:
Packet Page 50 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118227 4/8/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
DRY ERASE BOARD
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 279.99
DESK STAPLER
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 27.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 29.18
Total :427.61
118228 4/8/2010 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Mar-2010 03/10 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Mar-10 Emergency Medical Services &
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,703.54
Mar-10 PSEA 1, 2 &3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 36,552.61
Mar-10 Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 117.00
Mar-10 State Patrol Death
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 571.67
Mar-10 Judicial Information Systems
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 6,042.81
Mar-10 School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 511.30
Mar-10 Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 3,234.11
Mar-10 Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 610.65
Total :49,343.69
118229 4/8/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 681869 Prof Serv - Leg Legal Fees for 2/2010
Prof Serv - Leg Legal Fees for 2/2010
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 6,599.30
Total :6,599.30
118230 4/8/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 WATER
WATER: 23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.24
14Page:
Packet Page 51 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118230 4/8/2010 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
WATER0060860
WATER/SEWER:
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 75.48
Total :95.72
118231 4/8/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK11787 PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT #11787
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 459.48
Total :459.48
118232 4/8/2010 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES PLAYWELL12015 LEGOS ENGINEERING CAMPS
ENGINEERING CAMP #12015
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 600.00
ENGINEERING CAMP #12016
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 975.00
Total :1,575.00
118233 4/8/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 183439 INV#183439 ACCT#2772 - EDMONDS PD
SHIP RADIO FOR REPAIR
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 22.86
INV#183787 ACCT#2772 - EDMONDS PD183787
RETURN PAGER TO USA MOBILITY
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 10.27
RETURN COFFEE CUP TO DTC COMM
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 24.01
Total :57.14
118234 4/8/2010 065579 QUIKSIGN 57879 Sign Install Sunset Landing PLN 2009-51
Sign Install Sunset Landing PLN 2009-51
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 370.11
Total :370.11
118235 4/8/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 51403 E3JC.SERVICES PROVIDED 12/28/09-1/24/10
E3JC.Services provided 12/28/09-1/24/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 4,880.49
E3JC.SERVICES 1/25/10-2/21/1051558
15Page:
Packet Page 52 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118235 4/8/2010 (Continued)068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC
E3JC.Services 1/25-2/21/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 634.35
Total :5,514.84
118236 4/8/2010 073189 RODRIGUES, ANGELA RODRIGUES0331 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 42.00
Total :42.00
118237 4/8/2010 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 03/29/10 ACCT#70014, ANIMAL CONTROL - EDMONDS PD
#050553 - 3 NPC 3/8/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 32.04
#252756 - 7 NPC 3/29/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 74.76
Total :106.80
118238 4/8/2010 073151 SEATTLE'S CHILD MAGAZINE 2010-9270 CAMPS BANNER AD
CAMPS AD
001.000.640.574.200.440.00 135.00
Total :135.00
118239 4/8/2010 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 194433 INV#194433 EDMONDS PD
TOWING 1992 CHEVY 2500-039RZT
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
118240 4/8/2010 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1101254 General Purpose Receipt Books
General Purpose Receipt Books
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 648.40
Freight
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 40.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 65.48
16Page:
Packet Page 53 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :754.70118240 4/8/2010 036509 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
118241 4/8/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2013-2711-1 610 PINE ST
610 PINE ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.32
750 15TH ST SW2015-5730-3
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 319.59
750 15TH ST SW2016-1027-6
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.17
750 15TH ST SW2021-6153-5
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 127.28
Total :493.36
118243 4/8/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202562 20829 76th Ave W - School Lights
20829 76th Ave W - School Lights
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 30.02
Lift Station 8200202919
Lift Station 8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 244.61
6801 N MDR - Meadowdale Clubhouse200386456
6801 N MDR - Meadowdale Clubhouse
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 170.83
8429 196th St SW - Fire St 16200398956
8429 196th St SW - Fire St 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,678.28
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER~200422418
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER~
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,565.85
Lift Station 4200468593
Lift Station 4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 471.48
SIGNAL LIGHT200493153
SIGNAL LIGHT
17Page:
Packet Page 54 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118243 4/8/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 60.05
LIFT STATION #10200496834
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 124.84
LIFT STATION #2200563385
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 68.32
SIGNAL LIGHT200592954
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.53
SIGNAL LIGHT200594885
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 74.44
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg200638609
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 932.46
SIGNAL LIGHT200678019
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.47
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 31.04
LIFT STATION #3200865202
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 136.08
DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE S200913853
deocrative lighting
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 39.42
23800 Firdale Ave - Traffic Light201103561
23800 Firdale Ave - Traffic Light
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 57.90
SIGNAL LIGHT201147063
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 47.91
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT201151420
18Page:
Packet Page 55 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118243 4/8/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.49
SIGNAL LIGHT201187895
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 33.39
LIFT STATION #12201265980
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 303.22
SIGNAL LIGHT201283892
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 56.23
LIFT STATION #11201374964
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.86
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT201431236
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
LIFT STATION #1420150127
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.04
Lift St 7201532926
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 455.99
LIBRARY~201551744
LIBRARY~
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,226.19
SIGNAL LIGHT201572898
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 171.09
LIFT STATION #15201594488
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.53
STREET LIGHT201611951
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.22
19Page:
Packet Page 56 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118243 4/8/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
STREET LIGHT201656907
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 526.28
TRAFFIC SIGNAL201690849
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
Municipal St Lighting (150Watts: 181201711785
Municipal St Lighting (150Watts: 181
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,406.33
Street Lighting (150 Watts @ 183 Lights)201711785
Street Lighting (150 Watts @ 183 Lights)
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,406.33
SIGNAL LIGHT201782646
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 56.83
STREET LIGHT201907862
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.71
Public Works~201942489
Public Works~
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 90.83
Public Works~
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 345.14
Public Works~
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 345.14
Public Works~
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 345.14
Public Works~
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 345.14
Public Works~
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 345.11
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St202087870
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 290.30
STREET LIGHT202191284
20Page:
Packet Page 57 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118243 4/8/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 31.04
SIGNAL LIGHT202289120
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 104.94
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX~202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX~
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,287.99
SIGNAL LIGHT202356739
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.10
SIGNAL LIGHT202389375
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.17
LOG CABIN202421582
LOG CABIN
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 342.68
CITY HALL~202439246
CITY HALL~
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,828.41
LIFT STATION #1202499539
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 1,253.04
Municipal St Lighting (200Watts: 303202529186
Municipal St Lighting (200Watts: 303
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
STREET LIGHTING202529186
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
Municipal St Lighting (400Watts:202529202
Municipal St Lighting (400Watts:
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
STREET LIGHTING202529202
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
21Page:
Packet Page 58 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118243 4/8/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Municipal St Lighting (100Watts: 2029202576153
Municipal St Lighting (100Watts: 2029
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,813.20
Municipal - 100W - 2029 Lights202576153
Municipal - 100W - 2029 Lights
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,807.75
Municipal St Lighting (250Watts: 58202579488
Municipal St Lighting (250Watts: 58
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
STREET LIGHTING202579488
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
8429 196th St SW - Fire Sig Light202807632
8429 196th St SW - Fire Sig Light
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 32.54
Total :61,248.39
118244 4/8/2010 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Mar-2010 MAR-10 CRIME VICTIMS COURT REMITTANCE
Mar 10 Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 1,041.71
Total :1,041.71
118245 4/8/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44720 INV#44720 - EDMONDS PD - SCHEELE
MAILBOX MAGNETS - SCHEELE
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 5.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 0.71
Total :8.21
118246 4/8/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44681 Stamp pad for received date stamper
Stamp pad for received date stamper
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 6.92
Total :6.92
22Page:
Packet Page 59 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118247 4/8/2010 067803 TACTICAL TAILOR INC 2058178 INV#2058178 - EDMONDS PD
QR-TAC SLING M-4 AMBI
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 90.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 7.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.31
Total :107.26
118248 4/8/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1689433 C/A 148134 - 3/31/2010
Street/SW MW I ad, #10-13
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 179.74
Aquatic Leads ad, 10-14
001.000.640.575.510.440.00 169.40
Total :349.14
118249 4/8/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1689298 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3786
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 32.20
NEWSPAPER AD1689821
04/06 Hearing (Title 18)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 54.04
NEWPAPER ADS1690076
Council & Plan Brd Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,762.04
Total :1,848.28
118250 4/8/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1686877 Legal Notice - Picasso PLN 2009-55
Legal Notice - Picasso PLN 2009-55
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 89.20
Total :89.20
118251 4/8/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.30
Total :43.30
23Page:
Packet Page 60 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118252 4/8/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-Fax line 3/25-4/24/10
FS #16-Fax line 3/25-4/24/10
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 53.21
CITY PARK T1 LINE425-AB8-1176
City Park T1 Line 3/16-4/15/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 411.10
DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOCOM425-DH0-0667
Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 382.87
Total :847.18
118253 4/8/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0854994083 C/A 571242650-0001
2/22-3/22/10 Bldg BB Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 99.83
2/22-3/22/10 Fleet BB Cell Phone Service
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 60.97
2/22-3/22/10 Water/Sewer BB Cell Phone
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 28.99
2/22-3/22/10 Water/Sewer BB Cell Phone
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 28.99
2/22-3/22/10 Sewer Dept BB Cell Phone
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 58.86
2/22-3/22/10 WWTP BB Cell Phone Service
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 115.68
2/22-3/22/10 Water Dept BB Cell Phone
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 City Clerk BB Cell Phone
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 Court BB Cell Phone Service
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 114.21
2/22-3/22/10 Devlp Serv BB Cell Phone
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 Planning BB Cell Phone
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 Blackberry Comm/Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 56.82
24Page:
Packet Page 61 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118253 4/8/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
2/22-3/22/10 Engineering BB Cell Phone
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 381.56
2/22-3/22/10 Facilities Maint BB Cell
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 118.63
2/22-3/22/10 Finance BB Cell Phone
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 BB Cell Phone Service FD
001.000.510.522.100.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 BB Cell Phone Service FD
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 354.23
2/22-3/22/10 BB Cell Phone Service FD
001.000.510.522.300.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 BB Cell Phone Service FD
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 86.02
2/22-3/22/10 HR BB Cell Phone Service HR
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 IT BB Cell Phone Service &
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 368.13
2/22-3/22/10 Mayor's Office BB Cell
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 163.05
2/22-3/22/10 BB Cell Phone Service
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 134.72
2/22-3/22/10 PD BB Cell Phone Service
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,182.27
2/22-3/22/10 PD Air Cards BlB Air Cards
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 321.09
2/22-3/22/10 PW Admin BB Cell Phone
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 56.82
2/22-3/22/10 St Dept BB Cell Phone
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 62.10
Total :4,247.53
118254 4/8/2010 069380 WASHINGTON CHAPTER FBINAA 5/25 FBINAA GANNON 5/25/10 GANNON EDMONDS PD
LESSONS LEARNED TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 45.00
25Page:
Packet Page 62 of 465
04/08/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:28:53AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :45.00118254 4/8/2010 069380 069380 WASHINGTON CHAPTER FBINAA
118255 4/8/2010 065497 WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY 2009 X52 REFUND REFUND OF DUP. PYMT 07/09 FROM WTSC
REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT - X52 DUI
001.000.000.229.000.000.00 544.55
Total :544.55
118256 4/8/2010 073187 WEAVER PUBLICATIONS 042010 AD IN SEATTLE VISITORS GUIDE 2010
Ad in 2010 Seattle Visitor's Guide
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
118257 4/8/2010 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 471 UMPIRING
UMPIRING MENS AND CO ED SOFTBALL GAMES
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 594.00
Total :594.00
Bank total :336,677.9494 Vouchers for bank code :front
336,677.94Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report94
26Page:
Packet Page 63 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118258 4/15/2010 073164 AA ASPHALT INC 0035203-IN Water - 642 Maple St Project
Water - 642 Maple St Project
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4,000.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 380.00
Total :4,380.00
118259 4/15/2010 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 410332 BASKETBALL T-SHIRTS
BASKETBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 39.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 3.78
PICKLEBALL SHIRTS410346
PICKLEBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 26.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 2.52
Total :72.70
118260 4/15/2010 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8840 Monthly Wholesale Water Charges for Mar
Monthly Wholesale Water Charges for Mar
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 102,496.42
Total :102,496.42
118261 4/15/2010 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 2065 SIERRA PARK TREE REMOVAL
REMOVE LG SECTION OF ALDER, TAKE DOWN
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 900.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 85.50
Total :985.50
118262 4/15/2010 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC QM66 EDMONDS
PROFICIENCY TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 860.00
Total :860.00
1Page:
Packet Page 64 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118263 4/15/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0410 ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITOR
ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR FOR DANCE
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
118264 4/15/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4848665 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 41.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.90
Total :44.90
118265 4/15/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4836550 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 60.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.75
Total :66.28
118266 4/15/2010 069751 ARAMARK 10594233 Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 -3.27
Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 -12.42
Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 -12.42
Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 -12.42
Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 -12.42
Reimburse from over payment Nov 08
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 -12.39
Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4780424
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
2Page:
Packet Page 65 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118266 4/15/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4792365
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 9.12
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 9.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.86
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.87
Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4804467
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.86
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 9.12
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 9.11
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.87
Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4816284
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
Street/ Storm Uniform Svc655-4828832
Street/ Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 21.87
3Page:
Packet Page 66 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118266 4/15/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
Street/ Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 21.86
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.08
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.07
Fleet Uniform Svc655-4828833
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4836547
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW Mats655-4841090
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
4Page:
Packet Page 67 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118266 4/15/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Fleet Uniform Svc655-4841092
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4848666
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.10
PW Mats655-4853095
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
5Page:
Packet Page 68 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118266 4/15/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Total :160.88
118267 4/15/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0061380-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,466.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 234.29
Total :2,700.53
118268 4/15/2010 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.29
Total :42.29
118269 4/15/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 276 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE951
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total :200.00
118270 4/15/2010 073169 BACHICI, STEVAN 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118271 4/15/2010 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0310 Background check services
6Page:
Packet Page 69 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118271 4/15/2010 (Continued)069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
118272 4/15/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011426442 COPIER RENTAL
COPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 186.08
Total :186.08
118273 4/15/2010 002100 BARNARD, EARL 39 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 181.61
Total :181.61
118274 4/15/2010 073170 BEAULIEU, ED 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118275 4/15/2010 073204 BEENE, JOHN AND TINA 3-04525 UB # 7-1003-022 UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund #7-1003-022
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 44.44
Total :44.44
118276 4/15/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 803080 INV#803080 EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON
5 IN 1 JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 200.00
NAME TAGS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.00
HEAT STAMP-APPLY LETTERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
REFLECTIVE PANEL
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 21.28
7Page:
Packet Page 70 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :245.281182764/15/2010 002500 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
118277 4/15/2010 072813 BOONE, CAROLYN D BOONE0407 REFUND
REFUND - CUSTOMER REQUEST
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 300.00
Total :300.00
118278 4/15/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN11856 YOGA
YOGA #11856
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 84.00
Total :84.00
118279 4/15/2010 073171 BROWN, JULIE 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118280 4/15/2010 068484 CEMEX 9418636436 Water - Cold Mix Asphalt
Water - Cold Mix Asphalt
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 426.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 40.54
Roadway - Asphalt9418783220
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 351.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 33.40
Storm - Dump Fees9418783222
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 143.06
Roadway - Asphalt9418875627
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.08
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 316.56
Roadway - Asphalt9418892660
Roadway - Asphalt
8Page:
Packet Page 71 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118280 4/15/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 316.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.08
Roadway - Asphalt9418913736
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 388.12
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 36.88
Water - Asphalt9418913737
Water - Asphalt
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 433.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 41.18
Street - Supplies9418957094
Street - Supplies
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 206.25
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 18.99
Total :2,813.46
118281 4/15/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11993 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11993
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.20
Total :67.20
118282 4/15/2010 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 16616245 COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 607.12
Total :607.12
118283 4/15/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7782 Street - Signal Maint thru 12/31/09
Street - Signal Maint thru 12/31/09
111.000.653.542.640.510.00 187.72
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS7811
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
9Page:
Packet Page 72 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118283 4/15/2010 (Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83
Total :13,988.55
118284 4/15/2010 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2533584460571 Water Usage for the Month of March 2010
Water Usage for the Month of March 2010
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 442.74
Total :442.74
118285 4/15/2010 072192 CITY OF VANCOUVER 305449 INV 305449 EDMONDS PD-FROLAND EVOC 3-15
EVOC INSTRUCTOR UPDATE CLASS
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 500.00
Total :500.00
118286 4/15/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2175277 005302
TOWELS/SOAP
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 188.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 17.95
Total :206.87
118287 4/15/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2172102-2 Fac Maint - Cable
Fac Maint - Cable
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 59.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.65
Fac Maint - Dust Pans, Towels, Bleach,W2176717
Fac Maint - Dust Pans, Towels, Bleach,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 484.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.07
Library - WastebasketsW2176717-1
Library - Wastebaskets
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.15
Fac Maint - Shine-Up , Seat Covers, TT,W2178592
10Page:
Packet Page 73 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118287 4/15/2010 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
Fac Maint - Shine-Up , Seat Covers, TT,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 598.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 56.87
Total :1,287.98
118288 4/15/2010 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 35311 Edmonds CDC text and tabs for new ADB
Edmonds CDC text and tabs for new ADB
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 70.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 6.65
Total :76.65
118289 4/15/2010 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 3 C/A CITYOED00001
Mar-10 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 913.50
C/A CITYOED000014
Apr-10 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 913.50
Total :1,827.00
118290 4/15/2010 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0401 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 96.00
Total :96.00
118291 4/15/2010 062891 COOK PAGING WA 7862260 pagers-water
pagers-water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.29
Total :4.24
118292 4/15/2010 072848 COPIERS NW 350169 COURTROOM CANON COPIER
COURTROOM CANON COPIER
001.000.230.512.500.350.10 1,095.00
11Page:
Packet Page 74 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,095.001182924/15/2010 072848 072848 COPIERS NW
118293 4/15/2010 072042 CRACUT, DANIEL 2462 UNIFORM/CRACUT
UNIFORM/CRACUT
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 350.00
Total :350.00
118294 4/15/2010 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER12177 FUN WITH FROGS
FUN WITH FROGS #12177
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 75.60
Total :75.60
118295 4/15/2010 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 188253 Strom - Shorty Concrete Catch Basins
Strom - Shorty Concrete Catch Basins
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,180.70
2" Ext
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 346.92
4" Ext
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 346.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 178.08
Total :2,052.62
118296 4/15/2010 073172 DARWIN, AUDREY 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118297 4/15/2010 073201 DAVIS, JILL 2-20575 RE: #7-1002-018 UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund 7-1002-018
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 69.42
Total :69.42
118298 4/15/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3091 MINUTE TAKING
04/06 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 381.00
12Page:
Packet Page 75 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :381.001182984/15/2010 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
118299 4/15/2010 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 3249738 Storm - Solid Locking Lids
Storm - Solid Locking Lids
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 541.38
Locking Grates
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 852.10
Drain Assemblies
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,296.00
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 50.00
misc sales tax %
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 235.60
Total :2,975.08
118300 4/15/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001069/1 PARKS & RECREATION
MISC. FASTENERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.01
Total :11.66
118301 4/15/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001063/1 FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Fac Maint - Truck Stock - Small Utility
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.19
FACILITY MAINTENANCE001064/1
Cemetery - Flush Lever
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.62
FACILITY MAINTENANCE001071/1
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.28
FAC - Ant Bait
13Page:
Packet Page 76 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118301 4/15/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.69
Total :40.24
118302 4/15/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 20359 SUPPLIES
TERMINAL TOOL, BATTERY WASHER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.60
SUPPLIES20368
BATTERY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 69.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.65
Total :95.12
118303 4/15/2010 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 182707 INV#182707 CLIENT#3713 - EDMONDS PD
EUTHANASIA IMP#8069
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 20.80
LIMITED EXAM IMP#8069
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 34.00
Total :54.80
118304 4/15/2010 071008 EICHHOLZ, MICHAEL EICHHOLZ040910 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALL REFEREE @ ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 66.00
Total :66.00
118305 4/15/2010 073173 EKSTEDT, JULIE 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118306 4/15/2010 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 086347 Radix Monthly Maint Agreement May 2010
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement May 2010
14Page:
Packet Page 77 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118306 4/15/2010 (Continued)031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
118307 4/15/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 053913 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 82.57
COPIER MAINT053931
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 109.15
Total :191.72
118308 4/15/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU19539 Traffic - Gloves, O Strap
Traffic - Gloves, O Strap
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 144.84
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 13.76
Traffic - Snap-on Seal, Sealer,WAMOU19547
Traffic - Snap-on Seal, Sealer,
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 323.07
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.80
Total :489.47
118309 4/15/2010 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 33110 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 11,530.00
Total :11,530.00
118310 4/15/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1726789 17983
PIPE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 56.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.38
Total :62.04
118311 4/15/2010 073197 FERRIS UNDERGROUND 136962 Hydrant Deposit Returned
15Page:
Packet Page 78 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118311 4/15/2010 (Continued)073197 FERRIS UNDERGROUND
Hydrant Deposit Returned
411.000.000.245.110.000.00 950.00
Total :950.00
118312 4/15/2010 068151 FREEWAY TRAILER SALES INC 087926 Parks Dept - 14' Utility Trailer at
Parks Dept - 14' Utility Trailer at
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3,524.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 325.04
Total :3,849.04
118313 4/15/2010 072174 FRIENDS OF FRANK DEMIERO DEMIERO2010 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
FRANK DEMIERO JAZZ FESTIVAL
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
118314 4/15/2010 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 000022637A Water - PRV Repair Kits
Water - PRV Repair Kits
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,476.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.69
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 236.14
Total :2,721.83
118315 4/15/2010 073174 GOFORTH, GEORGIA 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118316 4/15/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9215138356 EAR MUFFS
EAR MUFFS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.65
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.08
9.5% Sales Tax
16Page:
Packet Page 79 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118316 4/15/2010 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.39
Total :39.12
118317 4/15/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6658604 Water Quality - Test Kits
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 26.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 32.08
Water Quality - Test Kits
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 310.73
Total :369.76
118318 4/15/2010 073175 HARLINE, MARSHA 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118319 4/15/2010 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 1055640 Storm - PVC Slide Gate Glue
Storm - PVC Slide Gate Glue
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 445.00
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 48.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 34.27
Total :527.27
118320 4/15/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 38 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 22.52
Total :22.52
118321 4/15/2010 073176 HOLMES, ELIZABETH 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
17Page:
Packet Page 80 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118322 4/15/2010 073177 HOLOD, MARIO 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118323 4/15/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2140010 6035322500959949
POLYSHEET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 159.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.19
6035 3225 0095 99495092418
LIGHT BULBS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 89.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.52
60353225009599498080473
CLR CLEANER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 169.65
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.12
Total :459.04
118324 4/15/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1035301 PS - Repair Supplies
PS - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 223.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.20
MCH - Wood filler, Supplies2047939
MCH - Wood filler, Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.93
PS - Supplies2048007
PS - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 36.94
9.5% Sales Tax
18Page:
Packet Page 81 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118324 4/15/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.51
PS - Repair Supplies3010956
PS - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.69
MCH / Fac Maint Shop - Discs3049230
MCH / Fac Maint Shop - Discs
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.99
PS - Adhesisves, Supplies35404
PS - Adhesisves, Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 73.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.02
PS - Trowel, Supplies35456
PS - Trowel, Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 66.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.27
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Flashlite, Drawer4049140
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Flashlite, Drawer
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.61
Cemetary - Repair Supplies46741
Cemetary - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.83
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Organizer, Washers,48251
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Organizer, Washers,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.61
9.5% Sales Tax
19Page:
Packet Page 82 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118324 4/15/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.00
Street - Work Supplies48295
Street - Work Supplies
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 136.84
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 13.00
Street - Dayton ADA - Siding5036227
Street - Dayton ADA - Siding
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 116.61
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 11.08
Fac Maint - Truck Supplies5061774
Fac Maint - Truck Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.79
PS - Naping Shears (2)6035990
PS - Naping Shears (2)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.79
Fac Maint - Shop Vac FIlters6038372
Fac Maint - Shop Vac FIlters
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.60
MCH - Flooring Supplies6047346
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.83
MCH - Flooring Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.89
Storm - Garbage cans (2) for spill kits6047370
Storm - Garbage cans (2) for spill kits
411.000.652.542.320.310.00 35.98
9.5% Sales Tax
20Page:
Packet Page 83 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118324 4/15/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
411.000.652.542.320.310.00 3.42
Sewer - TV Truck - Broom7580218
Sewer - TV Truck - Broom
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.30
PS - Supplies8033771
PS - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.58
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Work Gloves
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.09
Fac Maint - Hammar Drill9035623
Fac Maint - Hammar Drill
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 299.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 28.41
Cemetery - Siding ZBar, Hook9046942
Cemetery - Siding ZBar, Hook
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.68
PS - Granite9579190
PS - Granite
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.65
Svc FeesFCH-003679520
Svc Fees
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.60
Svc Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.80
Svc Fees
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 6.60
21Page:
Packet Page 84 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,503.401183244/15/2010 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
118325 4/15/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - Big Fold Towels 7 Cases
Fac Maint - Big Fold Towels 7 Cases
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 274.64
Total :274.64
118326 4/15/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81863442 COPIER LEASING
Cannon Image Runner
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 803.12
Total :803.12
118327 4/15/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81835958 Rent on reception copier.
Rent on reception copier.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Rent on Engineering copier from81886293
Rent on Engineering copier from
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier from 4/1-4/30/10.81886295
Rent on large copier from 4/1-4/30/10.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,301.14
118328 4/15/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5013889328 Meter charges on large copier for
Meter charges on large copier for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 78.93
Meter charges 2/27-3/31/10 for black5013889329
Meter charges 2/27-3/31/10 for black
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 495.70
Total :574.63
118329 4/15/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 764230 Water Sewer - Yellow Work Jackets (4)
Water Sewer - Yellow Work Jackets (4)
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 69.90
Water Sewer - Yellow Work Jackets (4)
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 69.90
9.5% Sales Tax
22Page:
Packet Page 85 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118329 4/15/2010 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 6.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 6.64
Total :153.08
118330 4/15/2010 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13041465-00 FS 17 - Ignitor
FS 17 - Ignitor
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.60
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.94
Total :56.91
118331 4/15/2010 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 52310 MANAGERS CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR
MANAGERS CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 125.00
Total :125.00
118332 4/15/2010 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD11820 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY #11820
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 196.00
Total :196.00
118333 4/15/2010 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS11850 PERSONAL TRAINING
PERSONAL TRAINER
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 112.00
Total :112.00
118334 4/15/2010 073178 KESSELRING, DAVID 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118335 4/15/2010 073198 KIM, BUKYUNG KIM0408 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
23Page:
Packet Page 86 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118335 4/15/2010 (Continued)073198 KIM, BUKYUNG
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 28.00
Total :28.00
118336 4/15/2010 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE WRIA 8-5501 3rd Trimester of 2009 Per Linda Grob -
3rd Trimester of 2009 Per Linda Grob -
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 4,315.34
Total :4,315.34
118337 4/15/2010 017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO 83324 Museum - Supplies
Museum - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 144.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.76
Total :158.61
118338 4/15/2010 073180 LANGENDORFER, JOANNE 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118339 4/15/2010 073181 LARABEE, NORMAN 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118340 4/15/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 4010-199 ROPE
ROPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.16
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.34
IGNITION SWITCH4010-211
TORO IGNITION SWITCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.12
Freight
24Page:
Packet Page 87 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118340 4/15/2010 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.48
Total :67.08
118341 4/15/2010 072264 LEXIPOL LLC 4093 INV#4093 - EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
UPDATE LAW ENFORCEMENT MANUAL
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 3,200.00
Total :3,200.00
118342 4/15/2010 073203 LIM, MANAYATI 4-01300 RE: #107756K UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund #107756K
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 37.33
Total :37.33
118343 4/15/2010 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 2470 Hearing Testing - 54 employees 3/17/10
Hearing Testing - 54 employees 3/17/10
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 963.00
Total :963.00
118344 4/15/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103696 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 113.83
SUPPLIES103818
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 521.96
SUPPLIES103880
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 177.41
SUPPLIES103890
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 54.74
SUPPLIES103916
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 300.03
25Page:
Packet Page 88 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,167.971183444/15/2010 018760 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
118345 4/15/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103941 BUSINESS CARDS FOR POLICE DEPT.
Business cards~250-00239
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00
T.S. Shoemake250-00239
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 16.00
Mike Bower250-00239
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00
L.P. Miller250-00239
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00
John Cameron250-00239
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00
Darcie E. Scheele250-00239
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 16.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 1.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 1.52
Total :105.12
118346 4/15/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103905 Misc. office supplies, including
Misc. office supplies, including
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 24.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.35
Misc. office supplies including usb103991
Misc. office supplies including usb
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 334.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 31.81
Total :393.70
118347 4/15/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 284 INTERPRETER FEE
26Page:
Packet Page 89 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118347 4/15/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE286
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE520
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE521
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE522
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE523
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE700
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
Total :617.75
118348 4/15/2010 073124 MARSHALL, MARY ELLEN 2052010 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118349 4/15/2010 070028 MCA 041910 PROBATION CONFERENCE FOR LEYDA
PROBATION CONFERENCE FOR LEYDA
001.000.230.512.501.490.00 110.00
Total :110.00
118350 4/15/2010 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 37 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 6,242.00
27Page:
Packet Page 90 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :6,242.001183504/15/2010 019920 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN
118351 4/15/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 51334304 123106800
LIGHT BULBS/TAPPING FLUID/SEALED-BEAM
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 612.70
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 99.67
12310680051587697
STRUT CHANNELS/CONNECTING PLATE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 247.98
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.09
12310680051599380
TUBE FITTINGS/PIPE FITTING/ADAPTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 684.76
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.28
12310680051865272
SPRING RETURN ACTUATOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 438.92
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.73
12310680052069973
V-BELT/SHOP VAC ACCESSORY
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 102.03
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.51
Total :2,284.67
118352 4/15/2010 072010 MEISER, GARLAND MEISER0413 PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR
SUPERVISOR FOR PICKLEBAL LEAGUE @
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 84.00
Total :84.00
118353 4/15/2010 063773 MICROFLEX 00019230 Q1-2010 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
Q1-2010 Tax Audit Program
28Page:
Packet Page 91 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118353 4/15/2010 (Continued)063773 MICROFLEX
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 143.52
Total :143.52
118354 4/15/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 103316 MCH - Floor Sander Rental & Supplies
MCH - Floor Sander Rental & Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 98.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 9.31
Total :107.31
118355 4/15/2010 072173 MORIARTY & ZVALEUSKAS LLP CR22542 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 200.00
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEECR22606
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 420.00
Total :620.00
118356 4/15/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0268608-IN Water / Sewer - Safety Vests
Water / Sewer - Safety Vests
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 22.95
Water / Sewer - Safety Vests
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 22.95
RKI Gas Supply
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 110.00
RKI Gas Supply
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 110.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.64
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 1.64
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.88
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.89
29Page:
Packet Page 92 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118356 4/15/2010 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 2.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 2.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.18
Water/Sewer - Safety Vests269371-IN
Water/Sewer - Safety Vests
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 31.35
Water/Sewer - Safety Vests
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 31.35
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 5.42
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 5.41
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 3.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 3.49
Total :392.53
118357 4/15/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY s3329667.001 2091
ELECTRICAL WIRE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 190.86
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 15.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 19.57
2091s3329667.002
FUSE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.40
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 20.83
30Page:
Packet Page 93 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118357 4/15/2010 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.78
2091S3329667.003
FLEX CONNECTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 13.41
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.83
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.97
2091S3331972.001
SOCKET TUBE BASE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 119.08
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.96
Total :421.80
118358 4/15/2010 064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES 10693 INV#10693 - EDMONDS POLICE
ANALYTICAL & PRECISION BALANCE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 270.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 25.65
Total :295.65
118359 4/15/2010 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 2164 INV 22164 EDMONDS PD 3/4/10 EVALUATION
PRE-EMPLOYMENT EVAL 3/4/10
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 340.00
Total :340.00
118360 4/15/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-104128 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-104129
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL/MARINA BEACH1-106122
31Page:
Packet Page 94 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118360 4/15/2010 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET RENTALS
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 792.51
Total :1,172.25
118361 4/15/2010 073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING 819 Traffic - Sign Recycling Fees
Traffic - Sign Recycling Fees
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 661.83
Total :661.83
118362 4/15/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 000411 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 206.96
SUPPLIES013710
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 143.23
SUPPLIES145758
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 74.21
SUPPLIES595884
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 73.25
SUPPLIES619040
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 122.41
SUPPLIES619126
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 44.45
SUPPLIES678874
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 55.72
SUPPLIES875941
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 81.61
SUPPLIES876910
SUPPLIES
32Page:
Packet Page 95 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118362 4/15/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 142.34
SUPPLIES892135
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 104.46
SUPPLIES911587
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 71.82
Total :1,120.46
118363 4/15/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 036555 PARK MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES
RULED PADS, POST ITS, NOTEBOOKS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 92.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.82
PAPER043703
TEAL PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 28.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.71
CEMETERY SUPPLIES061313
INK CARTRIDGES FOR CEMETERY OFFICE
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 29.78
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.84
PAPER ORDER090764
8.5 X 11 WHITE AND ASSORTED COLORED
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 242.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 23.06
Total :431.15
118364 4/15/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 088946 toner (2); staples; mag glass; desk
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 49.10
toner (2); staples; mag glass; desk
33Page:
Packet Page 96 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118364 4/15/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 516.86
Folders & pencils143917
Folders & pencils
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 32.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 3.07
Total :601.27
118365 4/15/2010 073182 OTTER, JOLENE 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118366 4/15/2010 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00053147 Returns 6/29/09 - Water Temp Sender &
Returns 6/29/09 - Water Temp Sender &
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -23.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.28
Returns 6/29/09 - Unit 55 - Supplies &00053203
Returns 6/29/09 - Unit 55 - Supplies &
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.53
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.34
Returns 6/29/09 -Unit 55 - Supplies &00053224
Returns 6/29/09 -Unit 55 - Supplies &g
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -21.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.07
Unit 55 - Castle Nut00053345
Unit 55 - Castle Nut
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.37
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.77
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.23
34Page:
Packet Page 97 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118366 4/15/2010 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Return 6/29/09 - Coolant Lev00053352
Return 6/29/09 - Coolant Levg
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -68.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -6.55
Unit 55 - Castle Nut00053386
Unit 55 - Castle Nut
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.74
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.51
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.21
Unit 55 - Idler Spacer00053607
Unit 55 - Idler Spacer
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.74
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.27
Unit 55 - Front Curtain00054906
Unit 55 - Front Curtain
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.56
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.52
Unit 31 - Switch00054985
Unit 31 - Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 406.05
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.62
Return 12/22/09 - Unit 31 - Switch00054985
Return 12/22/09 - Unit 31 - Switch
35Page:
Packet Page 98 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118366 4/15/2010 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -345.14
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -32.79
Unit 55 - Cyl-Air 3.25x00055138
Unit 55 - Cyl-Air 3.25x
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 371.66
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.34
Unit 31 - Cage Gasket, Cap Gasket,00055197
Unit 31 - Cage Gasket, Cap Gasket,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 69.04
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.63
Unit 55 - Flange Bearing00055641
Unit 55 - Flange Bearing
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.84
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.76
Unit 55 - Curtain Pres SL00056044
Unit 55 - Curtain Pres SL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 603.93
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.27
Unit 55 - Hyd Motor-Side00056104
Unit 55 - Hyd Motor-Side
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 691.81
Freight
36Page:
Packet Page 99 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118366 4/15/2010 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.66
Unit 55 - Plain Bearing, Pivot Shaft,00056139
Unit 55 - Plain Bearing, Pivot Shaft,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.48
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.91
Unit 106 - Ignition Switch0056026
Unit 106 - Ignition Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.35
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.61
Total :2,340.11
118367 4/15/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.923001 Yost Park - Paint
Yost Park - Paint
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 81.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.78
Total :89.65
118368 4/15/2010 027280 PATRICKS PRINTING 39164 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 150.36
Freight
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 20.00
8.9% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 13.38
Total :183.74
37Page:
Packet Page 100 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118369 4/15/2010 073199 PELLEGRINI, AMBER PELLEGRINI0407 REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 68.00
Total :68.00
118370 4/15/2010 072303 PERFORMANCE LEADERSHIP 178 INV #178 - EDMONSD PD 3/22-3/24/10
PERF LEADERSHIP LE SUPV - ROTH
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 275.00
PERF LEADERSHIP LE SUPV - RAMSEUR
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 275.00
PERF LEADERSHIP LE SUPV - MARSH
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 275.00
PERF LEADERSHIP LE SUPV - HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 275.00
PERF LEADERSHIP LE SUPV - LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 275.00
Total :1,375.00
118371 4/15/2010 073183 PETERSON, FRANCINE 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118372 4/15/2010 066796 PETTY CASH - COURT 33110 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 149.43
MAILING EHM BOXES
001.000.230.512.501.420.00 13.51
JURORS SNACKS
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 14.55
MAILING EHM BOXES
001.000.230.512.501.420.00 13.51
Total :191.00
118373 4/15/2010 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 2/17-3/31/10 PW - Consultant Mtg Expenses - N Miller
PW - Consultant Mtg Expenses - N Miller
38Page:
Packet Page 101 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118373 4/15/2010 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
001.000.650.519.910.430.00 18.40
Water - "The Group" 2010 Annual Dues -
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 20.00
Water - Water Sprinkler Parts
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.60
Water - UPS Fees/Returns to GC Systems
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 5.40
Water - Analizing Equipment Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.18
Water - (5)Work Jeans - L McMurphy
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 116.26
Fleet - Emergency Trip - Lunch
511.000.657.548.680.430.00 30.49
Fac Maint- Truck Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.55
Total :201.88
118374 4/15/2010 065105 PORT SUPPLY 9132201 BUOY FOR FISHING PIER
RING BUOY FOR FISHING PIER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 97.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.26
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.64
Total :113.40
118375 4/15/2010 065021 PRINTING PLUS 68150 GRAPHICS/WOTS WRITER'S DIGEST AD
9.5% Sales Tax
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 17.67
GRAPHICS/TYPE HOURLY
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 186.00
Total :203.67
118376 4/15/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
24 hour alarm monitoring-CH~
39Page:
Packet Page 102 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118376 4/15/2010 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 37.85
Total :37.85
118377 4/15/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 365.91
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 283.53
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 474.97
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 29.92
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 113.68
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 113.68
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 113.68
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 113.68
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 113.66
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 383.48
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 281.24
Fire Station # 165322323139
40Page:
Packet Page 103 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118377 4/15/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 617.98
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 39.68
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 380.58
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 691.02
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,201.60
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 187.53
Total :6,594.57
118378 4/15/2010 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 10-081 COURTROOM SECURITY
COURTROOM SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,252.50
COURTROOM SECURITY10-129
COURTROOM SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,666.88
Total :4,919.38
118379 4/15/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 107170 INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: TANNER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION107171
INSCRIPTION: SMITH
41Page:
Packet Page 104 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118379 4/15/2010 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
Total :160.00
118380 4/15/2010 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52
Total :138.52
118381 4/15/2010 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7422 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,400.00
PUBLIC DEFENDER7430
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,400.00
Total :2,800.00
118382 4/15/2010 073184 ROTHFUS, JACQUELINE 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118383 4/15/2010 071146 SAFWAY SERVICES INC D067198 9705012
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 2,108.00
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 200.26
Total :2,308.26
118384 4/15/2010 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2253381 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 650.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 61.75
Total :711.75
118385 4/15/2010 068691 SAM'S GUN SHOP LLC 537 INV#537 EDMONDS PD
42Page:
Packet Page 105 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118385 4/15/2010 (Continued)068691 SAM'S GUN SHOP LLC
RANGE FEE - 2/4/10
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 120.00
Total :120.00
118386 4/15/2010 069276 SEATTLE FLUID SYSTEM TECH LLC 5058635 2CITYEDM
ELBOW CONNECTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 68.88
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.56
Total :87.19
118387 4/15/2010 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52161838 HANGING BASKET PLANTS
PLANTS FOR HANGING BASKETS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,538.03
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 146.11
Total :1,684.14
118388 4/15/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 283962 Water - 3Way Soil
Water - 3Way Soil
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 114.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.91
Total :125.76
118389 4/15/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200326460 IRRIGATION CONTROL
IRRIGATION CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.55
IRRIGATION SYSTEM202250635
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.55
Total :63.10
118390 4/15/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2025-7952-0 WWTP VARIOUS LOCATIONS
43Page:
Packet Page 106 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118390 4/15/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.46
WWTP ELECTRICITY2030-9778-7
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 28,759.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,725.58
Total :30,493.41
118391 4/15/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201563434 480 EDMONDS WAY SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.02
23190 100th W School Crosswalk Lite201703758
23190 100th W School Crosswalk Lite
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.61
9933 100TH W SIGNAL LIGHT2260043795
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.29
Total :156.92
118392 4/15/2010 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY i000245891 55419 - SOLID WASTE CHARGES
SOLID WASTE CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 661.00
Total :661.00
118393 4/15/2010 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 3/31/10 3/31/10 EDMONDS PD
ADMIN FEE - EMPLOYEE 3-4-10
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 20.00
HEP B VACCINE - EMPLOYEE - 3-4-10
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 36.00
OFFICE VISIT - EMPLOYEE - 3-4-10
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 36.00
Total :92.00
44Page:
Packet Page 107 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118394 4/15/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44736 Water/Sewer - (2)No Warranty of
Water/Sewer - (2)No Warranty of
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 67.83
Water/Sewer - (2)No Warranty of
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 67.83
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.48
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.68
Total :153.97
118395 4/15/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44799 #7010 dater ink pads.
#7010 dater ink pads.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 44.62
Total :44.62
118396 4/15/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587/040110 DISPOSAL SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.64
Total :569.64
118397 4/15/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 28.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.70
Total :29.95
118398 4/15/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.74
garbage & recycle for FAC03585
45Page:
Packet Page 108 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118398 4/15/2010 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
garbage & recycle for Library03586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
garbage & recycle-City Hall03588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 495.66
Total :2,276.10
118399 4/15/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4163766-01 Water - (5) Work Jeans - Kobylk
Water - (5) Work Jeans - Kobylk
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 173.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 16.46
Water - 2010 Boot Allowance - J Daniels4163900-01
Water - 2010 Boot Allowance - J Daniels
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 135.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 12.83
Total :337.54
118400 4/15/2010 073200 SPRINGBERG, LINDA SPRINGBERG0406 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 32.00
Total :32.00
118401 4/15/2010 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3000877653 INV#3000877653 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
DISPOSAL-MED BOX HAZ WASTE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 50.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 1.78
Total :52.60
118402 4/15/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2152162 Sr Center - 4V All Battery (5)
46Page:
Packet Page 109 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118402 4/15/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
Sr Center - 4V All Battery (5)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.88
City Pk Bldg - Elect Supplies2154852
City Pk Bldg - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.07
Sr Center - Elect Supplies2154853
Sr Center - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 147.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.97
City Pk Bldg - Elect Supplies2159538
City Pk Bldg - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 298.64
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.03
Total :656.27
118403 4/15/2010 073185 SWENSON, JODY 40210 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.00
Total :15.00
118404 4/15/2010 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 11254 WATER - TELEMETRY TECH SUPPORT
Water - Telemetry Tech Support
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 95.00
Water Telemetry Trouble Shooting11271
Water Telemetry Trouble Shooting
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 297.10
9.5% Sales Tax
47Page:
Packet Page 110 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118404 4/15/2010 (Continued)065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 28.22
Total :420.32
118405 4/15/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10989638 SCREWS
MISC. SCREWS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 30.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.86
Total :32.94
118406 4/15/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 80973323 Street - Work gloves, Grab Hooks
Street - Work gloves, Grab Hooks
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 185.29
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 17.60
Total :202.89
118407 4/15/2010 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 50949 CIT49780
UNIFORM/SHIRTS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 424.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 40.31
Total :464.56
118408 4/15/2010 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 51090 Water/Sewer - T Shirts
Water/Sewer - T Shirts
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 358.88
Water/Sewer - T Shirts
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 358.87
L/S T Shirts
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 208.13
L/S T Shirts
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 208.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 53.87
48Page:
Packet Page 111 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118408 4/15/2010 (Continued)040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 53.86
Water/Sewer - Long & Short Sleeve Denim51091
Water/Sewer - Long & Short Sleeve Denim
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 143.00
Water/Sewer - Long & Short Sleeve Denim
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 143.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 13.59
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 13.58
Water / Sewer - Work Shirts51211
Water / Sewer - Work Shirts
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 46.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 4.37
Total :1,605.27
118409 4/15/2010 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 68113 PRINTING OF TOURISM BROCHURE
Printing of 50,000 tourism brochures
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 3,846.07
9.5% Sales Tax
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 365.38
Total :4,211.45
118410 4/15/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1690730 C/A 101416
E9FE.SEPA Publication
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 72.52
Total :72.52
118411 4/15/2010 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 461136 MUSEUM
monthly elevator maint-museum
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 188.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 17.86
49Page:
Packet Page 112 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118411 4/15/2010 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE461137
CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 850.28
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 80.77
MONITORING-PS461138
monitoring-PS 4/1-4/30/10
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 41.90
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE470731
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 154.98
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.71
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING470732
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR Monitoring
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 12.61
Total :1,361.13
118412 4/15/2010 071590 TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR LLC March2010 Hearing Examiner services for March.
Hearing Examiner services for March.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,600.00
Hearing Examiner expenses for March.March2010-EXP
Hearing Examiner expenses for March.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 2.98
Total :3,602.98
118413 4/15/2010 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 41174 FENCING MATERIAL
MISC. FENCING MATERIALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.49
Total :51.74
118414 4/15/2010 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 41023 Storm - Chain Link Parts
Storm - Chain Link Parts
50Page:
Packet Page 113 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118414 4/15/2010 (Continued)041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 97.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 9.22
Total :106.22
118415 4/15/2010 068322 TRANE 1349395 PS - Scheduled Maint Contract
PS - Scheduled Maint Contract
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 7,632.24
9.5% Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 725.06
Total :8,357.30
118416 4/15/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 16691 Safe Combination change
Safe Combination change
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 105.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 9.98
Total :114.98
118417 4/15/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 16636 FAC - Keys, Locks, Supplies
FAC - Keys, Locks, Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 58.50
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.71
Fac Maint - Key Blanks16669
Fac Maint - Key Blanks
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.66
Total :107.98
118418 4/15/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8425739 Hydrant Replacement - Waterous Gate
Hydrant Replacement - Waterous Gate
51Page:
Packet Page 114 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118418 4/15/2010 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 488.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 46.37
Water - 7924 212th Meter Replacement -8429161
Water - 7924 212th Meter Replacement -
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,754.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 166.67
Water - 7924 212th Meter Replacement -842931
Water - 7924 212th Meter Replacement -
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 393.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 37.34
Water - Meter Boxes & Lids8431097
Water - Meter Boxes & Lids
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,355.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 128.74
Water - Meter Boxes8434667
Water - Meter Boxes
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 451.08
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 42.85
Water - 7924 212th Meter Replacement -8436013
Water - 7924 212th Meter Replacement -
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 284.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 26.99
Water - Touchreaders8441613
Water - Touchreaders
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 850.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 80.75
Total :6,105.73
52Page:
Packet Page 115 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118419 4/15/2010 043935 UPS 00002T4T13120 Return item to Costa Mesa CA
Return item to Costa Mesa CA
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 11.74
Total :11.74
118420 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 04/06/10 - THOMPSON-EDMONDS PD
UNIVERSAL BINDERS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 273.40
WHIRLPOOL HEPA FILTER
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 82.32
MP20 TONER CART. MICROPRINTER
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 177.39
AIR PURIFIER CARBON PRE FILTERS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 34.82
ENGRAVING ON BADGES
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 4.38
LUNCH 3-17 ORAL BOARDS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 43.11
REG AM HUMANE ASS0C-SHOEMAKE
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 169.00
LUNCH 3-18 ORAL BOARD
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 27.31
NIK KITS -TEST B AND TEST L
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 339.16
ONE HAND JACK SETS/WEDGES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 357.64
INV#3181 04/06/10 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
FOOD TRAINING CLASS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 15.97
FOOD LEADERSHIP CLASS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.98
AIRFARE/BARD/NEW WORLD SYSTEM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 237.40
AIRFARE/COLLINS/NEW WORLD SYS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 237.40
2 PELICAN 1120 CASES W/FOAM
53Page:
Packet Page 116 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118420 4/15/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 63.92
2 WALL CLOCK RADIO CONTROLS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 56.68
TOSHIBA DIGITAL SCAN DVD PLAYER
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 40.50
INV#3215 04/06/10 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS PD3215
BFT SCSPCA (COMPAAN/LAWLESS)
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 24.00
INV#3512 04/06/10 TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3512
FEDEX-RTN ITEMS SENT IN ERROR
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 5.08
MEAL/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 40.35
FOOD/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 9.93
MEAL/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.40
FUEL/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 28.04
MEAL/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 29.15
FOOD/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.84
MEAL/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 22.29
FOOD/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.55
MEAL/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 27.75
FOOD/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 16.20
LODGING/FROLAND/EVOC UPDATE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 559.00
FEDEX MAILING TO WA ST PRINT
54Page:
Packet Page 117 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118420 4/15/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 30.26
INV#3520 04/06/10 -TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3520
FUEL/BARKER/SUPVSRLEADERSHIP
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 29.16
MEAL/BARKER/SUPVSR LEADERSHIP
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 205.85
LODGING/BARKER/SUPVSR LEAD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 480.50
MEAL/BARKER/SUPVSR LEADERSHIP
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.00
FUEL/BARKER/SUPVSR LEADERSHIP
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 48.77
Total :3,761.50
118421 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 77.20
Total :77.20
118422 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 3207 Econ. Dev. Planning materials
Econ. Dev. Planning materials
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 84.00
Aquatic Leads, #10-14 ad3280
Aquatic Leads, #10-14 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
PW Director, #10-16 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 150.00
APWA Ad - DSD
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 357.00
APWA Ad - PWD
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 390.00
PW Director Ad, #10-16
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
DSD ad, #10-16
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
55Page:
Packet Page 118 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
56
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118422 4/15/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Summer Seasonal pool ads (#10-04 -
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Total :1,081.00
118423 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 3330 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
POSTING FOR SISTER CITY ASSISTANT
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 25.00
GYMNASTICS SMALL EQUIPMENT: SPLIT
001.000.640.575.550.350.00 525.00
RAIN JACKETS FOR BEACH RANGERS
001.000.640.574.350.240.00 259.75
CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS8669
EASTER EGG HUNT CANDY
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 9.92
PARTY SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 2.18
EGG HUNT CANDY
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 49.52
PLANTS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 434.15
TIDE TABLES
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 13.07
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 124.22
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES & BUTTERFLY LARVAE
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 20.98
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: CONSTRUCTION PAPER
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 44.66
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 188.19
2011 CALENDARS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 59.68
UPGRADE OF SURVEY MONKEY TO ANALYZE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 19.95
SUPPLIES FOR JUNIOR COUNSELOR PROGRAM
56Page:
Packet Page 119 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
57
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118423 4/15/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 44.80
WRITE ON THE SOUND AD IN WRITER'S DIGEST
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 600.00
PROPS/DECOR FOR SPRING SHOW 2010
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 126.95
SHIRTS FOR BEACH RANGERS
001.000.640.574.350.240.00 110.03
Total :2,658.05
118424 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 3306 WEF RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP/KOHO
WEF RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP/KOHO
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 110.00
Total :110.00
118425 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 3546 Park Univ Ent / Fred Prior Seminars -~
Park Univ Ent / Fred Prior Seminars -~
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 249.00
Park Univ Ent / Fred Prior Seminars -~
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 249.00
Total :498.00
118426 4/15/2010 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council Meetings
Refreshments for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 16.34
Total :16.34
118427 4/15/2010 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0299779-WA Street/Storm - DOT
Street/Storm - DOT
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 65.00
Street/Storm - DOT
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 65.00
Total :130.00
118428 4/15/2010 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 00240 POSTAGE FOR CITY POSTAGE METER
Postage for City Meter250-00240
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00
57Page:
Packet Page 120 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
58
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :8,000.001184284/15/2010 044300 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE
118429 4/15/2010 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 0030115 utility locates
utility locates
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 84.70
utility locates
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 84.70
utility locates
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 87.25
Total :256.65
118430 4/15/2010 073196 VC "SKIP" MOYERS 001 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 400.00
Total :400.00
118431 4/15/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.52
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.86
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 59.26
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 112.34
Total :257.98
118432 4/15/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 NW1-0060 03 0210 1079569413 10
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47
03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12
03 0210 1014522641 07425-771-5553
58Page:
Packet Page 121 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
59
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118432 4/15/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 94.87
Total :354.46
118433 4/15/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58
PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR425-640-8169
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 36.28
LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978
Lift Station #1
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 49.97
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.99
FS # 16425-771-0158
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 227.92
Lift St 7425-775-2069
59Page:
Packet Page 122 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
60
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118433 4/15/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.58
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.62
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.62
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.85
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.00
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75
Total :1,365.55
118434 4/15/2010 047605 WA ST TREASURER 1ST QTR 2009 REVISED 1ST QTR 2009 FORFEITURES-EDMONDS
REVERSE 1ST QTR/PROCEEDS/CSH
104.000.000.237.100.000.00 -41.82
REVISED 4TH QTR 2009 FORFEITURES-EDMONDS4TH QTR 2009
ADD FUNDS DUE 4TH QTR/PROPERTY
104.000.000.237.100.000.00 149.00
Total :107.18
118435 4/15/2010 047605 WA ST TREASURER 1ST QTR 2010 EDMONDS FORFEITURES - 1ST QTR 2010
1ST QTR/PROCEEDS/CASH
104.000.000.237.100.000.00 78.72
Total :78.72
118436 4/15/2010 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I10007288 INV#I10007288 EDM301
BACKGROUND CHECKS 03/2010
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 192.50
Total :192.50
60Page:
Packet Page 123 of 465
04/15/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
61
12:39:51PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
118437 4/15/2010 045912 WASPC 20203 ELECTRONIC MONITORING
ELECTRONIC MONITORING
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 149.50
Total :149.50
118438 4/15/2010 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 6081541-2677-5 201-0170717-2677-6
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 4,827.12
Total :4,827.12
118439 4/15/2010 073145 WHITE CAP 62046897 Street - Yellow Armortile, Hand
Street - Yellow Armortile, Hand
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 2,239.73
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 192.62
Total :2,432.35
118440 4/15/2010 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 108394 FERTILIZER
4-4-4 PERFECT GREEN
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 24.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 2.33
Total :26.83
Bank total :309,906.00183 Vouchers for bank code :front
309,906.00Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report183
61Page:
Packet Page 124 of 465
AM-2966 4.E.
Claims for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Gavin Hesse (amount undetermined), Robert
E. Thomas (amount undetermined), and Tony Carabello ($4,877.49).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by
minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A claim for damages was received 04-06-10 from Gavin Hesse related to damage occurring to the
entry door to his property as a result of police action. Please note that the form was submitted
directly to Washington Cities Insurance Authority and is difficult to read. However, a police
report number is included.
Robert E. Thomas
14611 153rd St. E.
Orting, WA 98360
(amount undetermined)
Tony Carabello
555 Alder
#B-4
Edmonds, WA 98020
($4,877.49)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Hesse Claim Form
Link: Thomas Claim for Damages
Link: Carabello Claim for Damages
Packet Page 125 of 465
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 12:11 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/06/2010 03:30
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 126 of 465
Packet Page 127 of 465
Packet Page 128 of 465
Packet Page 129 of 465
Packet Page 130 of 465
Packet Page 131 of 465
AM-2988 4.F.
2010 Edmonds Market Contract
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Renee McRae Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Edmonds-South Snohomish County
Historical Society for the 2010 Edmonds Market.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the 2010 Edmonds Market.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Language has been added in 2.4 regarding the enactment of Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of
single-use plastic checkout bags. It includes making space available for the distribution of
handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encouraging
vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or
encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
There are no other significant changes to the contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2010 Market Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Renee
McRae
Started On: 04/15/2010 08:24
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 132 of 465
CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND
EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
May 1-October 2, 2010
The following is an agreement between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the
“City”), and the EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
(hereinafter referred to as the “Historical Society”).
WHEREAS, the Edmonds South County Historical Society has operated in the past a spring and
summer market providing a marketplace for Edmonds residents to display their wares which
uniquely promotes artists and other small business persons and their products;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in addition to providing an opportunity for economic
development and a recreational resource to the citizens of Edmonds, the event promotes tourism to
the community and could provide an initial springboard for the development of a small business;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations the City provides are more than
adequately recompensed by the promises of the Historical Society and the public benefit to be
derived from this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE,
1. Responsibilities of City.
1.1 Garden Market (May 1 through June 26): City shall provide up to 40 parking spaces
located on the south and west sides of the police parking lot for farmer/producer based vendors.
1.2 Summer Market (July 3 through October 2): City shall provide use of the right of
way, Bell Street between 5th and 6th Avenues and 5th Avenue between Bell and Main Streets, by the
Historical Society for the “Summer Market” event, each Saturday (Exception: No Summer Market
during Taste of Edmonds, Saturday August 14.)
1.3 All use and configuration of tents and other temporary facilities used in this event
shall be inspected and reviewed prior to the event by City Fire Marshal or designated representative,
in accordance with the provisions of the Open Air Market Ordinance. Tarps, tents, canopies and
covers shall be tested and labeled for fire resistance. Also, provisions of State and local law shall be
adhered to insure that no lasting or permanent damage shall be done to any public facility or
property. The Fire Marshal and City in accordance with its lawful authority under statute and
ordinance may use its discretion to cancel such event or to prohibit the attendance of the general
public in certain areas which is a violation of state law or local ordinance.
1.4 City shall install Summer Market banners as provided by Historical Society at
approved sites. Historical Society shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee.
1.5 City shall install appropriate “No Parking Saturdays” signage on both 5th Avenue
South and Bell Streets in late June and provide portable street barriers.
{WSS780893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
Packet Page 133 of 465
2. Historical Society promises in consideration of the use of the facilities and services
above described:
2.1 Set up hours begin at 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays on 5th Avenue and 7:00 a.m. on
Saturdays on Bell Street.
• During the Garden Market, the sections of the Police parking lot not used by the Market will
be reserved for police parking only. Parking restrictions will be posted and vendor and
customer parking shall not be allowed in this area. Violators may be towed at their own
expense.
• For Summer Market - parking restrictions shall be posted indicating violators will be towed.
Police Department will attempt to notify owners. If not located by 6:30 a.m. police will
proceed to have violating vehicles towed.
• For Summer Market street barricades are in place at 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and removed by
5:00 p.m.
• Historical Society shall obtain necessary Street Use Permits for Summer Market.
2.2 The Historical Society shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial
general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000
combined single limit per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and
property damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability
insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached
to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall
apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects
to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Historical
Society’s General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to
provide that the Historical Society’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance,
self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Historical
Society’s insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Historical Society shall provide a certificate of
insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance
shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.3 The Historical Society agrees that the Market is a public event. The Historical Society
further agrees that areas constituting the City-Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement,
including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens,
meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Historical Society shall
permit citizens attending events open to the general public at City-Provided Site during the Market to
exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference.
2.4 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single-use plastic
checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to bags used to carry out cooked food nor to plastic
bags provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. This ordinance will become effective on
August 27, 2010. The Historical Society will make space available for the distribution of
handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encourage its
{WSS780893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
Packet Page 134 of 465
vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or
encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
2.5 The Historical Society shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or
suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Historical Society’s
performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the
Historical Society of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to
fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this
Agreement.
2.6 Neither Historical Society nor any officer, agent, or employee shall discriminate in
the provision of service under this contract against any individual, partnership, or corporation based
upon race, religion, sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by
federal, state or local law.
2.7 In addition, the parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901
as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the “smoking ban”), smoking is prohibited in indoor
areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City,
and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This
general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is
not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Historical Society
warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the
Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this
agreement.
2.8 Historical Society agrees to the following days and general operating hours:
Garden Market: Saturdays, May 1 through June 26, 2010
Summer Market: Saturdays, July 3 through October 2, 2010 (No Market August 14,
due to Taste of Edmonds).
Historical Society agrees to the following hours of operation:
Garden Market open: 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
Set up: 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.
Takedown: 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
Summer Market open: 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Set up: 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. (6:00 a.m. start on 5th Avenue; 7:00 a.m. start on Bell
Street)
Takedown: 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m.
2.9 City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services nor
shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by Historical Society or the participants in this
event.
{WSS780893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
Packet Page 135 of 465
2.10 Historical Society shall provide fire watch for all times in and around the booths and
displays open to the general public as part of this event.
2.11 Historical Society shall provide sufficient portable sani-cans. Sani-cans will be
discretely placed at a location(s) to be agreed upon by the City and the Historical Society. The City
agrees to allow the use of one space in the parking lot south of City Hall to be used for the placement
of two sani-cans for the length of the “Summer Market” (July 3 to October 2, 2010). Individual
vendors are responsible for packing out all of their own garbage. Historical Society may deposit up to
six (6) thirteen gallon bags of garbage generated in their area in dumpster west of City Hall.
2.12 Upon the completion of the event, Historical Society shall make adequate provisions
for the cleanup and restoration of all sites rented or provided under terms of this agreement.
2.13 Historical Society shall pay City all permit fees, in accordance with provisions of
open air market, Ordinance #3015, for the above-mentioned facilities use and services at least ten
(10) days prior to the event.
2.14 Colored flags or banners may not be placed in the existing holes in the public
sidewalk designated for the American flag program.
3. Miscellaneous.
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This agreement contains the entire
agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the rights and obligations created
hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements,
written or oral, between the parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with
the provisions herein. This agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or
transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto. Any action to
interpret or enforce this agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County,
Washington, and the parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental
authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or
due to any other cause beyond Parties reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to
any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time
reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay.
3.3 Miscellaneous. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an
agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or
representative of Historical Society shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose.
Historical Society alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
{WSS780893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4
Packet Page 136 of 465
DATED this ______ day of ________________ 2010.
CITY OF EDMONDS: EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH
COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY:
Mayor Gary Haakenson By:
Its:
Date:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
{WSS780893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5
Packet Page 137 of 465
AM-2989 4.G.
2010 Edmonds Arts Festival
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Renee McRae Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Edmonds Arts Festival Association for
the 2010 Edmonds Arts Festival.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the 2010 Edmonds Arts Festival.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Language has been added in 2.4 regarding the enactment of Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of
single-use plastic checkout bags. It includes making space available for the distribution of
handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encouraging
vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or
encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
There are no other significant changes to the contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2010 EAF Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Renee
McRae
Started On: 04/15/2010 09:47
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 138 of 465
CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND
EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
June 10 - June 23, 2010
The following is an Agreement between the CITY of EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the
"CITY"), and the EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
(hereinafter referred to as the "FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION").
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Arts Festival Association, Inc. has for many years sponsored a public
event known as the Edmonds Arts Festival which provides educational and artistic benefits to the
citizens of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in addition to providing an educational opportunity, the
Edmonds Arts Festival showcases Edmonds’ artists and helps promote tourism and thereby the
economy of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations to be provided to the Festival by the
City are more than adequately recompensed by the compensation provided by the Edmonds Arts
Festival Association and from the public benefits received by the citizens of the City; NOW,
THEREFORE,
1. Responsibilities of the City. (Certain Festival Association obligations included).
1.1 From 10:00 p.m., June 10 to 5:00 p.m., June 22, 2010, City shall provide
Rooms: 206, 207, 208, 209, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 123 of the Frances Anderson Center. The
Frances Anderson Center gym shall be provided from 1:00 p.m., June 10 to 12:00 midnight,
June 21, 2010. Gym shall be available for use by 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 22, 2010. Under no
circumstances shall Festival Association have access to the Sculptor's Workshop, Rooms 210
and 211.
1.2 City shall provide the Library Plaza Room from 8:00 a.m., Thursday,
June 10 until 12:00 midnight, Monday, June 21, 2010 at which time the Festival Association
agrees to have the carpet professionally cleaned so that it is dry and ready for set up at 6:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, June 22, 2010.
1.3 All of the rooms identified herein shall be under the exclusive control of
the Festival Association during the period identified due to the high value of the arts and crafts
works that shall be located therein. The Festival Association requests that the City limit people
traffic not related to the Festival Association activities to a minimum. Two sets of the required
keys plus three additional room keys will be checked out to the Festival Association President, or
designee, who shall be responsible for security of all Festival Association displays and supplies.
The Festival Association may cover the vending machines from 12:00 noon, June 16 through
June 20, 2010.
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
Packet Page 139 of 465
1.4 During the evening of June 16, 2010, the Festival Association shall have
exclusive control of the hallways serving the rooms it is allowed to use for that evening starting
at 5:00 p.m. During this time, the Festival Association shall hold the Annual Preview Party from
5:30 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. The Fire Department will do an inspection of the tented area prior
to the start of the party for life safety issues. Alcoholic drinks may be served at the Preview
Party, so long as Festival obtains all required state licenses and approvals to serve alcohol. The
lighted display shall be reserved for the use of the Festival Association. City shall provide ample
trashcans for the evening of June 16, 2010. Clean up is the responsibility of the Festival
Association.
1.5 City shall provide the Frances Anderson ball field, playfield, courtyard
and amphitheater, and the Edmonds Plaza from Noon, June 16 through 5:00 p.m., June 21,
2010. The playfield shall be provided for Artwork Booths. The Festival Association shall have
the exclusive use of the playfield and the baseball diamond from 8 a.m., June 16 through 12:00
midnight, June 21, 2010. It is recognized that the City may choose to sprinkle the field prior to
the Festival to reduce dust as watering the field is the only means the City has to control dust.
The sprinkling system shall be turned off by 8:00 a.m., June 16, 2010. Festival Association
agrees to reduce the size of the infield cover to cover the infield only. In addition to the Playfield,
the Festival Association shall be provided the paved area west of the outdoor stage for the food
concession area. The Library Plaza to the west of the Anderson Center shall be used for special
functions suitable to the area. Festival Association shall utilize and shall be provided up to fifteen
(15) picnic tables at the concession area and up to fifteen (15) garbage cans around the outside
area, and shall provide the City with a schematic drawing of where the garbage cans and picnic
tables are to be placed by June 2. The Festival Association shall provide two volunteers for eight
hours each to assist with the moving and placement of picnic tables and garbage cans and shall
provide a truck and volunteers to move and set up the information booths. Festival Association
shall be responsible for providing a dumpster for trash and grease traps for waste water disposal.
Festival Association shall provide the City with a list of supplies (trash can liners, paper towels,
etc.) which the City shall order. The Festival Association will pay the invoice for all supplies in
a timely fashion. City shall check the stage to insure that it is in safe and usable condition.
1.6 Eighth Avenue shall be closed between Main Street and Dayton Street for
an additional food concession area and eating tables from 8:00 a.m., June 16, through 12:00
noon, June 21, 2010. City shall provide and install safety barriers at both ends of the closed
street. The Festival Association shall obtain a street closure permit as a part of its obligations
under paragraph 2.9.
1.7 Except as provided below, Festival Association shall have exclusive use of
the parking lot between the Anderson Center and the Edmonds Library for permit parking from
June 16 through June 21, 2010, provided however that the Festival Association shall allow
handicap permit parking in marked stalls. Festival Association shall provide up to eight parking
permits for Library staff. City shall provide official handicapped parking signs. One load/unload
space each will be marked on Dayton and Main Street, and up to two spaces on 8th Avenue.
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
Packet Page 140 of 465
1.8 The Festival Association shall have exclusive use of the Civic Center dirt
soccer/football field (excluding all turf areas) from 8 a.m., Thursday, June 17 until 8 a.m.,
Monday, June 21, 2010. The field will be used exclusively for all-day parking of exhibitors and
staff. Entrance adjacent to Boys & Girls Club prohibited except in an emergency.
1.9 City shall install Festival street banners at all approved sites. One
additional banner on the east wall of the Frances Anderson Center will be installed by City.
1.10 City shall provide fifteen (15) amps of electrical service to each duplex
outlet: the Festival Association must supply any additional power. A Festival Association
representative and a City representative from Public Works will meet prior to June 10, 2010, to
draw up an interior and exterior electrical plan. Festival Association is responsible for notifying
PUD of hookups and schedule inspection of temporary panels. Festival Association must have
temporary panels and power poles removed by 12:00 Noon, Wednesday, June 23, 2010. The
Festival Association shall not draw power from the Frances Anderson Center.
2. Responsibilities of the Festival Association.
2.1 The Festival Association will operate the Edmonds Arts Festival
consistent with its educational purposes and shall not illegally discriminate in the provision of
the event or in its entrance requirements against any person or organization in violation of state
or federal statute or local ordinance.
2.2 In addition, the parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of
Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is
prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public
employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting
organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is
included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations
created by the smoking ban. The Festival Association warrants that it will comply with the
smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in
assuring compliance during the event described in this agreement.
2.3 The Festival Association agrees that the Edmonds Arts Festival is a public
event. The Festival Association further agrees that areas provided by the City Site that are
covered under this Agreement, including but not limited to public right of way, streets,
sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums.
As a result, the Festival Association shall permit citizens attending events open to the general
public during the Edmonds Arts Festival to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to
free speech without interference on City property.
2.4 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single use
plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to bags used to carry out cooked food nor to
plastic bags provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. This ordinance will become
effective on August 27, 2010. The Edmonds Arts Festival Association will make space available
for the distribution of handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
Packet Page 141 of 465
bags and encourage its vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by
utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
2.5 The Festival Association shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Festival
Association’s performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that
claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall
include a waiver by the Festival Association of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but
only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the
termination and/or expiration of this Agreement.
2.6 The Festival Association shall provide a Certificate of Insurance
evidencing insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $3,000,000
combined single limit per occurrence and $3,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury
and property damage. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial
General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming City as additional
insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a
clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The City shall be
named as an insured on the Festival’s General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy
shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the Festivals insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance. Any insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess
of the Festival’s insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Festival shall provide a certificate of
insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the premises described herein.
Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.7 Displays and artworks shall not be hung from conduits or sprinkler pipes.
Exits and exit signage shall not be obstructed except with specific approval of the Fire Marshal
or his designee. Nothing shall be attached to any piece of art displayed by the City, or on any
metal surface, within the Edmonds Art Festival premises made available by the City to the
Festival Association and covered by this Agreement. The Festival Association shall be
responsible for removing all paint, wires, and modifications made to the building for the Festival
and restoring the premises to its original condition. No stakes shall be used on grassy areas of the
Plaza. A Festival Association representative shall meet with a member of the City's Parks and
Recreation Department prior to June 10, 2010 and on June 23, 2010 to inspect the facility to
document the “original” and post event condition of the Anderson Center, the Plaza Rooms, and
outside areas.
2.8 Festival Association shall be responsible for picking up all trash and
removing all items and equipment related to the Festival by 5:00 p.m., June 22, 2010. This
includes the grounds as well as the buildings. City shall provide the Festival Association with
one mop, pail, and broom to use for cleanup, supplies for the toilet facilities, and keys to
dispensers. The Festival Association will provide sufficient portable sani-cans and wash stations.
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4
Packet Page 142 of 465
The Festival Association will take over cleaning and stocking the restrooms from 5:00 pm, June
16 to 5:00 pm, June 21, 2010.
2.9 Festival Association shall provide manpower to assist relocating City
equipment and furniture to the storage rooms. Also, City clients shall have access to the weight
room (200A) for drop-in use up until 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2010, and starting again
at 8:00 a.m., Monday, June 21, 2010. The clients shall use the alternate Main Street entrance
(no access through the gym). City shall secure the hallway between the gymnasium and the
weight room by 12:00 noon, Friday, June 11. The hallway must be opened by 4:00 p.m., June
16 and must remain open, clear and unobstructed for egress during the Festival.
2.10 Festival Association shall be responsible for all required city and state
permits. The Festival Association shall fill out Street Banner Permit with fees provided for by
this agreement. All permits will be arranged through a City's designated representative. The
Festival Association is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits for serving alcohol on the
premises from the state.
2.11 The Festival Association shall post "NO DOGS" signs on the Festival
grounds and the Civic Center Field as per City Ordinance. The Festival Association shall notify
vendors of this ordinance as part of their registration instructions, and also inform vendors that
this ordinance will be enforced. This provision shall not apply to service animals for the
disabled.
2.12 The Festival Association shall be responsible for cleaning rugs, floors,
stairs, and otherwise restoring the buildings to their original condition, including professional
cleaning of the Plaza Room carpet, rooms 201, 209, 112 (if used), 114 and main floor hallway,
elevator lobby and ramp. The Festival Association shall pay for special cleaning of all paved
food concession areas, restore all areas to their original condition, and wash east-facing windows
on the first and second floor of the Frances Anderson Center by 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, June
23. (Care must be taken particularly with the Daycare windows below ground level which have
exhaust fans that are not able to be sealed). The Festival Association shall hot water power wash
the Plaza and all pedestrian walkways around the amphitheater and Frances Anderson Center as
well as the Library Plaza area and steps to the Library parking lot. Power washed materials
(litter, etc.) must be collected and disposed of and not pushed to adjacent areas. Disposal of
waste water shall be according to the City policy using grease traps provided, cleaned and picked
up, by the Festival Association.
2.13 The Festival Association shall provide a fire watch for all times the
buildings and displays are open to the general public. The Edmonds City Fire Marshall or
representative shall inspect the Frances Anderson Center with the Festival Association President,
or designated representative, prior to June 11, 2010 and any potential problems will be noted
and reported prior to Fire Marshall's briefing. At 9:00 a.m., June 18, 2010 Fire Marshall shall
brief designated representatives of the Festival Association of the location and use of fire
apparatus in the Anderson Center and Library Plaza Rooms. The Festival Association President
and appointed representatives will be the responsible Festival Association individuals for
performing fire prevention and fire watch activities.
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5
Packet Page 143 of 465
2.14 The Festival Association shall insure that:
2.14.1 Kilns, barbecues, forges and other sources of heat shall be
insulated from turfed areas to prevent the heat from killing the grass and sterilizing the soil. All
heat producing appliances in locations other than the food vending area shall be approved by the
Fire Department and may require conditions for their acceptable use. Food vendor installations
will be inspected prior to Festival opening. Tarps, tents, canopies and covers shall be listed and
labeled for flame resistance.
2.14.2 Vehicles shall only be allowed on turfed areas to load and unload,
with adjacent streets and Civic Center Soccer Playfield (dirt field) used for parking during the
Festival. Food Court concessions will use the Main Street entrance for loading and unloading.
The Festival Association shall notify all individual residents of the affected areas of 8th Avenue
and provide general notice to all the citizens of the closure of 8th Avenue.
2.14.3 The Festival Association will provide gate control and parking
supervision to ensure orderly and efficient parking, and restrict parking to the sand/dirt surface
within the track area. Use of the jogging track, tennis courts, softball field, and Boy’ & Girls’
Club activities should not be impacted. The Festival Association may be charged time and/or
materials to return the area to its original condition.
2.15 The Festival Association shall submit a cleaning/damage deposit of
$1,000.00 to the City prior to May 14, 2010. The deposit shall be refunded to the Festival
Association if, upon inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary
to reimburse the City for loss or cleaning and supply costs.
2.16 The Festival Association shall pay the City a fee of $4,604.00 ($3,650 for
Anderson Center, under stage storage, Plaza Room and environs and $954 for Civic Field) for
the use and services of the above mentioned facilities in this Contract, pay directly to the
contractor for supplies provided through the City for the actual cost of supplies furnished by the
City within thirty (30) days of mailing of a final bill by the City. All fees are due by May 14,
2010.
2.17 Notices. All requests for additional services and concerns of the Festival
Association shall be directed by the Festival Association President to the City's designated
representative, Renée McRae (425.771.0232).
3. Miscellaneous.
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This agreement contains
the entire agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the rights and obligations
created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and
agreements, written or oral, between the parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are
deemed merged with the provisions herein. This agreement shall not be amended, assigned or
otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the parties
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6
Packet Page 144 of 465
hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this agreement shall be brought before the Superior
Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the parties agree that, as between them, all matters
shall be resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any
governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in
transportation, or due to any other cause beyond Parties reasonable control. In the event of delay
in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be
extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay.
3.3 Miscellaneous. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact
create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent,
employee or representative of Festival Association shall be deemed to be the same of the City for
any purpose. Festival Association alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers,
officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this
Agreement.
DATED this _______ day of __________________, 2010.
CITY OF EDMONDS: EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL
ASSOCIATION
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
Its:
Date:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
{WSS780880.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 7
Packet Page 145 of 465
AM-2995 4.H.
4th of July Parade & Fireworks Display
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Renee McRae Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
for the 4th of July parade and fireworks display.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the 4th of July parade and fireworks display.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Language has been added in 2.12 regarding the enactment of Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of
single-use plastic checkout bags. It includes making space available for the distribution of
handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encouraging
vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or
encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
There are no other significant changes to the contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: July 4th Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 12:11 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Renee
McRae
Started On: 04/15/2010 10:54
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 146 of 465
CONTRACT
THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The following is an agreement between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as “City”)
and the GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (hereinafter referred to as
“Chamber”).
WHEREAS, the Chamber proposes to conduct a public celebration honoring Independence Day - 4th
of July through a parade and fireworks display; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to participate in the sponsorship of
such events by providing the consideration set forth in this agreement in order to enhance the safety
of the public celebrations for its citizens and to offer a reasonable alternative to the use of private
fireworks which the Council finds in many situations to be unsafe; NOW, THEREFORE
1. Responsibilities of the City
City shall provide:
1.1 Use of City streets as diagrammed in Exhibit A - Parade Route, for parade to occur
on July 4, 2010. City will provide traffic barriers and will set up and take down sound system to be
located at the Edmonds Theater. City shall put up banners at approved sites.
1.2 Use of Civic Center Playfield for setup to start at 9:00 a.m. and Fireworks to occur at
approximately 10 p.m., July 4, 2010.
1.3 Use of 6th Avenue South between Bell Street and Sprague Street from 6:00 p.m. until
11:00 p.m.
1.4 Barricades at 6th Avenue South and Bell and 6th Avenue South and Sprague.
1.5 A power hookup at the west end of the grandstand and power for the band.
1.6 Two signs at each entrance to the Park indicating no fireworks or alcohol allowed.
1.7 City is responsible for stringing flags, caution tape or line that clearly delineates
spectator areas from fireworks staging areas.
2. Responsibilities of the Chamber
In consideration of the above, Chamber agrees:
{WSS780886.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
Packet Page 147 of 465
2.1 To assume all responsibility for coordination of the 4th of July Parade including: Hire
off-duty police officers to police the route. Assure that all participants are informed of and abide by
the parade rules to insure that no participants draw people viewing the parade onto the parade route.
2.2 To obtain the necessary Street Banner Application (from Public Works 425-771-
0235) and Parade Permit (Police Department 425-771-0200). Fees for the preceding two permits will
be waived for this event. A Street Use Permit is not needed. Chamber will ensure that pyrotechnic
provider submits Application for Fireworks Display Permit accompanied by a $30.00 public display
permit fee (Edmonds Fire Department-Fire Marshall 425-771-0215). A copy of their State
pyrotechnic license shall be provided with their application. The Chamber shall obtain ASCAP and
any other copyright licenses necessary.
2.3 To provide for security and sani-cans along the parade route and fireworks display.
2.4 To pick up, deliver, and return to storage in City Park gazebo and Parks Maintenance
area all needed 3’ X 10’ and 10’ X 10’ staging sections.
2.5. To hook up electrical power made available by the City at the west end of the
grandstand.
2.6 To provide 10 yards of sand for the pyrotechnic display and provisions for cleanup
and removal after the event.
2.7 To assume all responsibility for fireworks display. A State-licensed pyrotechnics
operator shall abide by local ordinance and make necessary permit applications for local approval.
State guidelines and operational requirements shall be adhered to for safe operation of fireworks.
2.8 To authorize a maximum of three stationary self-contained vendors on closed
sections of 5th or Main Streets off the parade route. No vendors will be authorized along the parade
route. To authorize not more than ten vendors on 6th Avenue South between Bell Street and Sprague
for the evening fireworks. Vendors shall operate at specified locations and shall not block park
entrances or fire hydrant. Vendors must be self-contained; no power hookups are available for
vendors. Vendors are responsible for having appropriate permits and for compliance with all local
and state requirements.
2.9 To provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability
insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit
per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage.
City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy
and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the
Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the
limits of the insurer’s liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Chamber’s General
Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain , or be endorsed to contain that the
Chamber’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self insurance, or
insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Chamber’s insurance and shall
not contribute to it. The Chamber shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required
{WSS780886.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
Packet Page 148 of 465
insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.10 To remove all garbage to the size of a cigarette butt, including metal and litter debris,
equipment, and any and all other items made necessary by or used in the provision of this event.
2.11 The Chamber agrees that the 4th of July celebration is a public event. The Chamber
further agrees that areas constituting the City-Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement,
including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting
halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Chamber shall permit citizens attending
events open to the general public at City-Provided Site during the 4th of July celebration to exercise
therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference.
2.12 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single-use plastic checkout
bags. The restrictions do not apply to bags used to carry out cooked food nor to plastic bags provided
solely for produce, bulk food or meat. This ordinance will become effective on August 27, 2010. The
Chamber of Commerce will make space available for the distribution of handouts, signage and
information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encourage its vendors to voluntarily
comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of
reusable totes whenever practicable.
2.13 The Chamber shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits,
including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Chamber’s performance, or
nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or
suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Chamber of the immunity
provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This
provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement.
2.14 In addition, the parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901
as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor
areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City,
and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This
general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is
not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Chamber
warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the
Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this
agreement.
2.15 The Chamber shall be responsible to restore all public spaces to their original
condition, including removing and disposing of any and all litter and trash.
3. Miscellaneous.
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This agreement contains the entire
agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the rights and obligations created
hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements,
written or oral, between the parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with
{WSS780886.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
Packet Page 149 of 465
the provisions herein. This agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or
transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto. Any action to
interpret or enforce this agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County,
Washington, and the parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental
authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or
due to any other cause beyond Parties reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to
any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time
reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay.
3.3 Miscellaneous. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an
agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or
representative of the Chamber shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The
Chamber alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees,
representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
DATED this ______ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY OF EDMONDS: GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE:
Mayor Gary Haakenson Jan Vance, Executive Director
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
{WSS780886.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4
Packet Page 150 of 465
{WSS780886.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5
Packet Page 151 of 465
4th of July Parade Participant’s Map
Booths will be on the west side of 6th. They will not block entrances or fire hydrants.
Civic Center Playfield
Sp
r
a
g
u
e
B
e
l
l
6th Avenue
Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
4th of July Fireworks and Evening Festivities
Vendor Area
on 6th Ave. N
{WSS780886.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6
Packet Page 152 of 465
AM-2991 4.I.
2010 Taste of Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Renee McRae Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
for the 2010 Taste of Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the 2010 Taste of Edmonds.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Language has been added in 2.3 regarding the enactment of Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of
single-use plastic checkout bags. It includes making space available for the distribution of
handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encouraging
vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or
encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
There are no other significant changes to the contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2010 Taste Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Renee
McRae
Started On: 04/15/2010 10:23
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 153 of 465
CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
August 11-17, 2010
The following is an agreement between CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and
the GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (hereinafter referred to as the “Chamber”).
WHEREAS, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce has for a number of years conducted a public
event known as “A Taste of Edmonds” and proposes to do so again in 2010; and
WHEREAS; the City Council finds that A Taste of Edmonds provides distinct benefits to the City by
showcasing Edmonds’ restaurants and other local businesses while providing a unique recreational
opportunity for its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such an event enhances tourism and promotes economic
development as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE,
1. Responsibilities and Rights of City
1.1 City shall provide use of surfaces of Civic Center Field (excluding the tennis courts), Bell
Street including Centennial Plaza between 5th & 6th Avenues, and 6th Avenue from Bell Street north to
Daley Street, and south approximately 80’ to first drive on west side for use by Chamber for the “Taste of
Edmonds” event, so as to allow for the following:
(a) The event setup shall begin on Wednesday, August 11, 2010, at 8:00 a.m. on
Civic Center Field.
(b) All surfaces listed shall remain available to the “Taste of Edmonds” until final
cleanup by Tuesday, August 17, 2010, at noon.
(c) City shall designate eight (8) additional handicapped parking spaces to be located
in an area to be agreed upon by City and Chamber officials with barricades to be in place at close of
business (5pm) Wednesday, August 11, 2010.
1.2 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other permanent or temporary
facilities used in the event may be inspected and reviewed by City Fire Chief, Police Chief, Building
Official and Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to determine the facilities in use comply
with the provisions of State and local law, as well as to insure that no lasting or permanent damage shall
be done to any public facility or property.
1.3 City Fire Marshal shall inspect the facilities prior to the opening to the general public on
or before 10:00 a.m., August 13, 2010, as the parties shall agree and note all potential problems. Prior to
the opening of the event, Chamber shall correct all problems related to fire safety. In the event that such
problems are not corrected, City may at its sole discretion cancel such event or prohibit the attendance of
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
Packet Page 154 of 465
the general public in certain areas, if in the opinion of the Fire Marshal and at the sole discretion of City,
any violation or other condition that threatens life, health or property has not been corrected.
1.4 City shall provide barricades and barricade placement and removal for the event.
1.5 City shall provide padlocks as required on location for tennis courts and other areas from
which public access is restricted during the Taste of Edmonds. City shall also provide removal of the
padlocks.
1.6 City shall provide water access behind the opening between booths 187 and 188 for use
by the food vendors.
1.7 City shall provide access to storage area of portable stage to beer garden at time of stage
installation and at time of stage removal.
1.8 City shall remove fencing on east side of Boys & Girls Club basketball courts.
1.9 City shall provide basketball hoop removal and re-installation on basketball courts
located near the Boys & Girls Club building.
1.10 City shall install Taste of Edmonds street banners as provided by Chamber at approved
sites. Chamber shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee.
1.11 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other
source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended by the Seattle
King County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds.
1.12 City shall provide and oversee police supervision of the event under the command of the
Chief of Police or his designee. Police staffing levels and fees to be paid to the City will be mutually
determined by the Chief of Police, or his designee, and the Chamber Executive Director.
2. Responsibilities and Rights of Chamber
2.1 The Chamber shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single
limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage.
City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a
copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of
Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each
insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s
liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Chamber’s General Liability insurance policy. The
insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the Chamber’s insurance shall be the
primary insurance. Any insurance, self insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall
be excess of the Chamber’s insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Chamber shall provide a
certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein.
Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.2 The Chamber agrees that the Taste of Edmonds is a public event. The Chamber further
agrees that areas constituting the City-Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement, including but
not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens, meeting halls and
squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Chamber shall permit citizens attending events
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
Packet Page 155 of 465
open to the general public at City-Provided Site during the Taste of Edmonds to exercise therein their
protected constitutional right to free speech without interference in a designated free speech zone that
does not violate fire and ADA codes.
2.3 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single-use plastic checkout
bags. The restrictions do not apply to bags used to carry out cooked food nor to plastic bags provided
solely for produce, bulk food or meat. This ordinance will become effective on August 27, 2010. The
Chamber of Commerce will make space available for the distribution of handouts, signage and
information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encourage its vendors to voluntarily
comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of
reusable totes whenever practicable.
2.4 The Chamber shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney
fees, arising from or in connection with the Chamber’s performance, or nonperformance, of this
Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole
negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold
harmless shall include a waiver by the Chamber of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only
to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or
expiration of this Agreement.
2.5 Chamber may in its discretion limit the participation of any vendor who produces
duplication in order to adequately recognize limitations of space, failure to comply with applicable State
or local health, liquor, or other requirements of law, and in order to provide an adequate and interesting
diversity compatible with the recreation of the citizens of Edmonds.
2.6 Neither Chamber nor any officer, agent, or employee shall discriminate in the provision
of service under this contract against any individual, partnership, or corporation based upon race, religion,
sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal, state or local law.
2.7 In addition, the parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as
codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas,
within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and
employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general
description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended
to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Chamber warrants that it will
comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health
District in assuring compliance during the event described in this agreement.
2.8 Chamber shall obtain any necessary Street Use and Parks Facility Use Permits and pay
the required fees. (See site plan attached as Exhibit “A”).
2.9 Chamber shall restrict field parking to approved areas. Chamber shall have security at
permit parking entrance area to limit public access. City has the right to close the parking area for the
event if parking is not limited to the agreed upon area.
2.10 Chamber shall ensure that all booths/beer garden/wine garden have the necessary state
permits for serving and selling alcohol. Chamber agrees to make its best effort to prevent service of
alcohol to minors, including segregation of the beer garden and wine garden, posting security at the
entrances of the beer garden and wine garden and checking identification in accordance with common
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
Packet Page 156 of 465
practice. Chamber shall obtain any copyright licenses necessary for presenting licensed live and recorded
music.
2.11 Chamber agrees to the following general open hours of the Taste:
Friday, August 13, 2010: 11:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
Saturday, August 14, 2010: 11:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
Sunday, August 15, 2010: 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.
Chamber agrees to keep the hours of operation in the Beer Garden and Wine Garden within the
following schedule:
Friday, August 13, 2010: 11 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
(Last call 9:30 p.m., no service after 9:45 p.m.)
Saturday, August 14, 2010: 11:00 a.m.-10 p.m.
(Last call 9:30 p.m., no service after 9:45 p.m.)
Sunday, August 15, 2010: 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.
(Last call 6:30 p.m., no service after 6:45 p.m.)
2.12 Chamber shall provide any and all security services necessary during the night time hours
(night time hours being defined as those hours which the event is not in operation), sufficient to
reasonably secure the area and facilities provided. City shall have no responsibility or liability for the
provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by Chamber or the
participants in this event.
2.13 Chamber shall provide a fire watch for all times in and around the booths and displays
open to the general public as a part of this event.
2.14 Chamber shall provide a sufficient number of portable sani-cans and wash stations
(approximately 35 sani-cans, 2 of which must be handicapped accessible, and a minimum of 5 wash
stations).
2.15 Chamber shall provide fence installation and removal at the Beer Garden and Wine
Gardens.
2.16 Chamber is responsible for contracting with appropriate vendors for power. No power is
available from the Civic Center complex.
2.17 Chamber shall provide labor and equipment for the portable Beer Garden pouring station
(PS) to: (1) pickup the PS elements at the City’s storage location, (2) set up the PS, (3) take down the PS,
(4) cleanup the PS elements, and (5) return the PS elements to the City’s storage location.
2.18 Garbage service shall be contracted and paid for by Chamber.
2.19 Upon the completion of the event, Chamber shall make adequate provisions for the
cleanup and restoration of all sites rented or provided under the terms of this agreement, including steam
cleaning and pressure washing whenever required for all hard surfaces impacted by the event. Storm
drains are to be covered with filter fabric to capture grease and debris.
2.20 Cleanup areas include area as described in paragraph 1.1 and all streets immediately
surrounding the event perimeter.
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4
Packet Page 157 of 465
2.21 All garbage to the size of a cigarette butt, debris, litter, equipment, and any other and all
other items made necessary by or used in the provision of this event shall be picked up and removed by
12:00 noon, Tuesday, August 17, 2010.
2.22 A final inspection of the event area shall be conducted by City Parks Maintenance
Division to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original condition.
2.23 Chamber shall submit a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,500.00 to City prior to
Wednesday, July 14, 2010. The deposit shall be refunded to Chamber if, upon inspection, all is in order,
or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary to reimburse City for loss or cleaning costs.
2.24 Chamber shall pay City all permit fees for the above-mentioned facility use ($792.00
facility rental) prior to Wednesday, July 14, 2010, and shall reimburse City for the actual costs of supplies
or services furnished by City, unless otherwise established, within thirty (30) days of mailing of a final
bill by the City.
2.25 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk
designated for the American flag program.
3. Miscellaneous.
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This agreement contains the entire
agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, and
supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral,
between the parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions
herein. This agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in
writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this
agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the parties
agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance
due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot,
embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other
cause beyond Parties reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the
date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to
overcome the effect of such delay.
3.3 Miscellaneous. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an
agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or
representative of Chamber shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Chamber
alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives
and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5
Packet Page 158 of 465
DATED this ______ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY OF EDMONDS: GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE:
Mayor Gary Haakenson Jan Vance, Executive Director
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6
Packet Page 159 of 465
Exhibit A
2010 LAYOUT
{WSS780888.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 7
Packet Page 160 of 465
AM-2994 4.J.
2010 Classic Car Show Contract
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Renee McRae Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
for the 2010 Classic Car Show.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract for the 2010 Classic Car Show.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Language has been added in 2.3 regarding the enactment of Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of
single-use plastic checkout bags. It includes making space available for the distribution of
handouts, signage and information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encouraging
vendors to voluntarily comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or
encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
There are no other significant changes to the contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2010 Car Show Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 11:47 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Renee
McRae
Started On: 04/15/2010 10:36
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 161 of 465
CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND
THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
September 12, 2010
The following is an agreement (“Agreement”) between CITY OF EDMONDS ("City"), and the
GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ("Chamber").
WHEREAS, the Chamber has proposed to hold a public event known as the Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce Classic Car Show (“Classic Car Show” or “Event”); and
WHEREAS; the City Council finds that “Classic Car Show” provides distinct benefits to the City by
showcasing the City while providing a unique recreational opportunity for its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such an event enhances tourism and promotes economic
development as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE,
1. City and Chamber agree that:
1.1 City shall provide use of the following surfaces by Chamber for the Classic Car
Show:
• “Center Round” around the fountain in downtown Edmonds at 5th Avenue and Main Street,
• Main Street from the East side of its intersection with 3rd Avenue to the West side of its
intersection with 6th Avenue,
• 4th Avenue S. from the South side of its intersection with Bell Street to the North side of its
intersection with Dayton Street, and again from the South side of its intersection with Dayton
Street to approximately 100 feet south down 4th Avenue,
• 5th Avenue, from the North side of its intersection with Walnut Street to the North side of its
intersection of the northern leg of Bell Street,
• Dayton Street, from the West side of 5th Avenue to the East side of 4th Avenue,
• City Hall parking lot located immediately South of the City Hall building at 121 5th Avenue
N and the parking lot under City Hall.
(The above areas shall be hereinafter referred to as the “City-Provided Site.”)
{WSS780883.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
Packet Page 162 of 465
1.2 One or several days before the Event, City shall place signs so as to clear the City-
Provided Site of all vehicles from 2:00 a.m. on the date of the event until 7:00 p.m. on the same day.
1.3 City shall provide barriers near the following 13 locations for street closures required
to contain the City-Provided Site described in Paragraph 1.1:
Pine and 5th, to close 5th Avenue north to Walnut,
Maple and 5th, to close Maple Street east of 5th Avenue
Dayton and 6th, to allow local access only on Dayton between 6th Avenue & 5th Avenue
Dayton and 5th, to close 5th Avenue north and south of Dayton Street
Dayton and 5th, to close Dayton west of 5th Avenue
Dayton and 4th, to close Dayton east of 4th Avenue
Walnut and 5th, to close 5th Avenue north and south of Walnut Street
Main and 5th, to close 5th Avenue to the most northern portion of Bell
Main and 6th, to close Main Street west of 6th Avenue
Main and 3rd, to close Main Street east of 3rd Avenue
4th and Bell, to close 4th Avenue south of Bell Street
4th and Dayton, to close 4th Avenue north and south of Dayton Street; and
On 4th, to close 4th Avenue 100 ft. immediately south of Dayton
1.4 City shall arrange for access control of 5th Avenue South at Walnut Street from 8:30
a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on the date of the Event. Chamber will be responsible for paying the actual cost
of the overtime wage incurred by the City of the police officer to be stationed at the intersection. This
intersection will not be closed to general traffic east and west, but access will be controlled and may
be limited during this time period to allow for the safe staging of Event vehicles. There will be a
committee member at the intersection with the police officer to designate which vehicles will be part
of the Event.
1.5 Above barriers shall be delivered so as to allow Chamber to position such barriers at
5:00 a.m. the day of the Event. The number of barriers left by City at each of the eight locations shall
be sufficient to provide adequate street closure. Chamber shall remove same barriers at 7:00 p.m. on
the same day.
1.6 City shall also provide street closure barriers for the purpose described in Paragraph
1.7 near the following intersections:
Maple Street and 6th Avenue, to close Maple west of 6th; and Alder Street and 6th Avenue,
to close Alder west of 6th.
1.7 Chamber shall position such barriers at 5:00 a.m. the day of the Event so as to
provide adequate street closures and prevent traffic from 6th Avenue to turn onto Maple Street or
Alder Street from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Chamber shall remove such barriers at 10:00 a.m. on the
same day.
{WSS780883.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
Packet Page 163 of 465
1.8 On the day of the event, Chamber shall place traffic cones on the center-dividing line
of 5th Avenue between Pine Street and Walnut Street from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m.
1.9 Chamber shall obtain any necessary Street Use Permits and pay the required fees.
Police, Fire, and Public Works will meet with Chamber of Commerce officials to resolve any
remaining or potential issues of traffic control and barricades prior to the event, but shall have no
authority to waive the requirements of city ordinance or state law.
1.10 The Chamber shall be permitted to establish and operate five outdoor dining gardens
within the City-Provided Site during the Event. These gardens shall not exceed 15 x 25 in dimension,
and shall be fenced in a manner that clearly establishes and distinguishes their boundaries. Maximum
capacity of the dining gardens shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Fire Department. Dining
gardens shall provide tables, chairs and umbrellas for use by their diners. No alcohol shall be served
or permitted in the dining gardens. Food and non-alcoholic drinks may be served in the dining
gardens, but no food preparation shall be permitted therein. Dining gardens shall be sponsored by
local restaurants, and shall be located near each sponsoring restaurant. Dining gardens shall open no
earlier than 4AM and shall close no later than 5PM during the Event.
1.11 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other temporary facilities used in
the event shall be inspected and reviewed by City Fire Chief, Police Chief, Building Official and
Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to determine whether the facilities in use comply
with the provisions of State and local law, as well as to insure that no lasting or permanent damage
shall be done to any public facility or property. City Fire Marshal shall inspect the facilities prior to
the opening to the general public on or before 7:00 a.m., September 12, 2010, as the parties shall
agree and note all potential problems. Prior to the opening of the event, Chamber shall correct all
problems. In the event that such problems are not corrected, City may at its sole discretion cancel
such event or prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas, if in the opinion of the
Fire Marshal and at the sole discretion of City, anything that threatens life, health or property shall
appear.
1.12 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other
source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended by the
Snohomish County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of the City of
Edmonds.
2 Chamber Responsibilities
In addition to the above and in consideration of the use of the facilities and services above described,
Chamber agrees to the following:
2.1 The Chamber shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property
damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance
policy and a copy of the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the
Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the
{WSS780883.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
Packet Page 164 of 465
limits of the insurer’s liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Chamber’s General
Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the
Chamber’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self-insurance, or
insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Chamber’s insurance and shall
not contribute to it. The Chamber shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required
insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.2 The Chamber agrees that the Classic Car Show is a public event. The Chamber
further agrees that areas constituting the City-Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement,
including but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, gardens,
meeting halls and squares, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Chamber shall permit
citizens attending events open to the general public at City-Provided Site during the Classic Car
Show to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference.
2.3 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single-use plastic checkout
bags. The restrictions do not apply to bags used to carry out cooked food nor to plastic bags provided
solely for produce, bulk food or meat. This ordinance will become effective on August 27, 2010. The
Chamber of Commerce will make space available for the distribution of handouts, signage and
information relating to the ban of plastic checkout bags and encourage its vendors to voluntarily
comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of
reusable totes whenever practicable.
2.4 The Chamber shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits,
including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Chamber’s performance, or
nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or
suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by the Chamber of the immunity
provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This
provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement.
2.5 In addition, the parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901
as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor
areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City,
and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This
general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is
not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Chamber
warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the
Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this
agreement.
2.6 Chamber shall provide any and all security services necessary to reasonably secure
the area and facilities provided, including the City-Provided Site. City shall have no responsibility or
liability for the provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by
Chamber or the participants in this Event.
{WSS780883.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4
Packet Page 165 of 465
2.7 Chamber shall provide a fire watch for all times in and around the booths and
displays open to the general public as a part of this Event.
2.8 Chamber shall provide sufficient wash stations and approximately 12 sani-cans that
may be placed on site the night preceding the Event. Garbage service, if necessary, shall be
contracted and paid for by Chamber.
2.9 Upon completion of the Event, Chamber shall make adequate provisions for the
cleanup of all sites provided under the terms of this agreement so as to restore them to the same state
of cleanliness as existed the night prior to the Event. Cleanup of all relevant street pavements shall be
completed by 7:00 p.m. on that day. Cleanup of sidewalks shall be completed by 11:00 p.m. on that
day. Cleanup areas include the City-Provided Site as described in Section 1 and all streets
immediately surrounding the Event perimeter. A final inspection of the Event area shall be conducted
by a designated City official to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original
condition.
2.10 Chamber shall pay City all permit fees for the above-mentioned facility use and
services at least ten (10) days prior to the Event, and shall reimburse City for the actual costs of
supplies or services furnished by City (excluding those agreed to in Section 1) within thirty (30) days
of mailing of a final bill by the City, provided such supplies and services are approved and listed by
all parties to this Agreement in a signed addendum to this Agreement prior to the date which they
purport to be required.
2.11 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public
sidewalk designated for the American flag program.
3. Miscellaneous.
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the rights and obligations created
hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements,
written or oral, between the parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with
the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or
transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto. Any action to
interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County,
Washington, and the parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental
authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or
due to any other cause beyond parties reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to
any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time
reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay.
3.3 Termination. The City shall have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to
unilaterally terminate this Agreement should the same become necessary to protect public health,
safety or welfare; in which case, the City shall provide written notice of the same to the Chamber.
{WSS780883.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5
Packet Page 166 of 465
3.4 Miscellaneous. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an
agency or employment relationship between the parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or
representative of Chamber shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. The Chamber
alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees,
representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
DATED this ______ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY OF EDMONDS: GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE:
Mayor Gary Haakenson Jan Vance, Executive Director
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
{WSS780883.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6
Packet Page 167 of 465
AM-2979 4.K.
PUD Easement for Interurban Trail
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign easement with Public Utilities District #1 of Snohomish County
for portions of the Pacific Northwest Traction Company right-of-way for purposes of construction,
operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project from 76th Avenue West to Mathay
Ballinger Park, and authorization for the City Clerk to record said easement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize Mayor to sign EASEMENT with PUD #1 of Snohomish County for portions of the
Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right-of-Way of the Interurban Trail from 76th Avenue
West to Mathay Ballinger Park and authorize the City Clerk to record the EASEMENT.
Previous Council Action
On January 16, 2007, City Council accepted a Quitclaim Deed from Snohomish County PUD for
all portions of the right-of-way east of 76th Avenue West.
Narrative
The planned route for the Interurban Trail will follow the former rail bed of the old Interurban
Railroad, the Pacific Northwest Traction Company right-of-way, which is presently used by
Snohomish County PUD as a utility corridor. This easement is for the "spur" section of the project
east of 76th Avenue West that connects the trail and the neighborhood to Mathay Ballinger Park.
The City is currently in the final design and permitting phase for the Edmonds portion of the
Interurban Trail. This 1.37 mile project will construct the Interurban Trail from the
King/Snohomish County line (SR 104), through the Lake Ballinger area of Edmonds, to 228th St.
SW and connect with the existing Mountlake Terrace section. It will complete the missing link in
this regional trail system that will connect Everett to Seattle without interruption.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Interurban Site Map
Link: PUD Easement Interurban Trail
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 168 of 465
1 Engineering Robert English 04/15/2010 11:03 AM APRV
2 Public Works Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:23 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:23 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 02:29 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 03:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 04/12/2010 01:14
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 169 of 465
Trail
Underpass
73
R
D
P
L
W
72
N
D
P
L
75
T
H
P
L
W
228TH ST SW
230TH ST
229TH ST
74T
H
A
V
E
75
T
H
A
V
E
230TH ST
76
T
H
A
V
E
W
PU
D
R
/
W
7
5
T
H
P
L
77T
H
A
V
E
75
T
H
A
V
E
74
T
H
A
V
E
234TH ST
236TH ST
238TH ST
240TH ST
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
237TH ST
238TH
P
L
80
T
H
A
V
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
78
T
H
A
V
E
239TH
P
L
74
T
H
A
V
E
McALEER WAY
HIG
H
W
A
Y
9
9
241ST ST
242ND PL242ND ST
79TH PL
78
T
H
P
L
77
T
H
P
L
76
T
H
A
V
E
W
PUD
R
/
W
EDMONDS WAY
SR1
0
4
244TH ST SW
78
T
H
A
V
E
NE 205TH ST
AU
R
O
R
A
A
V
E
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
A
V
E
N
1S
T
A
V
E
N
E
WA
L
L
I
N
G
F
O
R
D
A
V
E
N
FR
E
M
O
N
T
A
V
E
N
WH
I
T
M
A
N
A
V
E
N
AS
H
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
N
N 200TH ST
N 201ST ST
N 202ST ST
N 203RD ST
N 204RD ST
N 203RD ST
N 201ST ST
N 199TH ST
N 198TH STLI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
N 199TH ST
N 198TH ST
5T
H
A
V
E
N
E
B
A
G
L
E
Y
D
R
N
N 2
0
2
N
D
P
L
N 197TH PL
N 196TH PL
84
T
H
A
V
E
W
78
T
H
A
V
E
W
80
T
H
A
V
E
W
82
N
D
P
L
W
226TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
225TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
84
T
H
A
V
E
W
227TH ST SW
76
T
H
A
V
E
W
222ND ST SW
220TH ST SW
LA
K
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
72
N
D
P
L
W
230TH
S
T
S
W
MOUNTLAKE
TERRACE
EDMONDS
LYNNWOOD
LAKE
BALLINGER
Ballinger
Park
Mathay
Ballinger
Park
Aurora Village
Transit Station
Esperance Park
Playfields
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
KING COUNTY
SHORELINE
Chase Lake
Elementary School
Chase Lake
ParkChase
Lake
Public Boat
Launch
Lake
Access
Ballinger Lake
Golf Course
N
CITY OF EDMONDS Interurban Trail
CITY OF
EDMONDS
SITE
LOCATION
MAP
INTERURBAN
TRAIL
Proposed Trail (Non-RCO Grant)
Proposed Trail (RCO Grant)
Existing Trails
Trail Under Construction
City Limits
Packet Page 170 of 465
Packet Page 171 of 465
Packet Page 172 of 465
Packet Page 173 of 465
Packet Page 174 of 465
Packet Page 175 of 465
Packet Page 176 of 465
Packet Page 177 of 465
Packet Page 178 of 465
Packet Page 179 of 465
AM-3001 4.L.
Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal Argeement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:Consent
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal Argeement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend the City Council approve on Consent Agenda for the Mayor to sign the Interlocal
Agreement.
Previous Council Action
Public Safety Committee approved this agenda item for consent agenda.
Narrative
Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been
participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) with offices in Everett.
Edmonds was one of the original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit.
In more recent years, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South
Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF,
Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the
SRDTF through financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the
SSCNTF.
The SRDTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The
grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the
SRDTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the
participating municipalities. For fiscal year 2010-2011, twenty municipalities, DSHS Child
Protective Services, six Tribal Agencies, WSP, and Snohomish County, are pledging matching
funds to the SRDTF.
Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 is $9,801, an increase of $214 over last
year’s share. Funding for this item is included in the 2009-2010 Edmonds Police budget. The
interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational
framework for the SRDTF, and has done so since 1988.
The SRDTF and SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as
Packet Page 180 of 465
needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally the SRDTF can be called out to
dismantle the lab. This assistance can save us literally thousands of dollars in overtime, training,
and equipment expense. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with
investigations where the two task forces may assist each other with investigations involving
mutual suspects.
We request that the Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to sign the FY 2010-2011
interlocal agreement with SRDTF.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010-2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:$9801
Fiscal Impact:
The contributions made by Edmonds provides for part ot the 1/3 match of funding to receive a
grant from the Department of Justice.
Attachments
Link: SRDTF ILA
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 03:53 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 05:35 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/16/2010 09:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gerry
Gannon
Started On: 04/15/2010 03:04
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/16/2010
Packet Page 181 of 465
Packet Page 182 of 465
Packet Page 183 of 465
Packet Page 184 of 465
Packet Page 185 of 465
Packet Page 186 of 465
Packet Page 187 of 465
Packet Page 188 of 465
Packet Page 189 of 465
Packet Page 190 of 465
Packet Page 191 of 465
Packet Page 192 of 465
Packet Page 193 of 465
Packet Page 194 of 465
Packet Page 195 of 465
Packet Page 196 of 465
Packet Page 197 of 465
Packet Page 198 of 465
Packet Page 199 of 465
Packet Page 200 of 465
Packet Page 201 of 465
Packet Page 202 of 465
AM-3000 4.M.
South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:Consent
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Review Committee:Public Safety
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal Agreement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend the City Council approve on Consent Agenda for the Mayor to sign the Interlocal
Agreement.
Previous Council Action
Public Safety Committee approved this agenda item for consent agenda.
Narrative
This Agreement replaces the agreement signed in 1992 by the representative agency heads from
the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. South Snohomish County and the
surrounding region continue to experience increased levels of drug use, trafficking, and
manufacture which have led to an increase in other related criminal activity. In order to most
effectively and efficiently meet this public safety threat, the Participating Jurisdictions formed the
South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). The mission of the Task Force is to
target mid and upper level drug traffickers in the communities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace,
and Lynnwood.
Edmonds currently has one detective assigned to the Task Force and as in the previous agreement
Edmonds contributes 1/3 of the salary of the Task Force Sergeant.
Major changes from the previous ILA includes clarification of issues such as equipment purchases
and ownership, seized assets and the percentage each jurisdiction will receive, use of vehicles
used by the Task Force, damage to equipment, and liability for indemnification and defense from
third-party claims.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: SSCDTF ILS
Form Routing/Status
Packet Page 203 of 465
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 03:20 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 05:35 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/16/2010 09:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gerry
Gannon
Started On: 04/15/2010 02:46
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/16/2010
Packet Page 204 of 465
South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force
PO Box 5008
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008
SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK
FORCE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Participating Jurisdictions:
City of Edmonds
City of Lynnwood
City of Mountlake Terrace
This Agreement is entered into by the above-listed Jurisdictions (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “Participating Jurisdictions” or “Parties” and individually as “Jurisdiction” or
“Party”) pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW and Chapter 10.93 RCW. It describes the duration,
purpose, organization, financing, and process for termination of the South Snohomish County
Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF).
I. DURATION
This Agreement replaces the agreement signed in 1992 by the representative agency
heads from the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. This Agreement shall be
in effect until revised or replaced by a unanimous vote of the Participating Jurisdictions, or
otherwise terminated in accordance with Article VII herein.
II. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
A. Purpose
South Snohomish County and the surrounding region continue to experience increased
levels of drug use, trafficking, and manufacture which have led to an increase in other related
criminal activity. In order to most effectively and efficiently meet this public safety threat, the
Participating Jurisdictions formed the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force
(SSCNTF), hereinafter referred to as the “Task Force.”
B. Objectives. The objectives of the Task Force are as follows:
Improve the quality of life for the citizens of South Snohomish County by
aggressively, efficiently, and professionally targeting drug traffickers that impact
those communities.
1
Packet Page 205 of 465
Identify mid- and upper-level drug trafficking organizations, utilizing state and
federal laws to dismantle them through effective professional investigations.
Efficiently investigate the criminal activities of drug traffickers who recognize no
jurisdictional boundaries by working collaboratively with local, state, and federal law
enforcement agencies.
Provide high quality services to the Participating Jurisdictions to assist with drug
investigations whether large or small.
C. Mission Statement. The mission of the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task
Force is to target drug violators in the communities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake
Terrace, and to reduce drug availability through professional investigation, apprehension, and
conviction of drug traffickers, thereby improving the quality of life in South Snohomish County.
III. ORGANIZATION
The Participating Jurisdictions each agree to support the Task Force as set forth herein,
both financially and through the assignment of personnel. The Task Force is organized as
follows:
A. Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee for the Task Force is made up of
the Police Chief, or his/her designee, from each of the Participating Jurisdictions. Based upon
recommendations from the Task Force Commander, the Oversight Committee reviews and
approves changes and updates to the SSCNTF Policy Manual and also provides approval and
gives direction on operational matters as presented and requested by the Task Force Commander.
Each member of the Committee shall have an equal vote and voice on all Committee
decisions. With the exceptions of policy manual revisions or changes, all decisions shall be made
by majority vote of the Oversight Committee members. The Committee will meet at least once a
quarter during the South Snohomish County Police Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
meetings.
Any changes or revisions to the SSCNTF Policy Manual must be unanimously approved
by the Oversight Committee.
B. Chain of Command. The chain of command is listed below. Assignment for each
position, as well as the specific duties and responsibilities for each position, is outlined in the
SSCNTF Policy Manual, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Task Force Oversight Committee
|
Task Force Commander
|
Task Force Sergeants
|
Task Force Detectives
2
Packet Page 206 of 465
C. Staffing
Task Force Commander: Appointed by the Jurisdiction with administrative
responsibility for the Task Force.
Sergeant Lynnwood PD
Sergeant Position may be an assigned Sergeant of Police from any of
the Participating Jurisdictions.
Detective Edmonds PD
Detective Lynnwood PD
Detective Lynnwood PD
Detective Lynnwood PD
Detective Lynnwood PD
Detective Mountlake Terrace PD
D. Contributing Agency Employees. Personnel assigned to the Task Force shall be
considered employees of their respective Participating Jurisdictions. Each Participating
Jurisdiction shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the compensation, benefits, and
training expenses for those employees. All rights, duties, and obligations of the employer and the
employees shall remain with that Participating Jurisdiction. Each Participating Jurisdiction shall
be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws with regard to employees and
with provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules and
regulations and agency disciplinary policies and procedures.
Any duly sworn peace officer, while assigned or having supervisory responsibilities
within the Task Force, shall have the same powers, duties, privileges, and immunities as are
conferred upon him/her as a peace officer in his/her own Jurisdiction.
IV. TASK FORCE BUDGET
A. Administrative Costs. The Lynnwood Police Department currently has administrative
responsibility for the Task Force and will generally provide for the housing, administration,
records, evidence storage, and normal office-related expenses for the Task Force.
B. Personnel Costs. Each Participating Jurisdiction will be responsible for all wages,
benefits, and standard-issue equipment for its assigned employees.
The only exception to this responsibility is for a shared sergeant position within the Task
Force. Each Participating Jurisdiction will equally contribute to the salary and benefits expense
for this position, consistent with their respective budgeted amounts. The parent Jurisdiction of
the individual serving in the shared sergeant position will be responsible for paying this sergeant
and will bill the other Participating Jurisdictions for reimbursement. Each Participating
Jurisdiction shall be responsible for informing the other parties as to its budgeted amount for the
3
Packet Page 207 of 465
shared sergeant position and for monitoring the utilization of budgeted funds based on periodic
reporting to be provided by the Participating Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for
the Task Force. In the event costs associated with the shared sergeant are anticipated to exceed
the budgeted amounts, any Participating Jurisdiction may elect to appropriate additional funds or
exercise its termination rights under this Agreement.
C. Buy Fund Account. Each Participating Jurisdiction will contribute an amount
determined by the Oversight Committee per year to replenish the investigative Buy Fund for the
Task Force, up to the maximum amount as budgeted by each Participating Jurisdiction, which
shall be no less than $20,000. The Task Force supervisors will request these monies in
increments approved by the Oversight Committee in a rotating sequence from each Participating
Jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force will be
responsible for record keeping and auditing of the Buy Fund. Any Buy Fund monies not
requested will not roll over to the following calendar year. Any Buy Fund monies obtained but
not spent will roll over into the next calendar year.
D. Major Buy Fund Account. A revolving account in the amount of $100,000 has been
established by the City of Lynnwood for narcotics purchases in connection with enforcement.
This fund will be utilized for narcotics transactions wherein the funds normally used for
relatively minor narcotics purchases are insufficient. The narcotics enforcement revolving
account (Major Buy Fund) is to be held separately from the standard buy fund and will have a
separate record keeping system. This Fund will be utilized only in support of the South
Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force. The Chief of Police of the Lynnwood Police
Department, or his/her designee, is responsible for the administration of the Major Buy Fund.
In the event that monies are spent from or otherwise not recovered for this Fund, those
monies expended will be replenished in the following manner: the Major Buy Fund will be
replenished first from seizure money; if the seizure money is not sufficient, the Participating
Jurisdictions will jointly replenish the Major Buy Fund up to $100,000, on an equal share basis.
E. Equipment. Each Participating Jurisdiction will provide an amount of money
determined by the Oversight Committee for necessary equipment purchases per calendar year for
approved equipment expenditures, up to the maximum amount budgeted by each Participating
Jurisdiction, which shall be no less than $5,000. The Task Force Commander will submit a
proposed budget request for approval each year for each Participating Jurisdiction, itemizing
anticipated purchase requests for the following budget cycle. Purchases will be approved by both
the Task Force Commander and the paying Jurisdiction prior to being ordered.
Equipment purchases will be tracked in a Task Force equipment inventory database. That
database shall include a record indicating which Participating Jurisdiction has ownership of each
piece of equipment. Equipment purchased jointly by more than one Participating Jurisdiction,
including purchases made with Seizure Funds, will be noted as such.
Notwithstanding Article III herein, the purchase of any single equipment item for which
the final total cost is $30,000 or more shall require unanimous consent of the Oversight
4
Packet Page 208 of 465
Committee when such equipment is purchased with Seizure Funds as provided for in Article V
herein.
F. Training. An anticipated training budget shall be prepared by the unit supervisors and
presented to the Oversight Committee on a yearly basis or upon request from a particular
Jurisdiction.
Funding for training will be the responsibility of the parent Jurisdiction for each member
of the Task Force. The unit supervisors will submit training requests to the Task Force
Commander for approval. Once approved, the unit supervisor responsible for the individual
detective(s) will coordinate with their respective police department’s training section to seek
approval for the training.
Nothing in this section prohibits each Participating Jurisdiction from scheduling training
for their assigned personnel as necessary to meet departmental or state standards. In those cases,
each department’s individual training section should notify the unit supervisors for scheduling.
V. SEIZED ASSETS AND REVENUE
A. Seized Assets. Items seized as the result of a Task Force investigation will be
processed by the Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force and in
accordance with state and federal laws. Monetary assets awarded to the Task Force will be
deposited in a Task Force account. Non-monetary assets will be disposed of in accordance with
state and federal law by the evidence section of the Jurisdiction with administrative
responsibility for the Task Force. The proceeds from those items will be deposited in a Task
Force account. The monetary assets and the proceeds from non-monetary assets seized as a result
of a Task Force investigation shall be collectively referred to as “Seizure Funds.”
When appropriate, Seizure Funds may be utilized to purchase equipment or to pay for
training. These expenditures will be approved by the Task Force Oversight Committee. Monies
utilized in this manner will be deducted from the total annual Seizure Fund amount before such
funds are disbursed to the Participating Jurisdictions pursuant to Paragraph B below.
B. Seizure Revenue Distribution. At the end of each calendar year, the Seizure Fund
account will be closed. After approved expenditures and required payments have been made to
the State, remaining Seizure Funds will be divided as follows amongst the Participating
Jurisdictions:
Edmonds Police Department: 25%
Lynnwood Police Department: 50%
Mountlake Terrace Police Department: 25%
Payment to each Party will be made by the end of the 1st quarter of the following year.
5
Packet Page 209 of 465
C. Reporting/Tracking Expenditures of Task Force–Seized Revenue. Each Participating
Jurisdiction is responsible for adhering to state and federal laws for the use of drug-related
seizure monies distributed to them. All federal funds that are distributed to the Participating
Jurisdictions must be tracked and reported per federal asset-sharing regulations. By accepting
seizure funds, each Participating Jurisdiction acknowledges its compliance with state and federal
laws regarding the receipt and expenditure of drug-related seizure revenue.
VI. PROPERTY DAMAGE RESPONSIBILITIES – EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE XIV,
SHARED LIABILITY
A. Vehicles. Vehicles for the Task Force will be purchased with Seizure Funds by the
Jurisdiction with administrative responsibility for the Task Force. Each Participating Jurisdiction
is responsible for vehicle maintenance and insurance expenses on a minimum of one (1)
undercover vehicle per assigned person from that Jurisdiction. The Oversight Committee will
agree on the provision of additional vehicles as best meets the operational needs of the Task
Force.
The Task Force Commander will maintain a list of vehicles indicating which
Participating Jurisdiction is responsible for insurance and maintenance, and shall provide the
updated list to the Participating Jurisdictions on an annual basis. The Commander will make
recommendations to the Oversight Committee in regards to the appropriate replacement or
additions of vehicles to the Task Force.
Due to the cooperative nature of this Task Force, personnel assigned to or assisting the
Task Force may drive any Task Force vehicle.
The insuring Jurisdiction for each vehicle shall be responsible for all damages caused to
that vehicle. The responsibility for payment of any applicable deductibles and/or self-insurance
amounts attributable to that vehicle shall be incurred by the insuring Jurisdiction. Procedures for
reporting damage to vehicles will be determined by the Jurisdiction that is responsible for
investigating and/or repairing such vehicle.
B. Damage to Other Equipment or Task Force Property. Each Participating Jurisdiction
shall be responsible for insuring its individually owned equipment or property at its sole
discretion. The replacement or repair of damaged Task Force equipment or property will be the
responsibility of the Jurisdiction which owns the property. Each Participating Jurisdiction will
be responsible for investigating and reviewing damage to property caused by their employees in
accordance with their policies, procedures, and labor contracts. Loss or damage to jointly owned
Task Force equipment or property not covered by subparagraph A above may be replaced, if
deemed necessary by the Parties, in accord with the provisions of Article IV, subparagraph E. If
any Party has insurance coverage that would pay for or contribute to the replacement cost, it
shall submit a claim and contribute any insurance proceeds to the Task Force to help cover the
replacement cost of the lost or damaged equipment or property.
6
Packet Page 210 of 465
As with vehicles, when appropriate, the Task Force Commander will also ensure dual
tracking of investigations or damage claims, depending on the respective policies and procedures
of each Participating Jurisdiction.
The provisions of this Article are an exception to the Shared Liability set forth in Article
XIV herein.
VII. DISSOLUTION, TERMINATION OR TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
MEMBERSHIP OR PARTICIPATION IN THE TASK FORCE
A. Dissolution. The Task Force may be dissolved by a unanimous vote of the
Participating Jurisdictions’ mayor(s) and/or city manager(s). The Chief of Police of each
Participating Jurisdiction will make a recommendation to the aforementioned mayor(s) or city
manager(s). Any vote for dissolution shall occur only when the mayor(s)/city manager(s), or
their designees, are present at an official South Snohomish County TAC meeting at which such
vote is taken, or for absent members, when such vote is cast in the form of a written proxy,
which is recorded with the meeting minutes.
B. Individual City Termination. A Participating Jurisdiction may permanently withdraw
its participation in the Task Force by providing written notice of its withdrawal and serving such
notice upon each remaining Jurisdiction. A notice of withdrawal shall become effective thirty
(30) days after service of the notice. The withdrawal of a Participating Jurisdiction shall not
automatically result in dissolution of the Task Force.
C. Temporary Suspension. A Participating Jurisdiction may temporarily suspend its
participation in the Task Force by providing written notice of its intent to temporarily withdraw
to the Chief of Police of each Participating Jurisdiction and serving such notice upon each
remaining Party. The temporary suspension shall become effective thirty (30) days after service
of the notice on each Party. Suspension of participation by one Party shall not automatically
result in dissolution of the Task Force. A Participating Jurisdiction that has temporarily
suspended participation must report quarterly to the Oversight Committee regarding the
anticipated return to full participation.
The termination, temporary suspension, or withdrawal from membership by any Party
does not relieve said Party from the obligations spelled forth in Article XIV herein for claims or
lawsuits arising from allegations occurring before the effective date of the termination or
temporary suspension of that Party.
VIII. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS UPON TERMINATION
A. Dissolution. Upon dissolution of the Task Force, all funds remaining in the Task
Force Account will be disbursed using the formula described in Article V, Paragraph B, Seizure
Revenue Distribution. Any funds that arrive after the official date of the dissolution of the Task
Force will be disbursed using the formula described in Article V, Paragraph B herein.
7
Packet Page 211 of 465
Equipment in the Task Force inventory will be returned to the Party that purchased that
equipment as indicated on the Task Force equipment inventory. Any jointly purchased
equipment will be divided equitably as determined by the Oversight Committee. In the event that
there is either a disagreement over ownership or over the equitable distribution of a jointly
owned asset, the first mechanism for resolving the issue will be an official meeting of the
Oversight Committee members. If successful resolution is not reached, the issue will be taken to
mediation as outlined in Article IX below.
Any non-liquidated assets (i.e., vehicles, real property, etc.) shall be referred to the
Oversight Committee to determine handling of final disposition and distribution of these assets
among the Participating Jurisdictions.
Any property not claimed shall be declared surplus by the Oversight Committee and
disposed of pursuant to state laws regarding the disposition of surplus property. The proceeds
from the sale or disposition of any Task Force property, after payment of any and all costs of sale
or outstanding obligations, shall be equally distributed to those Jurisdictions participating in the
Task Force at the time of dissolution.
B. Individual City Termination. In the event that one or more Participating Jurisdictions
terminate their participation in the Task Force, but the Task Force continues to exist, the Party
terminating participation shall be deemed to have waived any right or title to any property jointly
owned by the Participating Jurisdictions of the Task Force. In consideration for the forfeiture of
its right or title in jointly owned property, the terminating Party will be entitled to Seizure Fund
disbursement for three (3) successive quarters after the last date of staffing participation.
Provided, however, the Seizure Funds shall first be used to replenish, if necessary, the Major
Buy Fund as provided in Section IV(D) herein. The Party terminating its participation will have a
right to all property it individually owns.
C. Temporary Suspension. A temporarily suspended Party is still responsible for Buy
Fund, necessary equipment contributions, vehicle insurance, and maintenance. The temporarily
suspended Party will maintain the same level of asset sharing as a full participant.
IX. MEDIATION
In the event that any dispute arises between the Parties from or relating to this
Agreement, and the dispute is not resolved by negotiation, the Parties agree to submit the dispute
to mediation. The Parties further agree that their participation in mediation is a prerequisite to
any Party pursuing any other available remedy in relation to the dispute. However, any Party
may seek equitable relief prior to the mediation to preserve the status quo pending the
completion of the mediation process.
Any Party to the dispute may give written notice to the other Party or Parties of its desire
to commence mediation, and a mediation session must take place within thirty (30) days after the
date that such notice is given. The Parties must jointly appoint a mutually acceptable mediator. If
8
Packet Page 212 of 465
the Parties are unable to agree upon the appointment of a mediator within seven (7) days after a
Party has given notice of a desire to mediate the dispute, any Party may apply to the Chief Civil
Judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court for appointment of a mediator. The Parties
further agree to share equally the costs of the mediation, which costs will not include costs
incurred by a Party for representation by counsel at the mediation.
X. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
The Task Force and all its members shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws affecting
the Task Force. The Participating Jurisdictions acknowledge that:
A. The proceeds of forfeited property must be used only for law enforcement activities
related to controlled substances. RCW 69.50.505(9) and (10) require that 10% of the net
proceeds of forfeited property be remitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the general fund.
The remaining portion may be used only for “controlled substances related law enforcement
activities,” which have been interpreted to include only those activities with a close,
demonstrable, and significant relationship to the enforcement of controlled substance laws. 1995
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 11.
B. Furthermore, proceeds derived from local government participation in federal seizures
and forfeitures of property must be used only for law enforcement purposes as defined in the
Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies (“Guide”) published by the United States Department of Justice. The
Guide expressly enumerates both permissible and impermissible uses of funds. Accounting
procedures and internal controls established in the Guide must also be followed, including the
prohibition of commingling equitably shared Department of Justice Funds with funds from any
other source, subject to audit by the United States General Accounting Office.
C. Pursuant to the statute and guidelines, proceeds from both state and federal forfeitures
may not be used to supplant preexisting funding sources.
The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted and administered in order to ensure
compliance with these legal requirements.
XI. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified, amended, or altered by agreement of all Participating
Jurisdictions, and such modification, amendment, or alteration shall be effective when reduced to
writing and approved by the Participating Jurisdictions.
9
Packet Page 213 of 465
XII. SEVERABILITY
If any part, paragraph, section, or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid by any
court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Washington, such adjudication shall not affect the
validity of any remaining part, paragraph, section, or provision of this Agreement.
XIII. AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS
This Agreement shall be executed on behalf of each Participating Jurisdiction by its duly
authorized representative and pursuant to an appropriate resolution, ordinance, or authorizing
practice of each Participating Jurisdiction.
XIV. LIABILITY FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE FROM THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS
A. Equal Sharing of Liability. The Parties agree that liability for the negligent or tortious
actions of the Task Force or any police officer or employee working for or on behalf of the Task
Force be shared equally on an equal shares basis between the Participating Jurisdictions. It is
further agreed that no Jurisdiction should be required to pay more than one-third of the cost of
payment of any judgment or settlement for a liability claim which arises out of and is
proximately caused by the actions of any officer, employee, or Party who is acting on behalf of
or in support of the Task Force and acting within the scope of any person’s employment or duties
to said Task Force. This general agreement on liability sharing is subject to the terms and
conditions set forth below.
B. Hold Harmless. Each Party agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the other Parties
and from any loss, claim, or liability arising from or out of the negligent or tortious actions or
inactions of its employees or each other as related to any Task Force activity. Such liability shall
be apportioned among the Parties equally on equal shares basis subject to any limitation set forth
below.
C. Defense of Lawsuits. Each Party shall be responsible for selecting and retaining legal
counsel for itself and for any of its employees who are named in a lawsuit alleging liability
arising out of Task Force operations. Each Party that retains counsel for itself and/or its
employees shall be responsible for paying the attorneys fees incurred by that counsel. The Parties
shall not share costs of defense among each other unless specifically agreed to in writing for any
particular legal action.
D. Notice of Claims, Lawsuits, and Settlements. In the event that a lawsuit is brought or
a claim is filed against a Participating Jurisdiction or its employees for actions arising out of
conduct in support of Task Force operations, it shall be the duty of each said Party to notify the
other Parties that such claim or lawsuit has been initiated. No settlement of any such claim or
lawsuit by any single Party shall require equal shares contribution by any Party unless it was
done with the knowledge and specific consent of the other Parties. Any settlement made by any
10
Packet Page 214 of 465
individual Party which does not have the consent of the other Parties will not require any sharing
of payment of said settlement on behalf of the non-consenting Parties.
E. Settlement Procedure. Any Party who believes that it would be liable for a settlement
or judgment which should be equally shared by the other Participating Jurisdictions to this
Agreement shall have the burden of notifying each other Participating Jurisdiction of all
settlement demands made to that Party and any claims and/or lawsuits naming that Party and/or
its employees for what may be a joint liability. Furthermore, if the other Participating
Jurisdictions are not named as parties to the actions, it shall be the burden of the Party named in
the lawsuit to keep the other Participating Jurisdictions fully apprised of all developments in the
case and all settlements demands, mediations or any other efforts made towards settlement.
Settlements require the specific consent of all Participating Jurisdictions to this Agreement
before any equal share obligations for payment by all participating members becomes effective.
No Party shall enter into a settlement with a claimant or plaintiff unless said settlement
ends the liability of all Participating Jurisdictions to this Agreement and on behalf of their
respective employees and officers. It is the intent of this Agreement that the Parties act in good
faith on behalf of each other in conducting settlement negotiations on liability claims or lawsuits
so that, whenever possible, all parties to this Agreement agree with the settlement costs or, in the
alternative, that all parties to this Agreement reject settlement demands and agree to go to trial
and share equally in any judgment incurred as a result of the decision to go to trial. However, in
the event that a settlement demand is presented to all the Participating Jurisdictions to this
Agreement and there is not unanimous consent to pay the settlement, then and only then the
following results shall occur:
The Parties shall be free to seek a separate settlement with the claimant and/or plaintiff,
which would eliminate the liability of that Party and/or its employees, and, if such separate
settlement is reached, that Party would have no responsibility to pay any proportionate amount of
any judgment rendered against the Parties and/or their employees which did not settle. A Party
making a separate settlement would have no right to seek any reimbursement or contribution for
any portion of a settlement which said Party had reached separately with the claimant and/or
plaintiff.
F. Cooperation in Defense of Lawsuits. The Parties and their respective defense counsel
shall, to the extent reasonably legally possible and consistent with the best interests of their
respective clients, cooperate in the defense of any lawsuit arising out of the operations of the
Task Force and shall agree, wherever possible, to share non–attorney fee related costs such as
record gathering, preparation of trial exhibits, and the retention and payment of expert witnesses.
G. Payment of Judgments. Unless there is an exception as provided in Paragraph E of
this Article, it is the intention of the Parties to jointly pay any judgment on a pro-rata one-third
basis for any judgment against any Party or its employees for negligence or tortious action
arising out of conduct in the course of duties performed as Task Force members or in support of
Task Force operations, regardless of what percentage of liability may be attributed to that Party
or its employee(s) by way of verdict or judgment, including the costs of any awarded plaintiff’s
attorneys fees and costs. It is the intent of the Parties to add up the total combined judgment
11
Packet Page 215 of 465
against any Party or individual for compensatory damages and/or plaintiff’s attorneys fees and
costs, and to divide said total combined judgment into one-third shares, and each Party would
then pay one third of the total combined judgment to satisfy the judgment. Any Party which
refused to pay its proportionate one-third share would then be liable to the Parties who paid that
Party’s share in order to satisfy a judgment, plus any attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of
said monies from the non-paying Party.
H. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL REQUIRE OR BE INTERPRETED TO:
(1) Waive any defense arising out of Title 51 RCW.
(2) Limit or restrict the ability of any Party or employee to exercise any right,
defense, or remedy which a party to a lawsuit may have with respect to claims of third parties,
including, but not limited to, any good faith attempts to seek dismissal of legal claims against a
Party by any proper means allowed under the civil rules in either state or federal court.
(3) Cover a portion or require proportionate payment of any judgment against any
individual or Participating Jurisdiction for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of
employment of any individual or for any judgment for punitive damages, fines, or sanctions
against any individual or Participating Jurisdiction. Payment of punitive damage awards shall be
the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment is rendered and/or his or her
municipal employer, should that employer elect to make said payment voluntarily. This
Agreement does not require equal sharing of any punitive damage awards, fines, or sanctions.
I. Pre-Existing Claims or Lawsuits. For purposes of claims or lawsuits which predate
this Agreement, or if the occurrence which gave rise to said claim or lawsuit predates this
Agreement, it is the intention of the Parties that such claims and lawsuits be handled, processed,
and paid as though the terms of this Agreement were in full force and effect at the time of the
occurrence which gave rise to the claim or lawsuit.
J. Insurance Coverage. The Parties shall, to the best of their ability and to the extent
possible, coordinate their liability insurance coverages and/or self-insured coverages to fully
implement and follow the Agreement set forth herein. However, the consent of any liability
insurance carrier or self-insured pooling organization is not required to make this Agreement
effective as between the Participating Jurisdictions signing this Agreement, and the failure of any
insurance carrier or self-insured pooling organization to agree or follow the terms of this
provision on liability shall not relieve any individual Party from its obligations under this
Agreement.
XV. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Survivability. The obligations of the Participating Jurisdictions under all provisions
of this Agreement which may reasonably be interpreted or construed as surviving the suspension,
completion, termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive the suspension,
completion, termination or expiration of this Agreement.
12
Packet Page 216 of 465
B. No Third-Party Beneficiary. It is the specific intent of the Participating Jurisdictions,
and the Participating Jurisdictions agree, that this Agreement shall not confer third-party
beneficiary status on any non-party, including but not limited to the citizens of any of the
Participating Jurisdictions.
C. Recordation or Posting. Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, the Jurisdiction with
administrative responsibility for the Task Force shall record this Agreement with the Snohomish
County Auditor after execution of the Participating Jurisdictions, or alternatively, shall list the
Agreement by subject on its website.
BY THEIR SIGNATURES BELOW, the signors certify that they have the authority to
sign this Agreement on behalf of their respective Participating Jurisdictions, and the
Participating Jurisdictions agree to the terms of this Agreement.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
a municipal corporation:
BY: ATTEST:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Gary Haakenson, Mayor Date Sandy Chase, City Clerk Date
Approved as to form:
____________________________________
Scott Snyder, City Attorney Date
Acknowledged by:
____________________________________
Al Compaan, Chief of Police Date
13
Packet Page 217 of 465
14
CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON,
a municipal corporation:
BY: ATTEST:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Don Gough, Mayor Date Vicki Heilman, Acting Finance Dir. Date
Approved as to form:
____________________________________
Eric Frimodt, City Attorney Date
Acknowledged by:
____________________________________
Steve Jensen, Chief of Police Date
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WASHINGTON,
a municipal corporation:
BY: ATTEST:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
John J. Caulfield, City Manager Date Virginia Olsen, City Clerk Date
Approved as to form:
____________________________________
Gregory G. Schrag, City Attorney Date
Acknowledged by:
____________________________________
Greg D. Wilson, Chief of Police Date
Packet Page 218 of 465
AM-2996 4.N.
Approval of Taxicab Operator's License
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
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 License for North End Taxi.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2010 Taxicab Operator's License for North
End Taxi.
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 North End Taxi is attached.
In addition, the Police Department reviewed the application and recommended approval.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: North End Taxi Application
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 12:11 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/15/2010 12:00
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 219 of 465
Packet Page 220 of 465
Packet Page 221 of 465
Packet Page 222 of 465
Packet Page 223 of 465
AM-2982 4.O.
Use of City Right-of-Way for Bistro and Outdoor Dining and Placement of Art
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance and Fee Resolution for 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
Approve Ordinance and Fee Resolution.
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.
On March 16, 2010, the proposed ordinance, fee resolution and administrative policy were
presented to the full Council for review and consideration. The Council selected two
councilmembers to meet with staff and review and discuss possible changes based on comments
from the public and City Council.
On April 6, 2010, a revised ordinance, fee resolution and administrative policy were presented to
the full Council for review and consideration. The Council approved Staff's recommendation to
forward the ordinance and fee resolution to the April 20th consent agenda.
Narrative
Attached for approval is the final version of the proposed ordinance and fee resolution for 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.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Ordinance
Link: Fee Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 04/14/2010 04:55 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 04/14/2010 05:04 PM APRV
Packet Page 224 of 465
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Robert
English
Started On: 04/13/2010 02:34
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 225 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1
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, by foot, bicycle and motor vehicle, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
Packet Page 226 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2
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.
3. “Temporary object” for the purposes of this chapter
Packet Page 227 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3
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.
1. Critical Areas determination, when applicable.
Packet Page 228 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4
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. An
application to place art work in the public right of
way will be exempt from this requirement.
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
Packet Page 229 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5
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. Artwork that is reviewed under an
Encroachment permit shall be exempt of the requirements of
Chapter 18.70.020 B sections 5, 6, 7 and 10.
1. The terms “art” or “art work” as used in this section
shall refer only to a work of visual art existing in a single
copy or in multiple copies of 200 or fewer that are
consecutively numbered by the author and bear the
signature or other identifying mark of the author.
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. An Encroachment permit or Street Use permit
requires determination of public benefit. The Edmonds
Arts Commission (EAC) is mandated in Chapter 10.20
ECC to advise the City on matters pertaining to art. When
the proposed encroachment or street use is art, EAC will
review and make written recommendations to the
Packet Page 230 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6
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 sketch showing locations of
artwork;
b. Minimum 1/4 inch scale rendering of the art
concept or art component, including at least one
elevation showing the art in context or comparable
photographs of actual artwork in context;
c.. Material/color samples;
d. Model (optional);
e. Written proposal: 7 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;
• 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 submission of all
requirements must be received a minimum of 10
days prior to the date of the meeting
Packet Page 231 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 7
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 for review of Encroachment or Street Use 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.
g. Relationship to other existing artwork in
vicinity.
h. No commercial content - artwork shall not
be used as signage (see definition of
Packet Page 232 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 8
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. For
tables and chairs placed in the public right of way,
the Clear Zone can be reduced to 4 feet in width in
front of obstacles (trees, street lights, sign posts,
etc).
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 36
inches into the right of way shall be removed each
day at the close of business.
Packet Page 233 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 9
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.
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
70.93.060 and ECC Chapter 6.40.
3. The Design Board has reviewed and approved any
Packet Page 234 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 10
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
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
Packet Page 235 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 11
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
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.
Packet Page 236 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 12
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
title.
Packet Page 237 of 465
{WSS762874.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 13
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 238 of 465
{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 239 of 465
{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 $0.50 per square foot
per month and an amount of 12.84% leasehold excise tax on the
Packet Page 240 of 465
{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 241 of 465
AM-2970 4.P.
Resolution in Support of Bicycle Skills and Safety Training
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilman Strom Peterson Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Resolution in support of bicycle skills and safety training.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Edmonds Bicycle Group, in conjunction with the Cascade Bicycle Club, have proposed a
bicycle safety skills training program with the Edmonds School District. A similar program has
been successfully implemented by Cascade Bicycle Club in King County. Bicycle skills have a
number of positive impacts on our youth and our city including combating obesity and related
illnesses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and safety. This program may also help the City of
Edmonds better secure funding through the “Safe Routes to Schools Programs” and other similar
grant opportunities.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bicycle Skills Resolution 4-20-2010
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/07/2010 01:36
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 242 of 465
RESOLUTION NO: ________
A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council in Support of
Bicycle Skills and Safety Training
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds recognizes the importance of instructing young children in the safe and effective
way to ride bicycles and,
WHEREAS, bicycle riding as a form of exercise reduces childhood obesity and associated illnesses such as
diabetes and promotes general health and,
WHEREAS, riding a bike can also be a convenient way to get to school, to have fun after school and for many
other uses and,
WHEREAS, since bicycle riding is an activity that can be performed throughout a person’s life, learning the proper
skills as a child will have life long benefits and,
WHEREAS, good bicycle skills and an understanding of the law will reduce the number of injuries incurred by
bicyclists, will improve the perception of bicyclists by motorists and will lead to a safer ways for
bicyclists and motorists to share the road and,
WHEREAS, The Cascade Bicycle Group, which has conducted a similar program in several school districts in
King County, is very interested in expanding the program to third through fifth grade students in the
Edmonds School District (ESD) and is prepared to do so when funding becomes available and when
a formal agreement is reached with the ESD and,
WHEREAS, bicycle use is an important component of the Community Sustainability Element of the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and of the City of Edmonds Climate Change Action Plan and will
better enable the City to meet the Mayor’s goal for greenhouse gas reduction and,
WHEREAS, this program is consistent with the State and National “Safe Route to Schools” Programs, now
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edmonds Council endorses the Bicycle Education Safety
and Skills (BEST) program proposed by the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group for the Edmonds
School District.
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 243 of 465
AM-2985 4.Q.
Native Plant Week Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Native Plant Appreciation Week, April 25 - May 1, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
On April 25, the new Wildlife Habitat and Native Plant Demonstration Garden will have its grand
opening. The garden is located on City property at the Willow Creek Hatchery. The opening
ceremony begins at 1 p.m.
This grand opening will be the first of many events around the state to be part of Washington State
Native Plant Appreciation Week. The purpose of this Wildlife Habitat Native Plant Demonstration
Garden is to offer education and encouragement for local residents, schools, churches, businesses
and government to plant native plants and to provide opportunities for wildlife (birds, bats, bees,
butterflies, frogs, garter snakes, chipmunks) to live in Edmonds as we face issues of growing
density and loss of wildlife habitat. The new garden will teach people not only how to grow
beautiful native plants but how to have wildlife-friendly yards (and condo decks) and public
spaces that will help provide necessary wildlife corridors in conjunction with our Edmonds Parks,
creeks, wetlands, and other natural areas.
Edmonds will be certified as a Wildlife Habitat Community by the National Wildlife Federation
on April 24 at the Edmonds Watershed Fun Fair.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/14/2010 02:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/14/2010 05:53 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
Packet Page 244 of 465
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/14/2010 12:53
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 245 of 465
Packet Page 246 of 465
AM-2984 5.
Earth Day Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This Earth Day—April 22—marks the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental
movement in 1970. Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin,
proposed the first nationwide environmental protest “to shake up the political establishment and
force this issue onto the national agenda.”
On the first Earth Day in 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to
demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment. Denis Hayes, the national coordinator, and his
youthful staff organized massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities
organized protests against the deterioration of the environment.
“Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level,” said Sen.
Gaylord Nelson. “We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and
the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable thing
about Earth Day. It organized itself.”
This Thursday at 6 p.m. at City Hall, the Climate Protection Committee and Sustainable Edmonds
will host an Earth Day event for all citizens interested in learning how they can help inspire action
at the local level. A keynote speaker will talk about local governments leading the way, followed
by a presentation and group discussion of the City’s Climate Action Plan. Everyone is welcome to
attend.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Packet Page 247 of 465
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/14/2010 02:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/14/2010 05:53 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/14/2010 12:20
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 248 of 465
Packet Page 249 of 465
AM-2887 6.
Proposed Amendments to Edmonds City Code 5.05.060: Dogs on Public Grounds
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:20 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:Community/Development Services
Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Edmonds City Code 5.05.060: Dogs on Public
Grounds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Adopt the recommended amendments to Edmonds City Code 5.05.060 allowing dogs on-leash
and on the designated paths at Hickman Park and Haines Wharf Park as well as the path and
grassy strip along the west side of Sunset Avenue known as the Sunset Overlook.
Previous Council Action
The subject of permitting dogs on-leash on the Sunset Overlook was discussed at the Community
Services / Development Services Committee meeting on March 17,2009.
These amendments were discussed at the February 9, 2010 Community Services / Development
Service Committee meeting and the Committee recommended scheduling a public hearing at an
upcoming City Council meeting.
Narrative
The current Edmonds City Code 5.06.060, Dogs on Public Grounds, designates parks and areas
within them as on or off-leash areas. Currently there are eight designated parks where dogs are
permitted. Seven require dogs to be on-leash and at one, Marina Beach South, dogs are permitted
off-leash.
Staff recommends that three additional park areas be designated as permitted on-leash sites:
1. Sunset Overlook Park: The path and grassy strip that is west of Sunset Avenue. Citizens have
requested this change in the past to allow people to not only walk their dogs here but also to be
able to sit on the numerous memorial benches along the overlook in the company of their canine
companions.
2. Hickman Park Trails: During the public meetings phase, in advance of the final planning and
construction of Hickman Park, testimony indicated a strong desire to enable dogs on-leash along
the 3,500 feet of paved and wooded paths in this new park. This is consistent with other City parks
with pathways such as Sierra, Pine Ridge, Yost, and others.
Packet Page 250 of 465
3. Haines Wharf Park: This overlook park will have a small interior trail and many benches for
resting and viewing. This park will be particulary attractive for people walking in the
neighborhood that is now connected to the recently completed walkways north from Meadowdale
Beach Road. The new walkways now provide a continuous off-street walkway from downtown
Edmonds to the city's northern boundary, Meadowdale Beach Park, and beyond.
In addition it has been suggested that dogs also be permitted on-leash on the paved paths of
Brackett's Landing North & South. Staff does not recommend this due to safety, control, and
maintenance concerns. At this time dog owners may use all City sidewalks including those
nearest to, but not in, the waterfront parks. Without question the Edmonds waterfront is a very
attractive and popular place to walk. When the designated on and off-leash areas were established
in the mid 1990's we heard that mixing regular walkers with leashed dogs had created problems at
the waterfront. As a public safety concern, we still observe that today (our Beach Rangers inform
those who do not realize these walkway are out of bounds). Walkers can be intimidated, worry
about their balance, and be forced off the walkway when a dog or two or more approach. Most dog
owners are responsible and well-intentioned but some do not exercise the best judgement or have
the best control of their dogs (memo attached).
Staff feels that the compromises regarding on and off-leash park established 15 years ago have
worked well and the addition of the three new areas are warranted.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Dogs memo to Council
Link: Dogs on Public Grounds
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/26/2010 12:55 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/26/2010 03:08 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2010 08:22 AM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 03/08/2010 05:17
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/29/2010
Packet Page 251 of 465
Packet Page 252 of 465
Packet Page 253 of 465
Packet Page 254 of 465
Packet Page 255 of 465
AM-2986 7.
Proposed Amendments to Ch. 18.82 (Traffic Impact Fees) of the ECDC
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Submitted For: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 amendments to Chapter 18.82 (Traffic Impact Fees) of the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 18.82 of the Edmonds Community Development
Code.
Previous Council Action
On September 7, 2004, City Council adopted the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (# 3516).
On March 9, 2010, the Council CSDS Committee provided a recommendation to move this item
forward to the full Council for a Public Hearing and consideration.
Narrative
Traffic impact fees are charges assessed by local governments against new development projects
that attempt to recover the cost incurred by government in providing new roads and upgrading
existing roads required to serve the new development. They may be used to pay the proportionate
share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development; however, impact fees
cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. In Washington, impact fees are
authorized under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050), as part of "voluntary
agreements" under RCW 82.02.020, and under the "Local Transportation Act" (RCW 39.92.040).
In accordance with RCW 82.02.070, impact fees collected under Chapter 18.82 ECDC are
required to be spent on specified capacity improvement projects designated by the City’s capital
facilities plan (“system improvements”) within six years of receipt of payment. Signal and
roadway widening projects are examples of capacity improvement projects eligible to receive
traffic impact fee revenues.
Following the adoption of the 2009 Transportation Plan last year, an ordinance needs to be
adopted by City Council to implement the new traffic impact fee rates. The rates were determined
by studying all the intersections operating below the City’s Level of Standards (LOS D). A rate
study was conducted as part of the 2009 Transportation Plan to update the fees for different land
use categories (attachment #1), as identified in the existing Edmonds Community Development
Code 18.82.120. The initial traffic impact fee presented to City Council during several
Packet Page 256 of 465
Transportation Plan Public Hearings was $1,040 per trip and has since been revised to $1,049 / per
trip. This revision was necessary as the incorrect baseline capacity was used at the intersection of
Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W when figuring the previous dollar per trip calculation.
In addition, Staff has identified other revisions to Chapter 18.82 ECDC (attachment #2) in order to
improve the administration and collection of the fees, including:
1) Existing code section 18.82.030-B states: “For a change in use of an existing building or
dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building, the
impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the ITE land use of the new use, less any impact
fee previously paid for the ITE land use of the prior use. If no impact fee was paid for the prior
use, the impact fee for the new use shall be reduced by an amount equal to the current impact fee
rate for the prior use.”
Proposed change: “For a change of use…the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the
ITE land use of the new use, less an amount equal to the applicable impact fee for the ITE land
use of the prior use, established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the previous use was
permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04), the 2004 ECDC
18.82.120 impact fee rates shall be used.
This code revision is proposed to eliminate inconsistencies in calculating impact fees for projects
involving a change in ITE land use. In the current code, the impact fee for a change in use is
reduced by the amount previously paid or an amount equal to the current rates if no fee was paid.
Therefore, an applicant who cannot prove prior payment would be allowed to reduce their impact
fee by a higher amount (impact fee rates tend to increase with adoption of new codes) than an
applicant who could prove prior payment. This revision allows consistency in the assessment of
impact fees for all change in use development projects and eliminates the need to prove prior
payment. Administrative processing will also become more efficient by restricting impact fee
calculations to the use of current rates and/or 2004 Traffic Impact Fee Rates. Prior to 2004, impact
fee rates were based on $200 per PM peak hour trip. The 2004 and current traffic impact fee rates
are based on land use category as well as gross floor area of the tenant space and/or number of
residential units.
2) Existing code section ECDC 18.82.030-E states: “Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the
road impact fees rates in effect at the time an application is deemed complete by the development
services department for an ADB design review approval, conditional use permit, change of use
permit, PRD, plat, short plat, remodel permit or building permit, whichever occurs first for a
development project.”
Proposed change: “Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the road impact fee rates in effect at
the time of issuance of the building permit, including but not limited to change of use permit or
remodel permit. In the event the development activity does not require a building permit,
application of this chapter shall be at the time of issuance of the business license. Business license
applications shall be filed pursuant to ECC 3.20.”
This 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
Packet Page 257 of 465
are not the type of development regulations to which a project applicant would vest. This change
specifically effects subdivision developments. At present, the impact fee rate for a single family
residential property that is created under a subdivision, is vested at the time a subdivision
application is deemed complete. The period of time between application for a subdivision and
issuance of a single family residential building permit could be more than 5 years. Traffic Impact
Fee rates are currently updated during the adoption of the Transportation Plan (approximately
every 6 years). Therefore, it is possible for fee rates to increase between the time an application is
considered complete and the time a building permit is issued.
The proposed code revision also establishes issuance of a business license as a means of collecting
traffic impact fees. At present, a new business could occupy a tenant space and while the ITE land
use category may change (which would typically require payment of traffic impact fees), if the
occupancy use doesn’t change then a separate building permit may not be required. Current code
does not allow for collection of impact fees if a building permit is not issued.
3) Addition of Section 18.82.150 regarding the Procedure Guide was added.
4) Removal of Section 18.82.030 (D). Section no longer applies as applicants seeking an
occupancy permit for a change in use will be assessed impact fees during the building permit
process.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attachment 1-Rate Study
Link: Attachment 2-Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 04/15/2010 02:10 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:22 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 02:30 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 03:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Megan
Cruz
Started On: 04/14/2010 01:23
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 258 of 465
RATE STUDY
FOR
IMPACT FEES
FOR
STREETS AND ROADS
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
October 29, 2009
Packet Page 259 of 465
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Statutory Basis and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Street and Road System Improvement Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Unfunded Cost per Growth Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Impact Fee Rates for Specific Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A: Needs Analysis of Edmonds Streets and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Packet Page 260 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees for streets and
roads in the City of Edmonds, Washington.
Rates
The impact fee for streets and roads is based on $1,049.41 per p.m. peak hour
trip. Rates for street and road impact fees for new development are listed in
Table 4. The following is a summary of the rates for residential properties.
Type Dwelling Unit Impact Fee
Single Family
Apartment
Condominium
All Other Land Uses
$ 1,196.33 per dwelling unit
776.56 per dwelling unit
629.65 per dwelling unit
See Table 4
Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local
governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve
new development and the people who occupy or use the new development.
Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to
describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners
or developers.
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms
of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary
payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C),
system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW
35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts),
local improvement districts or other special assessment districts, linkage fees, or
land donations or fees in lieu of land.
Adjustments for Other Sources of Revenue for Street and Road Capital
Improvements
The impact fees in this study recognize the existence of other sources of revenue
that are available to pay for the capital cost of streets and roads. These other
revenues are accounted for by adjusting (i.e., reducing) the cost of needed
streets and roads to adjust for the portion of street and road capital project
costs that are paid by the other revenues.
Packet Page 261 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 2
Credits for Other Contributions by Developer
A developer who contributes land or improvements to the projects on the
impact fee project list may receive a "credit" which reduces the amount of
impact fee that is due. This credit is in addition to the adjustment for other
revenues described in the preceding paragraph.
Who Pays Impact Fees
Impact fees are paid by all types of new development1. Impact fee rates for
new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use.
Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service
areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact
fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless such “zones” are
necessary to establish the relationship between the fee and the development.
Street and road impact fees are collected and expended in a single service
area throughout the boundaries of the City of Edmonds because of the
compact size of the City and the accessibility of its street and road system to all
property within the City.
Timing of Payment of Impact Fees
Impact fees are usually collected at the time the local government issues a
permit or order allowing structures to be built (i.e., building permit). Specifically,
impact fees are assessed at the time the complete application for a building
permit is submitted for each unit in the development, and the fee is collected at
the time the building permit is issued.
Uses of Impact Fee Revenue
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact
fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public
facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include design studies,
engineering, land surveys, right of way acquisition, engineering, permitting,
financing, administrative expenses, construction, applicable mitigation costs,
and capital equipment (i.e., signals) pertaining to street and road capital
improvements.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system
improvements” (which are typically outside the development), and "designed
1 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or “broad
public purposes”, but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact
fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc.
Packet Page 262 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 3
to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in
RCW 82.02.050(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to the
development), and "designed to provide service for a development project,
and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users
of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.050(6).
Expenditure Requirements for Impact Fees
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital
facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused
capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended or
obligated within 6 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a
written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the
fees for longer than 6 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact
fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government,
and annual reports must describe revenue and expenditures.
Developer Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact
fees. The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the
impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in
this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the
City of Edmonds. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee
payments within 6 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can obtain
a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if the
development does not proceed and no impacts are created.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This impact fee rate study contains four chapters, and an appendix:
• Chapter 1 summarizes the statutory basis for developing impact fees,
discusses issues which must be addressed, and presents the methodology
and formulas for calculating the impact fee.
• Chapter 2 lists the capital improvement project costs of system
improvements to streets and roads, and subtracts costs of existing
deficiencies and future reserve capacity to determine the eligible cost of
street and road projects.
• Chapter 3 documents the growth in trips attributable to new
development, reduces the eligible cost to account for other revenues,
and calculates the cost per growth trip.
• Chapter 4 documents the trip generation rate for many types of land
use, and calculates the street and road impact fee for each of the land
use types.
Packet Page 263 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 4
• Appendix A documents the need for additional streets and roads,
including identification of existing deficiencies in street and road
capacity for current development, capacity of existing streets and roads
available for new development, and additional street and road capacity
needed for new development, as specified in RCW 82.02.050(4).
Packet Page 264 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 5
1. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue
to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public
policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it
requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such
facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to
serve new development.
This study of impact fees for streets and roads for Edmonds, Washington
describes the methodology that is used to develop the fees, presents the
formulas, variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and documents the
calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the
requirements of Washington state law.
This study uses data and levels of service standards from the 2009 update of the
Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
STATUTORY BASIS FOR IMPACT FEES
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st
Ex. Sess.) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees.
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management
Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments
authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several
important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three
aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to
charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that
provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project
improvements" (which are "on-site" and provide service for a particular
development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their
proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the
predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost,
time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case-by-case
basis.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes
citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to
review the exact language of the statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets
and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3)
Packet Page 265 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 6
school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of
a fire district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside
the development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development). RCW
82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) and (9)
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably
related to, and which will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and
(c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or
more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and
local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land
uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The
impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating
the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW
82.02.060(1)
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the
development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to
particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW
82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in
the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are
required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees
for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all
such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee
accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
Packet Page 266 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 7
impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay
impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW
82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund
of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the
impact fee payments within 6 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement,
or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no
impacts). RCW 82.02.080
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan
(CFP) element (or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of
existing facilities). The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of
1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current
development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and
additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4),
RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.070(2)
New Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a) and
for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7) subject to
the proportionate share limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies,
expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 6 years, and prepare
annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
ISSUES RELATING TO IMPACT FEES
Prior to calculating impact fee rates, several issues must be addressed in order
to determine the need for, and validity of such fees: responsibility for public
facilities, capital facilities plan, the need for additional street and road capacity,
and the benefit of streets and roads to new development.
Responsibility for Public Facilities
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are
responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees.
The City of Edmonds is legally and financially responsible for the streets and
roads it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may a local
government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge impact
fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities are
"owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82.02.090 (7). Thus, a city or
county may charge impact fees for streets and roads, and enter into an
Packet Page 267 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 8
agreement with the State of Washington for the transfer, expenditure, and
reporting of street and road impact fees for State roads. A city may only charge
and use impact fees on State roads if it has an agreement with the State, and
the City CFP includes the State road projects.
Capital Facilities Plan
There are many references in RCW to the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) as the
basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt
documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et.
seq pertaining to a “capital facilities plan”. The Transportation Element of the
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan fulfills the requirements in RCW, and is
considered to be the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) for the purpose of this impact
fee rate study. All references to a CFP in this study are interpreted as referring to
the Transportation Element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Need for Additional Street and Road Capacity
The need for additional street and road capacity is determined by using
standards for levels of service for streets and roads and other metrics, such as
increases in traffic volume. The analysis of needed streets and roads must
comply with the statutory requirements of identifying existing deficiency, reserve
capacity and new capacity requirements for facilities. An analysis of the need
for additional streets and roads in Edmonds is presented in Appendix A.
Determining the Benefit to Development
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact
fees: 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably
related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)).
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can
be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is
"reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees
cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating
deficiencies in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate
share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but
which follow directly from the law:
• Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users
must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the
amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways: (1)
by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2)
calculating the cost per trip and applying the cost only to new
Packet Page 268 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 9
development when calculating impact fees.
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should
be based on the government's actual cost, rather than the
replacement cost of the facility. Carrying costs may be added to
reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship
to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees,
where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the
impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for
past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are
earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are
needed to serve new growth).
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the
developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP and are required as
a condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a
local government from establishing reasonable constraints on
determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated right of
way and the quality and design of a donated street or road
improvement can be required to be acceptable to the local
government.
Without such adjustments and credits, the fee-paying development might
pay more than its proportionate share.
2. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be
"reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities,
including personal use and use by others in the family or business
enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide
goods or services to the fee-paying property (indirect benefit), and
geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of
relatedness are implemented by the following techniques:
• Impact fees for streets and roads are charged to properties that need
(i.e., benefit from) new streets and roads. The City of Edmonds
provides its street and road network to all kinds of property throughout
the City regardless of the type of use of the property.
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in
establishing fee amounts (i.e., different trip generation rates for
different types of land use).
Packet Page 269 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 10
• Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee
schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced
needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use
restrictions).
Edmonds’ streets and roads serve the entire City, therefore the impact
fees for these street and road capital improvements are based on a single
service area that encompasses the City.
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of the law tend to reinforce the requirement that
expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the
impact fee. First, the requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked
for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are
on identifiable projects, the benefit of which can be demonstrated.
Second, impact fee revenue must be expended or obligated within 6
years, thus requiring timeliness to the benefit to the feepayer.
Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan
Impact fees for streets and roads begin with the list of projects in the
Transportation Element of City's Comprehensive Plan (which is the “CFP”, as
noted earlier). The projects in the Transportation Element are analyzed to
identify capacity costs attributable to new development. The costs are
adjusted to subtract the portion of the cost that represents existing deficiencies
and the cost of future unused (reserve) capacity. The costs are also adjusted to
reflect other sources of revenue paid by the new development (and any
payments that reduce the cost of the facility that is to be paid by impact fees).
The costs are calculated per growth trip. The costs per growth trip are applied
to the unique trip generation rates for each type of land use. The amount of the
fee is determined by charging each fee-paying development for cost of the
number of growth trips that it generates.
IMPACT FEE ISSUES ADDRESSED BY ORDINANCE
There are several issues pertaining to impact fees that need to be addressed by
ordinance, rather than in this rate study, because they are issues of law or policy
rather than technical transportation or financial issues.
Exemptions from Impact Fees
As noted above in the summary of impact fee statutes, local governments have
the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income housing
and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such exempt fees must
Packet Page 270 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 11
be paid from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). The impact fee
ordinance specifies whether or not such exemptions are to be granted, and
how to pay for any exempt fees. If low-income housing is exempted, the
ordinance specifies the income threshold and/or housing price. If “broad public
purpose” development is exempted, the ordinance specifies whether or not this
applies to projects built by public agencies, such as cities, counties, school
districts, etc.
Updating Impact Fees
The impact fee ordinance specifies how often the impact fee rates are
updated. A typical approach is to provide for annual inflation adjustments, and
to perform a full review and update every 3 years.
Process for Challenging Impact Fees
State statutes require that the impact fee ordinance provide for an appeals
procedure. The procedure can be the same as for other land development
challenges (i.e., the hearing examiner), or it can be a different procedure.
CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS
Five formulas are used to determine the amount of impact fees for streets and
roads that are required as a result of new development:
1. Street or Road Deficiency Eligible
Project - and Reserve = Project
Costs Costs Costs
2. Future Current Growth
Trips on - Trips on = Trips on
Road Network Road Network Road Network
3. Eligible Adjustments Unfunded
Project - for Other = Eligible
Costs Revenues Costs
4. Unfunded Growth Unfunded Cost
Eligible ÷ Trips on = per
Costs Road Network Growth Trip
5. Unfunded Cost Trip Impact Fee
per x Generation = Rate for Each
Growth Trip Rate per Land Use Land Use Type
Packet Page 271 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 12
2. STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT COSTS
This chapter includes a description of the first formula and each variable that is
used in the formula, an explanation of the use of data in the formula, and the
calculation of the capital cost of system improvements to streets and roads that
are eligible for impact fees.
The street and road projects listed in this chapter are eligible for impact fees
because the needs analysis of the Transportation Element projects presented in
Appendix A meets the requirements of RCW 82.02.
FORMULA 1: ELIGIBLE STREET AND ROAD PROJECT COSTS
The eligible costs of street and road projects are calculated by adjusting the
total street and road project costs as shown in the City's Transportation Element.
1. Street or Road Deficiency Eligible
Project - and Reserve = Project
Costs Costs Costs
There are two variables that require explanation: (A) the costs of street and road
projects, and (B) deficiency and reserve costs.
Variable (A) Costs of Street and Road Projects
Edmonds’ Transportation Element identifies capital projects needed to maintain
the level of service of the City's current street and road system, and to meet the
additional demands from growth. The projects in the Transportation Element
were analyzed to determine which projects are needed to serve growth.
Appendix A presents the results of that analysis. The costs in this study are the
same costs of the projects in the Transportation Element.
The costs of street and road projects used in this study include the full cost of the
project, including engineering, right of way, and construction costs.
The cost of street and road projects does not include any costs for interest or
other financing. If the City decides in the future to borrow money for streets and
roads, the carrying costs for financing can be added to the costs in this study,
and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such costs.
Variable (B): Deficiency and Reserve Costs
As described in Chapter 1, impact fees are limited to growth’s proportionate
share of the cost of projects. Therefore project costs must exclude the cost of
existing deficiencies and the cost of unused future reserve capacity.
Packet Page 272 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 13
Existing deficiencies are determined separately for each street or road project
by comparing the current traffic volume to the current capacity at the adopted
standard for level of service. If the current volume is less than or equal to the
capacity, there is no deficiency. If the current volume exceeds the current
capacity, the amount by which volume exceeds capacity is an existing
deficiency.
The percent of the existing deficiency is calculated by dividing the excess
(deficient) current traffic volume by the additional capacity created by the
planned capital improvement project. The cost of the existing deficiency is
calculated by multiplying the deficiency percentage times the cost of the
project.
For example, if a current street has 1,100 vehicles, but is designed for 1,000
vehicles, there is a deficiency of 100 vehicles. If the planned improvement will
add capacity for 500 vehicles, the deficiency of 100 vehicles is 100/500, or 20%.
If the cost of the project is $500,000, the cost of the deficiency is 20%, or
$100,000.
Future reserve capacity is the residual capacity that is not used up by the end of
the planning horizon (2025). The reserve capacity is calculated by subtracting
the traffic volume forecast for 2025 from the capacity of the improved facility.
The percent of the future reserve is calculated by dividing the residual (unused)
traffic capacity by the additional capacity created by the planned capital
improvement project. The cost of the future reserve is calculated by multiplying
the reserve percentage times the cost of the project.
Continuing the example from above, the future capacity is the sum of 1,000
current plus 500 additional vehicles for a total of 1,500 vehicles. If the future
(2025) volume is 1,450 vehicles, there will be an unused reserve of 1,500 – 1,450 =
50 trips. The planned improvement will add capacity for 500 vehicles, the
reserve of 50 vehicles is 50/500, or 10%. The cost of the project was $500,000,
therefore the cost of the reserve is 10%, or $50,000
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE STREET AND ROAD PROJECT COSTS
The calculation of costs of street and road projects that are eligible for impact
fees is presented in Table 1 on the next page. The first two columns list the
eligible projects and total costs from the Transportation Element. The costs of
existing deficiencies and future reserves are listed in the next two columns.
These costs are subtracted from the total costs, and the remaining eligible cost is
shown in the last Column.
Packet Page 273 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 14
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF STREET AND ROAD PROJECT ELIGIBLE COSTS TO SERVE GROWTH
CFP
#
Project Description
Total
Cost
Cost of
Deficiency
Cost of
Reserve
Capacity
Eligible
Cost of
Growth
1. 174th St SW & Olympic View Dr. $ 724,200 $ 0 $ 403,452 $ 320,748
Eastbound Stop-Control
2. Olympic View Dr. & 76th Ave. W 1,146,800 0 504,592 642,208
All-Way Stop-Control
4. Puget Drive & 88th Ave W 879,000 0 571,350 307,650
Northbound/Southbound
Stop-Control
6. Caspers St. & 9th Ave. N 818,000 0 780,208 37,792
Northbound stop control
8. 212th St. SW & SR99 3,265,500 0 54,534 3,210,966
Signal Installation
9. 212th St. SW & 76th Ave. W 2,313,800 0 57,845 2,255,955
Signal Installation
10. 212th St. SW and 84th Ave. W 1,910,100 555,457 567,866 786,777
All-Way Stop-Control
11. Main St. & 9th Ave. N 874,400 110,786 432,740 330,874
All-Way Stop-Control
12. Walnut St. & 9th Ave. S 874,400 63,132 450,741 360,528
All-Way Stop-Control
14 220th St. SW and SR99 3,147,300 0 1,303,926 1,843,374
Signal Installation
15. 220th St. SW & 76th Ave. W 138,300 0 41,490 96,810
Signal Installation
R1. 220th St. SW: 9th Ave. S - 740,000 33,300 523,382 183,318
84th Ave W
Signal Installation
TOTAL 16,831,800 762,675 5,692,126 10,376,999
Packet Page 274 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 15
3. UNFUNDED COST PER GROWTH TRIP
In this chapter the cost of eligible street and road projects from Chapter 2 is
converted to an unfunded cost per growth trip. As in the previous chapter, this
chapter includes a description of each formula and each variable that is used
in the formulas, an explanation of the use of data in the formula, and the
calculation of the unfunded cost per growth trip, using formulas 2 through 4.
FORMULA 2: GROWTH TRIPS
The growth of trips on Edmonds’ streets and roads is calculated by subtracting
the number of trips currently on the streets and roads from the number of trips
that are forecast to be on the streets and roads in the year 2025:
2. Future Current Growth
Trips on - Trips on = Trips on
Road Network Road Network Road Network
There is one new variable used in formula 2 that requires explanation: (C) trips.
Variable (C) Trips (Current and Future)
Edmonds’ traffic demand model is used to analyze traffic on streets and roads.
The model was run and the results used to calculate current and future trips on
Edmonds’ streets and roads. The data from the model measures p.m. peak hour
trips.
CALCULATION OF GROWTH TRIPS
Table 2 shows the future (2025) and current (base year) trips and calculates the
growth trips.
TABLE 2
GROWTH TRIPS IN EDMONDS
Year P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
2025 Trips 32,470
Base Year Trips - 22,901
Growth Trips 9,569
Packet Page 275 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 16
FORMULA 3: UNFUNDED ELIGIBLE COSTS
The unfunded cost of eligible street and road projects is calculated by
subtracting the amount of other revenues from the eligible project costs:
3. Eligible Adjustments Unfunded
Project - for Other = Eligible
Costs Revenues Costs
There is one new variable used in formula 3 that requires explanation: (D)
adjustments for other revenues.
Variable (D): Adjustments for Other Revenues
Formula 1 of the City of Edmonds’ impact fee calculations excluded costs of
existing deficiencies and costs of future reserve capacity beyond 2025. Those
costs will be paid by revenues other than impact fees, as shown in the
Transportation Element.
In addition, impact fee rate calculations must recognize and reflect all known
sources of revenue from new development which are earmarked or proratable
to a particular impact fee project. These sources of revenue can include locally
generated revenues (e.g., taxes, fees or charges, interest, etc.), state and/or
federal grants, bonds, or other revenue sources, which are committed to street
and road capital improvement projects. The funding plan of the Transportation
Element indicates that there are no additional revenues to be paid by new
development that are earmarked or proratable to the eligible projects,
therefore no adjustment is made.
Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not
included because impact fees are not used for such expenses. Revenues for
payments of past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not
included because new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior
taxes did not contribute to such projects. If a developer believes that substantial
tax payments were made that meet the criteria of RCW 82.02.060(1)(b), an
applicant can submit supporting information and request a special review.
One provision of impact fee law does lead to an adjustment via Formula 3.
Specifically, RCW 82.02.050 (2) states that the financing for system improvements
to serve new development “…cannot rely solely on impact fees.” This prevents
impact fees from being set at 100% of the eligible cost, but the statutes do not
say how much less than 100%. The calculations in this rate study use the same
percentage developed for another city in the Puget Sound area that was
accepted by the development community. Specifically, 3.23% of eligible costs
will be funded by taxes or other revenues from the Transportation Element and
will not be funded by impact fees. The remaining 96.77% of eligible costs will be
included in the impact fee calculations. The top portion of Table 3 shows this
adjustment to eligible costs.
Packet Page 276 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 17
FORMULA 4: UNFUNDED COST PER GROWTH TRIP
The unfunded cost of street and road projects per growth trip is calculated by
dividing the unfunded eligible cost of street and road projects by the number of
growth trips:
4. Unfunded Growth Unfunded Cost
Eligible ÷ Trips on = per
Costs Road Network Growth Trip
CALCULATION OF UNFUNDED COST PER GROWTH TRIP
The bottom portion of Table 3 shows the calculation of the unfunded cost per
growth trip by dividing the unfunded eligible cost of street and road projects by
the number of growth trips (from Table 2).
TABLE 3
UNFUNDED COST PER GROWTH TRIP
Eligible Project Cost $ 10,376,999
- Adjustment for Other Revenues @ 3.23% of Eligible Cost - 335,177
Unfunded Eligible Cost $ 10,041,821
÷ Total Growth Trips ÷ 9,569
Unfunded Cost per Growth Trip $ 1,049.41
Packet Page 277 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 18
4. IMPACT FEE RATES FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
In this chapter the unfunded cost per growth trip (from chapter 3) is converted
to an impact fee rate per unit of development for a variety of land use
categories. As in the previous chapter, this chapter includes a description of the
formula and each variable that is used in the formula, an explanation of the use
of data in the formula, and the calculation of the impact fee, using formula 5.
FORMULA 5: IMPACT FEE RATES FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
The impact fee for each category of land use is determined by multiplying the
unfunded cost per growth trip times the number of trips generated per unit of
development of each category of land use:
5. Unfunded Cost Trip Impact Fee
per x Generation = Rate for Each
Growth Trip Rate per Land Use Land Use Type
The formula uses different trip generation rates for different types of land uses
(i.e., single family houses, office buildings, etc.). There is one new variable used
in formula 5 that requires explanation: (E) trip generation rates.
Variable (E) Trip Generation Rates.
This rate study uses the data reported in Trip Generation, compiled and
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The report is currently
in its 8th edition. The report is a detailed statistical compilation of hundreds of
surveys of trip origins and destinations conducted throughout the United States.
The data is reported on several variables (i.e., type of land use, units of
development, number of employees, hour of day, etc.). The data used in this
impact fee rate study is for trips generated during the p.m. peak hour, since that
is the same basis as the trip data from the model (described above, see Growth
Trips). Impact fee rates are calculated in this study for many frequently used
types of land use (i.e., dwellings, offices, retail, restaurants, etc.). Impact fees
can be calculated for other land uses not listed in this rate study by referring to
the trip generation data in the ITE report.
Trip generation data is reported initially as the total number of trips leaving and
arriving at each type of land use. There are two adjustments made to each trip
generation rate before it is used to calculate the impact fee.
The first adjustment is to reduce the number of trips charged to land uses that
are incidental attractors and generators of trips. For example, if a person leaves
work to return home at the end of the work day, the place of employment is the
origin, and the home is the destination. But if the person stops enroute to run an
errand at a store, the ITE data counts the stop at the store as a new destination
Packet Page 278 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 19
(and a new origin when the person leaves the store). In reality, the work-to-
home trip was going to occur regardless of the incidental stop, therefore the trip
rate of the store should not be charged as an additional impact on the street
and road system. The adjustment is based on the number of "pass-by" trips that
stop at the store instead of "passing by." In the Table 4, these trips are eliminated
by counting only the trips that are truly "new" trips (i.e., a person made a special
trip to the store). The adjustment is shown in the rate table as "Percent New
Trips."
The second adjustment is the "Trip Length Factor." Not all trips are the same
length. Longer trips need more streets and roads, so they are considered to
have a greater impact than shorter trips. The ITE report's trip generation data is
adjusted by a factor that compares the average trip length of each type of
development to the average trip length of all trips. Some land uses have factors
greater than 1.0 (i.e., offices are factored at 1.47 because their trips are 47%
longer than average) while other land uses have factors less than 1.0 (i.e.,
convenience markets trips are factored at 0.40 because their trips are only 40%
the length of an average trip).
CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEE RATES FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
Table 4 shows the calculation of impact fee rates for twenty-nine frequently
used categories of land use that are listed in column 1. The ITE trip rate in
column 2 is multiplied times the percent new trips in column 3, and the result is
multiplied times the trip length factor in column 4. Column 5 reports the net new
trips that are the result of these calculations. The impact fee rates in column 6
are calculated by multiplying the net new trips from column 5 times the
$1,049.41 cost per growth trip (from Table 3, and repeated in the column
heading of column 6).
An applicant for a building permit will be assessed an impact fee that is
determined as follows:
1. Select the appropriate land use category from Table 4, and find the impact
fee rate per unit in column 6. If the proposed development is not covered by
any of the categories in Table 4, the City can select the category that is most
similar to the proposed development, or the applicant can submit a trip
generation study of its proposed development.
2. Determine the number of "units" of development the applicant proposes to
build. ("Units" are listed in the right portion of column 6.)
3. Multiply the rate per unit by the number of units to be built. The result is the
impact fee.
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF IMPACT FEE RATES FOR HYPOTHETICAL LAND USES
A 6-lot Subdivision. ITE code 210: $1,196.33 per dwelling unit times 6 lots =
$7,177.98.
Packet Page 279 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 20
A mixed use development of 6,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor and
5 condominiums on upper floors. ITE code 820, shopping center: $1.34 per
square foot times 6,000 square feet = $8,040, plus ITE code 230, condo: $629.65
times 5 units = $3,148.25. Total fee is $8,040 + $3,148.25 = $11,188.25.
Packet Page 280 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 21
TABLE 4
IMPACT FEE RATES
ITE
Code
(1)
ITE Land Use
Category
(2)
Trip
Rate2
(3)
% New
Trips3
(4)
Trip
Length
Factor4
(5)
Net New Trips per
Unit of Measure
(6)
Impact Fee Per Unit @
$1,049.41 per Trip
110 Light Industrial 0.97 100% 1.47 1.43 1,000 sq ft 1.50 per square foot
140 Manufacturing 0.73 100% 1.47 1.07 1,000 sq ft 1.12 per square foot
151 Mini-warehouse 0.26 100% 1.47 0.38 1,000 sq ft 0.40 per square foot
210 Single family House 1.01 100% 1.13 1.14 dwelling 1,196.33 per dwelling unit
220 Apartment 0.62 100% 1.20 0.74 dwelling 776.56 per dwelling unit
230 Condominium 0.52 100% 1.15 0.60 dwelling 629.65 per dwelling unit
240 Mobile Home 0.59 100% 1.09 0.64 dwelling 671.62 per dwelling unit
251 Senior Housing 0.16 100% 0.93 0.15 dwelling 157.41 per dwelling unit
320 Motel 0.47 100% 1.27 0.60 room 629.65 per room
420 Marina 0.19 100% 0.97 0.18 berth 188.89 per boat berth
444 Movie Theater 3.80 85% 0.73 2.36 1,000 sq ft 2.48 per square foot
492 Health/Fitnes Club 3.53 75% 1.00 2.65 1,000 sq ft 2.78 per square foot
530 High School 0.97 80% 1.00 0.78 1,000 sq ft 0.82 per square foot
560 Church 0.55 100% 1.20 0.66 1,000 sq ft 0.69 per square foot
565 Day Care Center 12.46 75% 0.67 6.26 1,000 sq ft 6.57 per square foot
620 Nursing Home 0.22 100% 0.87 0.19 bed 199.39 per bed
710 General Office 1.49 90% 1.47 1.97 1,000 sq ft 2.07 per square foot
720 Medical Office 3.46 75% 1.40 3.63 1,000 sq ft 3.81 per square foot
814 Specialty Retail 2.71 55% 0.60 0.89 1,000 sq ft 0.93 per square foot
820 Shopping Center 3.73 65% 0.53 1.28 1,000 sq ft 1.34 per square foot
850 Supermarket 10.50 65% 0.67 4.57 1,000 sq ft 4.80 per square foot
852 Convenience mkt
15-16 hours
34.57 40% 0.40 5.53 1,000 sq ft 5.80 per square foot
912 Drive-in bank 25.82 55% 0.47 6.67 1,000 sq ft 7.00 per square foot
932 Restaurant: sit-
down
11.15 55% 0.73 4.48 1,000 sq ft 4.70 per square foot
933 Fast food, no
drive-up
26.15 50% 0.67 8.76 1,000 sq ft 9.19 per square foot
934 Fast food, w/
drive-up
33.84 51% 0.62 10.70 1,000 sq ft 11.23 per square foot
936 Coffee/Donut
Shop, no drive-up
40.75 20% 0.67 5.46 1,000 sq ft 5.73 per square foot
938 Coffee/Donut
Shop, drive-up, no
indoor seating
75.00 20% 0.67 10.05 1,000 sq ft 10.55 per square foot
945 Gas station
w/convenience
13.38 45% 0.53 3.19 vfp 3,347.62 per vfp5
2 ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends
3 Excludes pass-by trips: see "Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended
Practice" (1988)
4 Ratio to average trip length.
5 vfp: vehicle fueling position
Packet Page 281 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 22
APPENDIX A
NEEDS ANALYSIS OF EDMONDS STREETS AND ROADS
Need for Streets and Roads to Serve Growth in Edmonds
RCW 82.02 requires impact fees to be based on the City's Capital Facilities Plan
(which must identify existing deficiencies in street and road capacity for current
development, capacity of existing streets and roads available for new
development, and additional street and road capacity needed for new
development). The purpose of this appendix is to summarize existing
deficiencies and reserves, and needs for additional capacity for new
development (based on data provided in the City's comprehensive plan).
The need for additional streets and roads is determined by using several criteria,
including increases in traffic volume, increases in street and road capacity, the
absence of existing deficiencies, and forecasts showing future levels of service
with and without specific system improvements to the street and road network.
Table A-1 lists the street and road projects from Edmonds’ CFP that are eligible
for impact fees because of the results of one or more criteria.
Packet Page 282 of 465
Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & October 29, 2009
Company Page 23
TABLE A-1
ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR STREET AND ROAD PROJECTS TO SERVE GROWTH
Reasons Project is Needed for Growth
CFP
#
Project Description
Volume
Increases
Capacity Increase
2007-2025
No Baseline
Deficiency,
Therefore All
Improvement
is Available
for Growth
2025
Deficiency
without
Improvement,
Adequate LOS
with
Improvement
1. 174th St SW & Olympic View Dr. 63.79% 700 X X
Eastbound Stop-Control
2. Olympic View Dr. & 76th Ave. W 48.15% 1,000 X X
All-Way Stop-Control
4. Puget Drive & 88th Ave W 36.54% 1,200 X X
Northbound/Southbound
Stop-Control
6. Caspers St. & 9th Ave. N 37.98% 1,300 X X
Northbound stop control
8. 212th St. SW & SR99 44.74% 600 X X
Signal Installation
9. 212th St. SW & 76th Ave. W 38.11% 800 X X
Signal Installation
10. 212th St. SW and 84th Ave. W 23.89% 1,300 X
All-Way Stop-Control
11. Main St. & 9th Ave. N 21.00% 900 X
All-Way Stop-Control
12. Walnut St. & 9th Ave. S 26.48% 900 X
All-Way Stop-Control
14 220th St. SW and SR99 31.68% 700 X X
Signal Installation
15. 220th St. SW & 76th Ave. W 40.02% 600 X X
Signal Installation
R1. 220th St. SW: 9th Ave. S - 25.95% 3,200 X
84th Ave W
Signal Installation
Packet Page 283 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 18.82 0F THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES; UPDATING THE
CITY’S TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE; CLARIFYING THE
APPLICATION OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR
DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING A CHANGE IN EXISTING USE BUT
NOT REQUIRING A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT; UPDATING
CODIFIED REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS AND
DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE; AUTHORIZING THE
PROMULGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES; SETTING
FORTH LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Chapter 82.02 RCW to require new
growth and development within the City to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new
facilities to serve such new growth and development through the assessment of impact
fees; and
WHEREAS, based upon said authority, the City has established the traffic
impact fee program presently codified at Chapter 18.82 ECDC; and
WHEREAS, in developing the impact fees contained in this ordinance for
public facilities, the City has provided adjustments for past and future taxes paid or to be
paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public
facilities that will serve the new development; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Transportation Plan has recently been updated to
identify all of the intersections operating below the City’s adopted Level of Service
standards; and
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 284 of 465
WHEREAS, the City has recently commissioned a “Rate Study for Impact
Fees for Roads and Streets” dated October 29, 2009 (the “2009 Rate Study”), which is
hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 18.82 ECDC in
order to reflect the 2009 Rate Study, the updated Transportation Plan, and changes in the
cost of land acquisition and construction, facility plan projects and anticipated growth
levels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to amend Chapter 18.82
ECDC in order to clarify the traffic impact fee’s applicability to changes in property use
that create additional transportation impacts without necessarily involving a separate
development permit; to update codified references to administrative officials and
documents adopted by reference; and to make other minor housekeeping amendments.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the above recitals as legislative
findings in support of this ordinance. The Council further finds as follows:
A. The amendments set forth in this ordinance are in the public interest and
will further the health, safety and welfare of the Edmonds community.
B. The amendments set forth in this ordinance are consistent with and will
implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
C. The amendments set forth in this ordinance have been processed in
material compliance with all applicable state and local procedures.
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 285 of 465
Section 2. Amendment of ECDC 18.82.020. Subsections (9), (19), and (22)
through (34) of Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18.82.020 are hereby
amended to provide in their respective entirety as follows:
18.82.020 Definitions.
. . . .
9. “Director” means the Public Works Director or
the director’s designee.
. . . .
19. “ITE land use code” means the classification
code number assigned to a type of land use by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers in the Eighth Edition of Trip
Generation or current edition(s).
. . . .
22. “Procedures guide” means the administrative
guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to
ECDC 18.82.150.
23. “Project improvements” means site
improvements and facilities that are planned and designed
to provide service for a particular development or users of
the project and are not system improvements. No
improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan
adopted by the council shall be considered a project
improvement.
24. “Public facilities” means the public streets and
roads owned by the city of Edmonds or other governmental
entities.
25. “Rate Study” means the “Rate Study for Impact
Fee for Roads” City of Edmonds, dated October 29, 2009.
26. “Residential” or “residential development”
means all types of construction intended for human
habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to, single-
family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development.
This also includes the residential portion of mixed-use
developments.
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 286 of 465
27. “Road” means a right-of-way which enables
motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to
travel between destinations, and affords the principal means
of access to abutting property, including avenue, place,
way, drive, lane, boulevard, highway, street, and other
thoroughfare, except an alley.
28. “Service area” means the entire corporate limits
of the city of Edmonds.
29. “Significant past tax payment” means taxes
exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and
which were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed
and were earmarked or proratable to the same system
improvements for which the impact fee is assessed.
30. “Square footage” means the square footage of
the gross floor area of the development.
31. “State” means the state of Washington.
32. “Street” is defined in ECDC 21.90.120.
33. “System improvements” means public facilities
that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities
plan and are designed to provide service to service areas
within the community at large, in contrast to project
improvements.
34. “Usable space” means any square footage
created by or added to a development that increases floor
area usable for residential, storage, commercial or business
purposes.
Section 3. Amendment of ECDC 18.82.030. Section 18.82.030 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
18.82.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees.
A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees,
based on the rates in ECDC 18.82.120, from any applicant
seeking development approval from the city for any
development activity within the city as provided herein.
This shall include, but is not limited to, the development of
residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial land,
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 287 of 465
and includes the expansion or change of existing uses that
creates a demand for additional public facilities.
B Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees
shall be assessed based upon the road impact fee rates in
effect at the time of issuance of the building permit,
including but not limited to change of use permit, or
remodel permit. In the event the development activity does
not require a building permit, application of the chapter
shall be at the time of issuance of the business license.
Business license applications shall be filed pursuant to
Chapter 3.20 ECC.
1. For a change in use of an existing
building or dwelling unit, including any alteration,
expansion, replacement or new accessory building, the
impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the ITE
land use of the new use, less an amount equal to the
applicable impact fee for the ITE land use of the prior use,
established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the
previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04), the 2004 ECDC
18.82.120 impact fee shall be used.
2. For mixed use developments, impact
fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each
land use based on the applicable measurement in the impact
fee rates set forth in ECDC 18.82.120.
3. Where the impact fees imposed are
determined by the square footage of the development, the
building official will establish the gross floor area created
by the proposed development.
4. Applicants that have been awarded
credits prior to the submittal of the complete building
permit application pursuant to ECDC 18.82.050 shall
submit, along with the complete building permit
application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by
the director pursuant to ECDC 18.82.050 setting forth the
dollar amount of the credit awarded.
C. Payment. Impact fees shall be paid at the time
the building permit or business license is issued by the city.
The department shall not issue the required building permit
or business license or other approval unless and until the
impact fees set forth in ECDC 18.82.120 have been paid in
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 288 of 465
the amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided
pursuant to ECDC 18.82.040 or 18.82.050.
Section 4. Amendment of ECDC 18.82.040. Subsection 18.82.040(A)(1) of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as
follows:
18.82.040 Exemptions.
A. Except as provided for below, the following
shall be exempted from the payment of all impact fees
under this chapter:
1. Alteration of an existing nonresidential
structure, that does not involve a change in use and
does not expand the usable space or add any
residential units.
. . . .
Section 5. Amendment of ECDC 18.82.040. Subsection 18.82.040(A)(7) of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 6. Amendment of ECDC 18.82.120. Section 18.82.120 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
18.82.120 Road impact fee rates.
The road impact fee rates in this section are
generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set
forth in the Rate Study, which is incorporated herein by
reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent
fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130 of this Chapter,
exemptions in ECDC 18.82.040 and credits in ECDC
18.82.050, all new developments in the City will be
charged the road impact fee applicable to the type of
development as follows:
A. Light industrial, ITE Land Use Code 110: $ 1.50
per square foot.
B. Manufacturing, ITE Land Use Code 140: $ 1.12
per square foot.
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 289 of 465
C. Mini-warehouse, ITE Land Use Code 151: $
0.40 per square foot.
D. Single family house, ITE Land Use Code 210: $
1,196.33 per dwelling unit.
E. Apartment, ITE Land Use Code 220: $ 776.56
per dwelling unit.
F. Condominium, ITE Land Use Code 230:
$629.65 per dwelling unit.
G. Mobile home, ITE Land Use Code 240: $
671.62 per dwelling unit.
H. Senior Housing, ITE Land Use Code 251:
$157.41 per dwelling unit.
I. Motel, ITE Land Use Code 320: $ 629.65 per
room.
J. Marina, ITE Land Use Code 420: $ 188.89 per
boat berth.
K. Movie theater, ITE Land Use Code 444: $ 2.48
per square foot.
L. Health / Fitness Club, ITE Land Use Code 492:
$ 2.78 per square foot.
M. High school, ITE Land Use Code 530: $ 0.82
per square foot.
N. Church, ITE Land Use Code 560: $ 0.69 per
square foot.
O. Day Care Center, ITE Land Use Code 565: $
6.57 per square foot.
P. Nursing home, ITE Land Use Code 620: $
199.39 per bed.
Q. General office, ITE Land Use Code 710: $ 2.07
per square foot.
R. Medical office, ITE Land Use Code 720: $ 3.81
per square foot.
S. Specialty Retail, ITE Land Use Code 814: $ 0.93
per square foot.
T. Shopping center, ITE Land Use Code 820: $
1.34 per square foot.
U. Supermarket, ITE Land Use Code 850: $ 4.80
per square foot.
V. Convenience Market 15-16 hours, ITE Land
Use Code 852: $ 5.80 per square foot.
W. Drive-In Bank, ITE Land Use Code 912: $7.00
per square foot.
X. Restaurant: sit-down, ITE Land Use Code 932:
$ 4.70 per square foot.
Y. Fast food no drive up, ITE Land Use Code 933:
$ 9.19 per square foot.
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 290 of 465
Z. Fast food with drive up, ITE Land Use Code
934: $ 11.23 per square foot.
AA. Coffee / Donut Shop, no drive-up, ITE Land
Use Code 936: $ 5.73 per square foot
AB. Coffee / Donut Shop, drive-up, no indoor
seating, ITE Land Use Code 938: $ 10.55 per square foot.
AC. Gas station with convenience, ITE Land Use
Code 945: $3,347.62 per vehicle fueling position.
Section 7. Addition of New ECDC Section 18.82.150. Chapter 18.82 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Section 18.82.150 Procedures guide to provide in its entirety as follows:
18.82.150 Procedures guide.
The director is authorized to develop a procedures
guide to facilitate the city’s administration and enforcement
of this chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent
with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole
convenience of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or
for any other person.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body is not subject to referendum and shall
take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof
consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 291 of 465
{JZL761470.DOC;3\00006.900000\ }
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
______________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY:__________________________
W. SCOTT SNYDER
Packet Page 292 of 465
AM-2980 8.
Edmonds Community Development Code Ch. 18.30, Stormwater Management
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster 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 a proposed Ordinance to adopt a revised Edmonds Community
Developement Code Chapter 18.30, Stormwater Management.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve proposed Code.
Previous Council Action
Code last updated in 1995
On February 24, 2009, presented plan for the Stormwater Code Update.
On June 9, 2009, presented progress on Code Update to the Council CS/DS committee.
On December 8, 2009, presented proposed Stormwater Code and outline for the Supplement to the
Council CS/DS committee.
On March 23, 2010, made presentation on proposed Stormwater Code and Supplement.
Narrative
A detailed presentation was given to Council on March 23, 2010. This presentation and agenda
memo summarizes some key items in the proposed code.
Purpose
The purpose of the stormwater code is to control runoff from new development, redevelopment
and construction sites to minimize the effects these activities have on:
o Private and public property (including roads) from flooding or erosion.
o The quality of our receiving waters from sediment or other pollutants.
o Aquatic habitat, including the physical damage of excessive flows that cause erosion and
sedimentation.
Rationale
There are two main reasons for the code revisions:
1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (or Phase II Permit) from
Packet Page 293 of 465
Department of Ecology requires we adopt updated regulations for sites with 1-acre or more of land
disturbing activity (i.e., clearing, grading, development).
2. Stormwater management for all size sites has advanced in the past 15 years since the code was
last updated.
Approach
The approach to proposed new code is a complete re-write with more choices and updated
standards including allowing for the use of low impact development (LID) techniques. For
example, the current code only allows detention of runoff or infiltration for flow control. The new
code will allow more choice to meet this minimum requirement, where feasible.
The Phase II Permit calls for the City to require certain stormwater Best Management Practices
(BMP) for sites with 1 acre or more of land-disturbing activity. These BMPs are found in the
Permit and the 2005 Dept of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington or other
manuals that Ecology has approved. These required BMPs are more protective than our current
code. For these large sites, the proposed new Code is in compliance with this requirement.
For small sites, standards are similar to what is currently in the code but BMPS are sized using
updated computational methods.
As an example, for the minimum requirement of flow control, the following table summarizes a
comparison with the proposed code and the current code:
Type Standards in Proposed Code Compared to Current
Large Sites Meet Ecology Permit Standards More Protective
Small Sites with >2,000
but <5,000 sf Impervious
All sites: Match 10-yr. event
pre-development conditions.
Slightly more
protective due to
more modern
computational
method
Small Sites >=5,000 sf
impervious surfaces
-Lake or Creek Match 2-, 10, 100
yr. event pre-development
conditions. -Puget Sound
Discharge: Match 10, 100- yr.
event pre-development conditions.
Slightly more
protective due to
more modern
computational
method
Exceptions
Exceptions are defined by the Phase II Permit as: “Relief from application of one or more
Minimum Requirements.” The Permit and therefore the proposed code has a prescribed method for
dealing with exceptions involving Public Notice of the request for an exemption (paid for by the
applicant) and written notice of the City’s decision on the request. The decision by the City is
appealable by the applicant or by others to the Hearing Examiner.
Maintenance
The proposed code requires all private stormwater systems to be maintained by private parties. It
allows the City to inspect these facilities and require the owner perform maintenance if standards
are not met. This is required by the Phase II Permit. In this Permit, the City is responsible for the
discharges from the municipally-owned storm system, consequently we must regulate what goes
Packet Page 294 of 465
into it. The companion Illicit Discharge Code (Chapter 7.200), allows the City to enter and
maintain a privately-owned system if causing water quality problem and charge the owner for the
work.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit A-Draft Ordinance
Link: Exhibit B-Draft Stormwater Code Supplement
Link: Exhibit C-Presentation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 04/15/2010 11:23 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:09 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 02:16 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:22 PM APRV
Form Started By: Megan
Cruz
Started On: 04/12/2010 03:54
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 295 of 465
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
4/9/10
R:4/14/10gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER
18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING FOR
THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING CHAPTER 18.30 TO
VESTED PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, changes in state and federal regulatory law, most prominently the
Western Washington Phase II Municipal Storm Water Permit issued by the Department of
Ecology, require amendment of the City’s storm water management policies; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held regarding this matter on __________,
2010, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Chapter 18.30 Storm
Water Management is hereby repealed (see Section 2 of this ordinance) and reenacted to read as
follows:
Chapter 18.30
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Sections:
18.30.000 Purpose
18.30.010 Definitions
18.30.020 Regulation
18.30.030 Applicability
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 1 -
Packet Page 296 of 465
18.30.040 Administration
18.30.050 Project Classification
18.30.060 Stormwater Management Requirements
18.30.070 Exemptions, Exceptions, and Adjustments
18.30.080 Easements, Deeds, and Covenants
18.30.090 Inspection and Maintenance Roles and
Responsibilities
18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures
18.30.000 Purpose
A. To protect water resources, reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfy the state
requirement under Chapter 90.48 RCW to apply all known,
available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and
treatment (“AKART”) to stormwater runoff prior to discharge to
receiving waters.
B. To control stormwater runoff generated by development,
redevelopment, construction sites, or modifications to existing
stormwater systems that directly or indirectly discharge to the City
stormwater system, in a manner that complies with the Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the
Department of Ecology.
C. To protect land and the ecological balance of receiving
water bodies near development sites from increased surface water
runoff rates and durations that could cause flooding or erosion,
scouring, and deposition of sediment (caused by development).
D. To protect private and public property and city streets and
rights-of-way (including easements) from flooding or erosion due
to development activity.
E. To provide for inspection and maintenance of stormwater
facilities in the city to ensure that these facilities perform as
designed.
F. To require that all public and private stormwater facilities
be operated, maintained, and repaired in a manner that conforms to
this chapter.
G. To establish the minimum standards that must be met for
compliance.
H. To provide guidelines for all who inspect and maintain
stormwater facilities.
I. To promote development practices that ensure the above
purposes are met.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 2 -
Packet Page 297 of 465
18.30.010 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
A. “Adjustment” means a variation in the application of a
Minimum Requirement to a particular project. Adjustments
provide substantially equivalent environmental protection.
B. “Approval” means the proposed work or completed work
conforming to this chapter as approved by the Public Works
Director or their designee.
C. “Applicant” means the owning individual(s) or
corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or
approvals described in this Chapter.
D. “Best management practice (BMP)” means the schedule of
activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures, and
structural or managerial practices approved by the City that, when
used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release
pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington
State.
E. “City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4”
means a conveyance, or system of conveyances (including roads
with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs,
gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that are
owned or operated by the City of Edmonds, designed or used for
collecting or conveying stormwater, and are not a combined sewer
nor part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works as defined in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.2.
F. “Clearing” means the act of cutting or removing vegetation,
including grubbing.
G. “Common plan of development or sale” means a site where
multiple separate and distinct construction activities may take
place at different times on different schedules, but still under a
single plan. For example: phased projects and projects with
multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots
will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners
(e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate builders); a
development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is
still under a consistent plan for long-term development; or projects
in a contiguous area that may be unrelated but still under the same
contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new
parking lot at the same facility.
H. “Construction Activity” means land-disturbing operations
including clearing, grading, or excavation that disturbs the surface
of the land. Such activities may include road construction,
construction of residential houses, office buildings, or industrial
buildings, and demolition activity.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 3 -
Packet Page 298 of 465
I. “Converted Pervious Surface” means the change in land
cover changed from native vegetation to lawn, landscape, or
pasture areas.
J. “Creek” is synonymous with “stream”, which is defined in
ECDC 23.40.320.
K. “Critical areas” is defined in ECDC 23.40.320.
L. “Design storm” means a rainfall event or pattern of events
for use in analyzing and designing drainage facilities.
M. “Detention” means a facility for controlling stormwater
runoff for a prescribed design storm and releasing the stormwater
at a prescribed rate.
N. “Director” means the Public Works Director or a designee
with an appropriate background in engineering or another related
discipline.
O. “Earth material” means any rock, natural soil, fill, or any
combination thereof.
P. “Ecology” means the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Q. “Effective impervious surface” means those impervious
surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance
to a drainage system including the City’s MS4. Impervious
surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective
if the runoff is dispersed through at least one hundred feet of native
vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 – “Full Dispersion,” as
described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (2005).
R. “Erosion” means the displacement of any earth material of
existing vegetation by rainfall, stormwater runoff, or seepage.
S. “Excavation” means the removal of any earth material.
T. “Exception” means relief from the application of a
Minimum Requirement to a project.
U. “Fill” means a deposit of earth material placed by artificial
means.
V. “Groundwater” means water in a saturated zone or stratum
beneath the land surface or below a water body.
W. “Highway” means a main public road connecting towns
and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State Highway 99 and
portions of State Highway 104, both classified as Principal
Arterials in the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
X. “Illicit discharge” means any direct or indirect non-
stormwater discharge to the City’s MS4, groundwaters, or a water
body, except as expressly allowed by Chapter 7.200 of Edmonds
City Code.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 4 -
Packet Page 299 of 465
Y. “Impervious surface” means a hard surface area that either
prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as it
occurs under natural conditions prior to development, resulting in
stormwater runoff from the surface in greater quantities or at an
increased rate of flow compared to stormwater runoff
characteristics under natural conditions prior to development.
Common impervious surfaces include (but are not limited to)
rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage
areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen
materials, and oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly
impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered
retention/detention facilities shall not be considered impervious
surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for
application of minimum requirements are exceeded. However,
open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered
impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor
swimming pools shall be considered impervious surfaces in all
situations.
Z. “Lake” means an inland body of fresh water surrounded by
land.
AA. “Land-disturbing activity” means any activity that results in
movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both
vegetative and non-vegetative) or the existing soil topography.
Land-disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing,
grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with
stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be
considered a land-disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance
practices are not considered land-disturbing activity.
BB. “Low Impact Development” means development conducted
in a way that seeks to minimize or completely prevent alterations
to the natural hydrology of the site. Low impact development
includes site planning and design to reduce alterations of natural
soil and vegetation cover, minimize impervious surfaces, and
specific practices that help to replicate natural hydrology such as
permeable pavements, green roofs, soil amendments, bioretention
systems, and dispersion of runoff.
CC. “Maintenance” means repair and maintenance activities
conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and
equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that
previously existing, and results in no significant adverse
hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to
prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of structures and
systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of
dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental
permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 5 -
Packet Page 300 of 465
DD. “Maximum extent feasible” means the requirement is to be
fully implemented, constrained only by the physical limitations of
the site, practical considerations of engineering design, and
reasonable considerations of financial costs and environmental
impacts.
EE. “MS4” means the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System.
FF. “Native vegetation” means vegetation comprised of plant
species (other than noxious weeds) indigenous to the coastal region
of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably
expected to occur naturally on the site. Examples include trees
such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder,
big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry,
salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern,
foam flower, and fireweed.
GG. “Natural drainage systems and outfalls” means the location
of the channels, swales, and other non-manmade conveyance
systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic
contours existing for the subject property, either from maps or
photographs, or such other means as appropriate.
HH. “New development” means land-disturbing activities,
including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions
from timber land to other uses per RCW 76.09.050; structural
development, including construction or installation of a building or
other structure; creation of impervious surfaces; and subdivision,
short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in
Chapter 58.17 RCW. Projects meeting the definition of
redevelopment shall not be considered new development. If the
project is part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed
area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit
requirements.
II. “New Impervious Surface” means impervious surface
created after July 6, 1977 (the effective date of the City’s first
drainage control ordinance) that meets the conditions described in
the City of Edmonds Stormwater Supplement (see Chapter
18.30.050).
JJ. “Person” means any individual, partnership, corporation,
association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal
corporation, agency of the state, or local government unit, however
designated.
KK. “Project site” means that portion of a property, properties,
or right of way subject to land-disturbing activities, new
impervious surfaces, or replaced impervious surfaces. If the project
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 6 -
Packet Page 301 of 465
LL. “Receiving waters” means waterbodies or surface water
systems to which surface runoff is discharged via a point source of
stormwater or via sheet flow.
MM. “Redevelopment” means on a site that is already
substantially developed, the creation or addition of impervious
surfaces; the expansion of a building footprint or addition or
replacement of a structure; structural development including
construction, installation, or expansion of a building or other
structure; replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a
routine maintenance activity; and land-disturbing activities.
NN. “Replaced impervious surface” means for structures, the
removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces or
foundation. For other impervious surfaces, means the removal
down to bare soil or base course and replacement. For sites with
existing single family dwelling units, (as defined in ECDC
21.90.080) a project that solely replaces the other impervious
surfaces in-kind (footprint and imperviousness of material does not
change), shall not be considered replaced impervious surface for
the purposes of this chapter, unless the project site has 1 acre or
greater of land-disturbing activities. (Note: These surfaces may
qualify as “new impervious surface” – see definition.)
OO. “Roadway” means the traveled impervious portion of any
public or private road or street.
PP. “Site” means the area defined by the legal boundaries of a
parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to new development or
redevelopment. For road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-
way, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries
define the site.
QQ. “Slope” means the degree of slant of a surface measured as
a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the
first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the
vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope.
Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal
plane, with a 90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45
degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope.
RR. “Soil” means the unconsolidated mantle of the earth that
serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants.
SS. “Source control” means a structure or operation that is
intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with
stormwater through physical separation of areas or careful
management of activities that are sources of pollutants.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 7 -
Packet Page 302 of 465
TT. “Stormwater” means runoff during and following
precipitation and snowmelt events, including surface runoff and
drainage.
UU. “Stormwater facility” means a constructed component of a
stormwater drainage system, designed and constructed to perform
a particular function, or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities
include, but are not limited to, pipes, pumping systems, swales,
ditches, culverts, street gutters, catch basins, detention basins,
wetlands, infiltration devices, and pollutant removal devices.
VV. “Stormwater site plan” The report and associated plans
containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary
for the City to evaluate a proposed new development or
redevelopment project for compliance with stormwater
requirements. Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will vary with
the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics.
It may include a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a Permanent Stormwater Control
Plan (PSC Plan).
WW. “Substantially developed” means for sites in zone district
RS (as defined Title 16 ECDC) those that have an existing single
family dwelling unit (as defined in ECDC 21.90.080). For sites
with all other zone districts, substantially developed shall mean
those sites with 35 percent or more existing impervious surface
coverage.
XX. “Threshold discharge area” means an onsite area that drains
to either a single natural discharge location or multiple natural
discharge locations that combine within one-quarter mile
downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The
examples in Figure 2.1 presented in Volume I of the Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) illustrate this
definition. The purpose of this definition is to clarify how the
thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple
discharge points.
YY. “Variance” means the same as “Exception”.
ZZ. “Water body” means a surface water feature, whether
standing or flowing, including (but not limited to) sounds, lakes,
ponds, rivers, streams, and creeks including waters of the state.
AAA. “Watershed” means a geographic region within which
water drains into a particular river, stream, or water body.
BBB. “Waters of the state” includes those waters as defined as
“waters of the United States” in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the
geographic boundaries of Washington State, and “waters of the
state” as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which includes lakes,
rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 8 -
Packet Page 303 of 465
CCC. “Wetlands” are as defined in ECDC 23.40.320.
18.30.020 Regulation
A. The Public Works Director or a designee shall administer
this chapter and shall be referred to as the Director. The Director
shall have the authority to develop and implement procedures to
administer and enforce this chapter.
B. The Director shall approve and enforce procedures in
accordance with state and federal regulations, and compliance with
this chapter.
18.30.030 Applicability
A. This chapter applies if any of the following pertains to a
site:
1. Issuance of a City permit is required under all other
chapters of Titles 18 or 19 ECDC.
2. A Subdivision application is submitted per ECDC
20.75.040.
3. The proposed project:
a. Involves 500 square feet or more of land-disturbing
activity, new impervious surface, or replaced impervious surface.
Routine landscape maintenance practices outside of Critical Areas
(as defined in Title 23 ECDC) and ongoing farming or gardening
activities shall be excluded unless there is the potential for such an
activity to cause an illicit discharge to the City’s MS4.
b. Is a utility or other construction projects consisting
of 500 lineal feet or more of trench excavation.
c. Is located in, adjacent to, or drains into (currently or
as a result of the project) a Critical Area or a Critical Area Buffer.
B. This chapter applies to actions whenever the Director
determines there is a potential for:
1. An illicit discharge or physical damage to the City’s
MS4 or downstream properties, or
2. A violation of applicable City, State, or Federal
laws, regulations, or permits related to water quality.
C. If a City Permit has been issued or a subdivision
application submitted for a site, as provided in Section
18.30.030.A, the requirements of this chapter shall be administered
under those permits. If the site activities triggered in Section
18.30.030.A.3 or B of this subchapter do not necessitate City-
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 9 -
Packet Page 304 of 465
D. The requirements of this chapter are minimum
requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede or
affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations,
covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this chapter imposes
requirements that are more protective of human health or the
environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of this
chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that
are less protective of human health or the environment than those
set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective
requirements shall prevail.
E. The minimum requirements that apply to a project site will
differ based on (but are not limited to) the following: project scope
and configuration, physical site characteristics, site location, and
subsurface conditions. The combination of site activities and
physical characteristics will classify the type of project as
described in ECDC 18.30.040. Stormwater Management
Requirements are described in ECDC 18.30.050.
F. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not
waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they indicate
compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with
all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations,
including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter.
G. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not
necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus,
compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating
all drainage water or other environmental impacts, and additional
mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to
other applicable laws and regulations. The primary obligation for
compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental
harm on or from property is placed upon the applicant.
18.30.040 Administration
A. Applications. All stormwater review submittals shall
contain, in addition to the information required under any other
applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the
Stormwater Supplement (see Chapter 18.30.060).and other
information as the Director shall require.
B. Review
1. The Director shall review all plans for compliance with this
chapter.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 10 -
Packet Page 305 of 465
2. The Director may administratively, without hearing,
approve and issue a Stormwater permit when required by ECDC
18.30.030 if the proposed activity complies with requirements in
this chapter.
C. Inspection. All activities regulated by this chapter shall be
inspected by the Director. The Director shall inspect projects for
approval at various stages of the work to determine that they are
being constructed per the approved Stormwater Site Plans. Stages
of work requiring inspection include (but are not limited to)
preconstruction, installation of BMPs, land-disturbing activities,
installation of utilities, landscaping, and completion of project.
When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the
purpose of this chapter or to comply with local, state or federal law
or regulation on stormwater, a special inspection or testing shall be
performed. The drainage system shall be installed concurrently
with site development and shall be completed as shown on the
approved plan before city approval of an occupancy permit or final
inspection.
D. Fees. Application, Review and Inspection fees as set in
Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid.
18.30.050 Project Classification
For purposes of this chapter, projects are classified as Large Site,
Small Site, or Minor Site as described below, primarily based in
the extent of land-disturbing activities.
A. Large Site Project. Projects are Large Site Projects if they
involve:
1. 1 acre or more of land-disturbing activity, or
2. If the project disturbs less than 1 acre of land and it
is part of a larger common plan of development or sale where land-
disturbing activity involves 1 acre or more.
B. Small Site Project. Projects are Small Site Projects if are
they are not Large Site Projects and they involve:
1. 2,000 square feet or greater of new, replaced, or
new plus replaced impervious surface area or
2. At least 7,000 square feet of land-disturbing
activity or
3. 50 cubic yards or more of either grading, filling, or
excavating as described in ECDC 18.40.000.
C. Minor Site Project. Projects are Minor Site Projects if they
involve:
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 11 -
Packet Page 306 of 465
1. 500 square feet or greater of new development or
redevelopment including land-disturbing activity and utility
projects that cause land disturbance and
2. Are not a Large or Small Site Project
18.30.060 Stormwater Management Requirements
A. General
1. All activities covered by this chapter shall comply
with the site planning and best management selection and design
criteria in the Stormwater Code Supplement to Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30 (Exhibit
A), herein referred to as the Stormwater Supplement, to implement
the applicable minimum technical requirements listed in this
chapter.
2. The City may allow alternative or regional
approaches to treatment, flow control, or other minimum
requirements per the Basin/Watershed provisions of the Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit.
B. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit
discharges, including spills into the City’s stormwater drainage
system, are prohibited per Chapter 7.200 ECDC.
C. Low Impact Development. Low Impact Development
techniques shall be employed where feasible, reasonable, and
appropriate. When low impact development techniques are
employed, the design shall be consistent with the most recent
version of the Low Impact Development, Technical Guidance for
Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State
University Pierce County Extension), other Low Impact
Development standards approved by Ecology, or the Stormwater
Supplement.
D. Minimum Technical Requirements by Project
Classification. The following lists the additional requirements that
apply to the specific project classes:
1. Large Site Projects. Large Site Projects shall meet
the minimum technical requirements outlined in Section 3 and
Section 4 of Appendix 1 of the Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit) and the Stormwater Supplement.
2. Small Site Projects. Small Site Projects are further
defined as Category 1 or Category 2. All new development or
redevelopment projects shall, at a minimum, comply with the
applicable requirements for Category 1 or Category 2 as found in
the Stormwater Supplement. Any or all of small site minimum
requirements (SSMRs) may be required on any Small Site Project
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 12 -
Packet Page 307 of 465
a. Category 1: For Small Site Projects with less than
5,000 square feet of new, replaced, or new plus replaced
impervious surface area the following SSMRs shall apply:
i. SSMR #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site
Plan
ii. SSMR #2 – Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
iii. SSMR #3 – Source Control of Pollution
iv. SSMR #4 – Preservation of Natural
Drainage Systems and Outfalls
v. SSMR #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management
vi. SSMR #7 - Flow Control - This SSMR may
be waived by the Director based on the extent of application of
SSMR #5 to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on
site without causing flooding or erosion impact, per the criteria in
the Stormwater Supplement.
vii. SSMR #8 – Wetland Protection
viii. SSMR#9 – Operation and
Maintenance
ix. SSMR#11 – Financial Liability – Applies to
stormwater systems constructed in or adjacent to Critical Areas or
Critical Area buffers.
b. Category 2: For Small Site Projects that include
5,000 square feet or greater of new, replaced, or new plus replaced
impervious surface area; or convert ¾ acre or more of native
vegetation to lawn or landscaped area; or, through a combination
of creating effective impervious surface and converted pervious
surfaces, causes a 0.1 cubic feet per second increase in the 100-
year flow frequency from a threshold discharge area as estimated
using an approved model. The following SSMRs shall apply:
i SSMR #1 - Preparation of Stormwater Site
Plan
ii. SSMR #2 – Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
i. SSMR #3 – Source Control of Pollution
ii. SSMR #4 – Preservation of Natural
Drainage Systems and Outfalls
iii. SSMR #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management
iv. SSMR #6 – Runoff Treatment.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 13 -
Packet Page 308 of 465
v. SSMR #7 – Flow Control
vi. SSMR #8 – Wetland Protection
vii. SSMR #9 – Operation and Maintenance
viii. SSMR #10 – Off-Site Analysis and
Mitigation
ix. SSMR #11 – Financial Liability
c. Any or all of SSMRs may be required on any Small
Site Project by the Director to meet the purpose of this Chapter
based on site specific factors including, but not limed to, location,
soil conditions, slope, and designated use.
3. Minor Site Projects The following Minimum
Requirements apply to Minor Site Projects:
a. Minor Site Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Practices as described in the Stormwater Supplement.
b. Additional requirements may be imposed by the
Director or designee on Minor Project Sites to meet the purpose of
this Chapter based on site specific factors including, but not limed
to, location, soil conditions, slope, and designated use.
18.30.070 Exemptions, Exceptions, Adjustments and
Appeal
A. Exemptions. The following land uses and land-disturbing
activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
1. Forest practices regulated under Title 222 WAC,
except for Class IV general forest practices that are conversions
from timber land to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of
the minimum requirements.
2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve
working land for production are generally exempt. However, land
conversion from timberland to agriculture, and the construction of
impervious surfaces are not exempt.
3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management
pits, and associated access roads, and construction of transportation
and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas
treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations, and
crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged
to implement and maintain best management practices to minimize
erosion and control sediment during and after construction
activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during
storm events.
4. Roadway Projects. The following roadway
maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole and square-
cut patching, overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 14 -
Packet Page 309 of 465
a. For Large Site Projects only, the following road
maintenance practices or activities are considered redevelopment,
and therefore are not categorically exempt. The extent to which
this exemption applies is explained for each circumstance.
i. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base
course or a lower level, or repairing the roadway base: If
impervious surfaces are not expanded, Large Site Project
Minimum Requirements #1 - #5 apply. However, in most cases,
only Large Site Project Minimum Requirement #2, Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention, shall be required. Where
appropriate, project proponents are encouraged to look for
opportunities to use permeable and porous pavements.
ii. Extending the pavement edge without increasing the
size of the road prism, or paving graveled shoulders are considered
new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum
requirements that are triggered when the thresholds identified for
redevelopment projects are met.
iii. Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel,
asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to asphalt, or
concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment (“chip
seal”) to asphalt or concrete: These are considered new impervious
surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are
triggered when the thresholds identified for redevelopment projects
are met.
5. Underground utility projects that replace the ground
surface with in-kind material or materials with similar runoff
characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement #2,
Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention.
6. With respect to replaced impervious surfaces, a
redevelopment project may be exempt from compliance with
SSMR 6 (treatment), SSMR 7 (flow control), and SSMR 8
(wetlands protection) (or the associated applicable minimum
requirements for large sites) should the City adopt a plan and
schedule that fulfills those requirements through a regional
drainage control plan (e.g., via a regional facility or facilities,
stream restoration, or basin-specific development requirements).
7. City capital and maintenance projects are exempt
from the financial liability minimum requirement.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 15 -
Packet Page 310 of 465
B. Exceptions
1. The Director may approve a request for an
exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter following
legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the
Director’s decision on the application. All legal public notice
related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner
prescribed in Section 20.03.002 ECDC and the applicant shall pay
all costs to publish the legal public notices required by this
provision. The Director shall provide and keep a written findings
of fact of the decision.
2. The approval of the exception shall only be granted
when the applicant demonstrates that the exception will not
increase risks to public health, safety, and welfare, or to water
quality, or to public and private property in the vicinity or
downstream of the property, and the exception shall be the least
possible exception that could be granted and still provide
compliance with the intent of the minimum requirements. In
addition, the exception shall only be granted when it has been
determined by the director that one or more of the following
applies:
a. The requirement would cause a severe and
unexpected financial hardship that outweighs the requirement’s
benefits, and the criteria for an adjustment cannot be met; or
b. The requirement would cause harm or a significant
threat of harm to public health, safety, and welfare, the
environment, or public and private property, and the criteria for an
adjustment cannot be met; or
c. The requirement is not technically feasible, and the
criteria for an adjustment cannot be met; or
d. An emergency situation exists that necessitates
approval of the exception.
3. An application for an exception on the grounds of
severe and unexpected financial hardship shall describe, at a
minimum, all of the following:
a. The current, pre-project use of the site; and
b. How application of the requirement(s) for which an
exception is being requested restricts the proposed use of the site
compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this
chapter; and
c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the
exception were not granted; and
d. The possible uses of the site that would have been
allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 16 -
Packet Page 311 of 465
e. A comparison of the estimated amount and
percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements versus the
estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of
requirements that existed prior to adoption of the requirements of
this chapter; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to
apply the requirements of this chapter
4. An exception to the requirements shall only be
granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the economic
hardship as determined by the Director, to alleviate the harm or
threat of harm to the degree that compliance with the requirement
becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work
that the Director determines is warranted.
5. The Director may require an applicant to provide
additional information at the applicant’s expense, including (but
not limited to) an engineer’s report or analysis.
6. When an exception is granted, the Director may
impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm
or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception,
or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been
granted.
C. Adjustments
1. The Director may approve a request for adjustments
to the requirements of this chapter when the Director finds that:
a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent
environmental protection; and
b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental
protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on sound
engineering practices.
2. During construction, the Director may require, or
the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage control
facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical
conditions are discovered on the site that are inconsistent with the
assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not
limited to) unexpected soil or water conditions, weather generated
problems, or changes in the design of the improved areas; and
3. A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall
be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior to
implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide
facts substantiating the requirements of subsection C.1, and if
made during construction, the factors in subsection C.2. Any such
modifications made during the construction of drainage control
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 17 -
Packet Page 312 of 465
D. Appeal
1. The Director’s decision on an application for an
exception or adjustment may appeal to the Hearing Examiner in
accordance with a Type II appeal process in Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof.
3. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealable
to Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.
18.30.080 Easements, Deeds, and Covenants
A. Easements. A Public Storm Drainage Inspection Easement
shall be required where:
1. Stormwater facilities identified on project plans will
be located on property owned by a party other than the owner of
the project site or
2. Access is needed to structural or non structural
stormwater facilities for inspection by the City to ensure that these
stormwater best management practices continue to function as
designed.
Easements shall be as specified in Engineering Division documents
or approved by the Director, and recorded with Snohomish County
and on all proper deeds.
B. Deeds and Covenants for Low Impact Development. Deed
restrictions and covenants shall be required for all sites using low
impact development techniques to ensure that these stormwater
best management practices continue to function as designed. The
deed restrictions or covenants shall address or append requirements
and responsibilities for long term management and maintenance of
these best management practices.
18.30.090 Inspection and Maintenance Roles, and
Responsibilities
Proper inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities
(including construction BMPs) is essential for the protection of the
City’s MS4 and the environment. Inspection and maintenance of
all stormwater facilities shall be required in accordance with the
Stormwater Supplement.
A. Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards
Stormwater facilities shall be inspected and maintained per the
requirements of the Stormwater Supplement. For systems which
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 18 -
Packet Page 313 of 465
do not have a maintenance standard, the owner shall develop a
standard based on guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a
registered professional engineer and submit the standards to the
Director for approval.
B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are either privately or
publicly owned and maintained. All stormwater facilities that
serve commercial and industrial sites are private. Storm drainage
facilities or controls that are privately owned by a homeowner’s
association or similar organization also are private.
C. Maintenance and Inspection. All privately owned storm
drainage facilities or controls shall be maintained by the owner, or
the homeowner or owner association (“Owner”) if one is
established as part of a residential or commercial development.
All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to
ensure proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as
required or as set forth in the Stormwater Supplement. The Owner
shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal
receipts, and monitoring results. The records shall catalog the
action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was taken,
how it was done, results of any monitoring effort, and any
problems encountered or follow-up actions required. The records
shall be made available to the City upon request. The Owner shall
maintain a copy of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance
Manual (if required) on site, and shall make reference to such
document in real property records filed with Snohomish County, so
others who acquire real property served by the privately owned
storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation
to maintain such facilities or controls.
D. When an inspection identifies an exceedance of the
maintenance standard, maintenance shall be performed:
1. Within 1 year for wet pool facilities and retention/detention
facilities.
2. Within 6 months for typical maintenance.
3. Within 9 months for maintenance requiring re-vegetation,
and
4. Within 2 years for maintenance that requires capital
construction of less than $25,000.
E. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities Disposal
of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the minimum Functional Standards for Solid
Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC, guidelines for disposal of
waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and
where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter
173-303 WAC.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 19 -
Packet Page 314 of 465
F. City Inspection The regular inspection of privately owned
storm drainage facilities or controls is essential to enable the City
to evaluate the proper operation of the City’s MS4 and the
environment. The City shall have access to private stormwater
facilities for inspection to ensure they are properly operated and
maintained in accordance with ECC 7.200.100. The City may offer
an incentive program to owners to encourage the proper
maintenance of private storm drainage facilities.
18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures
A. General Enforcement action shall be in accordance with
this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision of this
chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of
the City. The severity of any penalty shall be based on the nature
of the violation, the damage, or risk to the public or to public
resources, or the degree of bad faith of the person subject to the
enforcement action.
B. Notice of Violation and Order to Correct. The Director
shall have the authority to serve a person a Notice of Violation and
Order to Correct (NOV/OTC) if an action is being undertaken in
violation of this chapter. Issuance of any other warning, notice, or
order is not a condition precedent for the Director to issue an
NOV/OTC.
1. Content of NOV/OTC – the NOV/OTC shall
contain:
a. A description of the specific nature, extent, and time
of violation and the damage or potential damage;
b. A notice that the violation or the potential violation
cease and desist, and, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective
action to be taken within a given time;
c. A civil penalty under ECDC 18.30.090(C) below
may be issued with the order.
d. Appeal rights.
2. Notice. An NOV/OTC may be imposed by a notice
in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested, or
by personal service, to the person(s) shown on the rolls of the
Snohomish County assessor as the owner of the site, noted as the
applicant on any application for development approval or observed
doing regulated activity on the site.
3. Effective date. The stop work order issued under
this section shall become effective immediately upon receipt by the
person to whom the order is directed.
4. Compliance. Failure to comply with the terms of an
NOV/OTC shall result in additional enforcement actions including
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 20 -
Packet Page 315 of 465
C. Maintenance Orders. The Director shall have the authority
to issue to an owner or person an order to maintain or repair a
component of a stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into
compliance with this chapter, the Stormwater Supplement, and the
Edmonds Community Development Code. The order shall include:
1. A description of the specific nature, extent and time
of the violation and the damage or potential damage that
reasonably might occur;
2. A notice that the violation or the potential violation
cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective
actions to be taken; and
3. A reasonable time to comply, depending on the
circumstances.
D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the
requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an approval
or order issued, who undertakes new development without first
obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a stop work issued
under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC,
provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a
notice of violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040(B).
1. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.110 ECDC,
provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that
chapter, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy a penalty of up
to Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based upon
an assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are
present, the hearing examiner is authorized to levy such penalty
after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and
any mitigating circumstances (see 2 below):
a. The violation created a risk to public health and the
significance of the risk.
b. The violation damaged the environment and the
significance of the damage.
c. The violation caused damage to public and private
property and the significance of such damage.
d. A history of similar violations, if any.
e. The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to
the person or entity responsible for the violations.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 21 -
Packet Page 316 of 465
2. Mitigating circumstances which may be used to
offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of the
preceding factors are limited to:
a. Full compliance with a Voluntary Compliance
Agreement and no history of similar violations.
b. Full compliance with a Voluntary Compliance
Agreement and a history of one or two similar violations (lesser
reduction).
c. A “Voluntary Compliance Agreement” is defined as
a legally binding agreement entered into between the City and the
alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the
existence of the violation, waive all appeal rights, and agree to and
does pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the violator and
the City.
3. If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a
Voluntary Compliance Agreement is not entered into within that
time period and no appeal is filed for the next 15-day period shall
be 150 percent of the initial penalties, and the penalties for the next
15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties. The
intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the
maximum penalties stated as an additional means to achieve timely
compliance.
4. Unless otherwise provided in a Voluntary
Compliance Agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30
days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not
appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter
does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code
violation of his or her duty to correct the violation or to pay any
and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to
this chapter.
5. The city may suspend immediate payment of civil
penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has entered
into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Penalties shall begin to
accrue again pursuant to the terms of the Voluntary Compliance
Agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied,
canceled or not pursued, if corrective action identified in the
voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified, or
if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that
condition which gave rise to the Voluntary Compliance
Agreement, provided, however, that additional penalties shall not
be imposed until additional notice and opportunity for hearing
have been provided in accordance with Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
6. Civil penalties assessed create a joint and several
personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code violation.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 22 -
Packet Page 317 of 465
E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in
accordance with Chapter 20.110 ECDC shall be appealable to the
Snohomish County Superior Court in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW.
F. The remedies provided for in this section shall not be
exclusive. The city may also use other civil and administrative
remedies available to it, including but not limited to, the remedies
provided in ECDC Title 19 and the State Building and Dangerous
Building Code.
Section 2. The amendments set forth in Section 1 shall be effective June 1, 2010,
provided, however, that the existing Chapter 18.30 shall remain in full force and effect with
respect to any permit application filed prior to June 1st and which is vested in accordance with
Washington state law and which under Washington law must continue to be processed in
accordance with the provisions of the existing Chapter.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 23 -
Packet Page 318 of 465
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 24 -
Packet Page 319 of 465
{WSS781085.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 25 -
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, REPEALING AND
REENACTING CHAPTER 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICATION OF
EXISTING CHAPTER 18.30 TO VESTED PERMITS, 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 320 of 465
EXHIBIT A
STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT TO EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30
April 9, 2010 Draft
Packet Page 321 of 465
Packet Page 322 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Classifying Projects ..................................................................................................................3
2.1 Project Classifications .....................................................................................................3
2.2 Determining New Impervious Surface Area ...................................................................3
2.3 Determining Replaced Impervious Surface Area ............................................................3
2.3 Determining Project Basin Type .....................................................................................4
3.0 Low Impact Development ........................................................................................................7
3.1 LID and this Stormwater Supplement .............................................................................7
4.0 Large Site Requirements ...........................................................................................................9
4.1. Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan .................................9
4.2 Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan ................................................................................................................................10
4.3 Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution ............................................10
4.4 Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and
Outfalls ..........................................................................................................................11
4.5 Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management ....................................11
4.5.1 BMP Selection ...............................................................................................12
4.5.2 Onsite/LID Techniques and Infiltration ..........................................................12
4.6 Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment ............................................................14
4.6.1 Project Thresholds ..........................................................................................14
4.6.2 Runoff Treatment Standards ...........................................................................15
4.6.3 Runoff Treatment BMP Selection ..................................................................15
4.7 Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control ...................................................................17
4.7.1 Project Thresholds and Applicability .............................................................17
4.7.2 Flow Control Standards ..................................................................................18
4.7.3 Flow Control Facility Sizing ..........................................................................22
4.7.4 Flow Control BMP Selection ..........................................................................23
4.8 Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection .........................................................24
4.9 Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance ............................................24
4.10 Minimum Requirement #10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation ....................................24
4.10.1 Qualitative Analysis ........................................................................................25
4.10.2 Quantitative Analysis ......................................................................................25
4.11 Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability .........................................................26
5.0 Small Site Requirements .........................................................................................................29
5.1 Small Site Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan .............30
5.2 Small Site Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan ..............................................................................................................31
5.3 Small Site Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution ..........................31
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Packet Page 323 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
5.4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage
Systems and Outfalls .....................................................................................................32
5.5 Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management ...................32
5.5.1 Onsite/LID BMP Selection .............................................................................32
5.5.2 Onsite/LID Techniques and Infiltration ..........................................................34
5.5.3 Bioretention Cells or Rain Gardens for Single Family Residential
Sites ................................................................................................................35
5.6 Small Site Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment ..........................................35
5.6.1 Project Thresholds ..........................................................................................35
5.6.2 Runoff Treatment Standards ...........................................................................36
5.6.3 Runoff Treatment BMP Selection ..................................................................36
5.7 Small Site Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control .................................................37
5.7.1 Project Thresholds and Applicability .............................................................37
5.7.2 Flow Control Standards ..................................................................................38
5.7.3 Flow Control Facility Sizing ..........................................................................41
5.7.4 Flow Control BMP Selection ..........................................................................42
5.8 Small Site Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection ........................................43
5.9 Small Site Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance ..........................43
5.10 Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation ..................43
5.10.1 Qualitative Analysis ........................................................................................44
5.10.2 Quantitative Analysis ......................................................................................44
5.11 Small Site Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability .......................................44
6.0 Minor Site Requirements ........................................................................................................47
6.1 Minor Site Minimum Requirement – Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan ..............................................................................................................47
7.0 Operation and Maintenance Requirements .............................................................................49
8.0 Terminology ...........................................................................................................................51
9.0 References ...............................................................................................................................55
Appendix A – Synopsis of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit ......................................................................................................................................57
Appendix B – Supplemental Technical Information .....................................................................59
Edmonds Watersheds ..............................................................................................................59
Edmonds Soils and Slopes ......................................................................................................59
Appendix C – Approved Methods for Obtaining Design Infiltration Rates ..................................67
USDA Textural Classification ................................................................................................67
Modified Pilot Infiltration Testing (PIT) Method ..................................................................68
Infiltration Test..............................................................................................................69
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................70
Apply Correction Factor ...............................................................................................70
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
Packet Page 324 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
List of Tables
Table 4-1: Site Planning and Design Techniques to Reduce the Amount of
Stormwater Runoff Generated ...............................................................................10
Table 4-2: Commonly Used Onsite/LID Stormwater Management Techniques ....................13
Table 4-3: Runoff Treatment Best Management Practices .....................................................16
Table 4-4: City of Edmonds flow control requirements for Large Site Projects
Triggering Phase II Permit Requirements ..............................................................18
Table 4-5: City of Edmonds Flow Control Requirements for Large Site Projects
Creek or Lake Basinsa ............................................................................................21
Table 4-6: City of Edmonds Flow Control Requirements for All Other Large Site
Projects Direct Discharge Basins ..........................................................................22
Table 4-7: Flow Control Best Management Practices .............................................................24
Table 5-1: Site Planning and Design Techniques to Reduce the Amount of
Stormwater Runoff Generated ...............................................................................31
Table 5-2: Commonly Used Onsite/LID Stormwater Management Techniques ....................33
Table 5-3: City of Edmonds Flow Control Requirements for Small Site Projects –
Creek or Lake Basins a ...........................................................................................40
Table 5-4: City of Edmonds Flow Control Requirements for Small Site Projects –
Direct Discharge Basins a .......................................................................................41
Table 5-5: Flow Control Best Management Practices .............................................................43
Table C-1: Recommended Infiltration Rates Based on USDA Soil Textural
Classification..........................................................................................................67
Table C-2: Correction Factors to be Used With In-Situ Infiltration Measurements to
Estimate Long-Term Design Infiltration Rates ......................................................70
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
Packet Page 325 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Project Classification ...............................................................................................5
Figure 2-2: Determining What Qualifies as “New Impervious Surface” for a Project ..............6
Figure 4-1: Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements for New
Development on Large Site Projects ......................................................................27
Figure 4-2: Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements for Redevelopment
on Large Site Projects ............................................................................................28
Figure B-1: City of Edmonds Watersheds.................................................................................61
Figure B-2: City of Edmonds Soil Map Units ...........................................................................63
Figure B-3: City of Edmonds Slopes Greater Than 15% and North Edmonds Earth
Subsidence & Landslide Hazard Area ...................................................................65
Figure C-1: Soil Classification Based on the Textural Triangle ...............................................68
Packet Page 326 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
1.0 Introduction
This Stormwater Code Supplement (Supplement) provides direction for implementing the City of
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30, Stormwater Management. Review
ECDC Chapter 18.30.030 to determine if the City’s Stormwater Management code and this Supplement
apply to your project.
The contents of this Supplement come from several primary sources, including:
• Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005) (Stormwater
Manual) and manuals deemed equivalent to it by the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology).
• Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Ecology 2009) (Phase II
Permit). See Appendix A for more information.
• Low Impact Development, Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound
Action Team and WSU Pierce County Extension 2005) (LID Manual).
• Basis for Updated Stormwater Management Standards for New Development and
Redevelopment Projects in Edmonds (Herrera Environmental Consultants 2009).
Where this Supplement conflicts with the Stormwater Manual, this Supplement shall apply. Where
provisions of this Supplement conflict with other City of Edmonds Code requirements or state and federal
requirements, the document with the more stringent provisions will apply.
The rest of this Supplement is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2 - Project Classifications: How to determine the stormwater requirements that
apply to your site.
• Chapter 3 – Low Impact Development (LID): Introduction to LID stormwater
management practices and where they are found in this Supplement
• Chapter 4 – Large Site Requirements: Direction on the applicable minimum requirements
and best management practice (BMP) selection and design criteria for Large Site
Projects, including low impact development (LID) techniques and specific runoff
treatment and flow control measures.
• Chapter 5 – Small Site Requirements: Direction on the applicable minimum
requirements, and BMP selection/design criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 Small
Site Projects, including the use of LID techniques and specific runoff treatment and
flow control measures.
• Chapter 6 – Minor Site Requirements: Direction on the applicable minimum
requirements and BMP selection/design criteria for Minor Site Projects
• Chapter 7 – Operations and Maintenance: Operations and maintenance (O&M) direction
for the BMPs referenced in this Supplement.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
Packet Page 327 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
• Chapter 8 – Terminology: Definitions of key terms used in this Supplement.
• Chapter 9 – References.
The Appendices provide additional background information on stormwater management in the City.
• Appendix A summarizes provisions of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit (Phase II Permit) that affect City stormwater management
requirements.
• Appendix B provides a map of Edmonds’ watersheds, areas with steep slopes, and soils
information.
• Appendix C describes the two approved methods for obtaining design infiltration rates.
Throughout the remainder of this document, words in the definitions section of ECDC Chapter 18.30 and
in Chapter 8 of this Supplement are in bold italics when first used.
Packet Page 328 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
2.0 Classifying Projects 2.0 Classifying Projects
Terms in bold italics are defined
in the Terminology section of
this document or in ECDC
Chapter 18.30.
This chapter helps you classify a project per ECDC Chapter
18.30.050. It also helps you classify impervious surfaces as
existing, new, or replaced, which is necessary for determining
which minimum requirements apply to a project.
This chapter helps you classify a project per ECDC Chapter
18.30.050. It also helps you classify impervious surfaces as
existing, new, or replaced, which is necessary for determining
which minimum requirements apply to a project.
2.1 Project Classifications 2.1 Project Classifications
New development, redevelopment, and construction projects are classified as Large Site Projects (see
Chapter 4), Small Site Projects (see Chapter 5), or Minor Site Projects (see Chapter 6). Small Site
Projects are further divided into Category 1 and Category 2. See Figure 2-1 (located at the end of this
chapter) and the text below to determine the classification (and the category, if a Small Site Project) of
your project. The classification is largely based on the extent to which a project has the following:
New development, redevelopment, and construction projects are classified as Large Site Projects (see
Chapter 4), Small Site Projects (see Chapter 5), or Minor Site Projects (see Chapter 6). Small Site
Projects are further divided into Category 1 and Category 2. See Figure 2-1 (located at the end of this
chapter) and the text below to determine the classification (and the category, if a Small Site Project) of
your project. The classification is largely based on the extent to which a project has the following:
• Land-disturbing activity (including clearing, grading, and excavating) • Land-disturbing activity (including clearing, grading, and excavating)
• New impervious surface and replaced impervious surface area – Figure 2-2 and
Section 2.2 provide direction on determining whether any or all of the impervious
surface area on a site is considered new impervious area. Section 2.3 provides direction
on determining the extent of replaced impervious surface area (if any).
• New impervious surface and replaced impervious surface area – Figure 2-2 and
Section 2.2 provide direction on determining whether any or all of the impervious
surface area on a site is considered new impervious area. Section 2.3 provides direction
on determining the extent of replaced impervious surface area (if any).
• Conversion of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped area. • Conversion of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped area.
2.2 Determining New Impervious Surface Area 2.2 Determining New Impervious Surface Area
Determining a project’s classification and applicable minimum requirements is based in part on the area
of new impervious surface generated. “New impervious surfaces” are those impervious surfaces
(currently pervious) that are proposed for the project, but also include existing impervious surface on the
site if the following condition applies: the existing impervious surface was created after July 6, 1977 (the
effective date of the City’s first drainage control ordinance) without stormwater controls (with noted
exceptions).
Determining a project’s classification and applicable minimum requirements is based in part on the area
of new impervious surface generated. “New impervious surfaces” are those impervious surfaces
(currently pervious) that are proposed for the project, but also include existing impervious surface on the
site if the following condition applies: the existing impervious surface was created after July 6, 1977 (the
effective date of the City’s first drainage control ordinance) without stormwater controls (with noted
exceptions).
Figure 2-2 presents a process for determining what portions of a project site are considered to be new
impervious surface for the purposes of stormwater management.
Figure 2-2 presents a process for determining what portions of a project site are considered to be new
impervious surface for the purposes of stormwater management.
2.3 Determining Replaced Impervious Surface Area 2.3 Determining Replaced Impervious Surface Area
Determining a project’s classification and applicable minimum requirements is based in part on the area
of replaced impervious surface. “Replaced impervious surfaces” are exterior impervious surfaces
proposed for the project where existing surfaces are also impervious. More specifically, “replaced
impervious surface” means:
Determining a project’s classification and applicable minimum requirements is based in part on the area
of replaced impervious surface. “Replaced impervious surfaces” are exterior impervious surfaces
proposed for the project where existing surfaces are also impervious. More specifically, “replaced
impervious surface” means:
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 3 08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 3
Packet Page 329 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 4
“For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces or foundation.
For other impervious surfaces, the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. For
sites with existing single family dwelling units, (as defined in Chapter 21.90.080 ECDC) a project
that solely replaces impervious surfaces in-kind (footprint and imperviousness of material does
not change, but not a structural foundation), shall not be considered replaced impervious surface
for the purposes of this chapter, unless the project site has 1 acre or greater of land-disturbing
activities.”
Therefore, in-kind replacement of exterior impervious surfaces alone for Small Site Projects and Minor
Site Projects (that are not part of a larger scale site redevelopment) are not considered to be replaced
impervious surfaces. In these cases, the impervious surfaces are classified as existing impervious surfaces.
These existing surfaces, however, may meet the definition of “new impervious surface” if they were
constructed after July 6, 1977, as described in Section 2.2.
2.3 Determining Project Basin Type
Projects are also classified by the drainage basin type: “Creek or Lake Basin” or “Direct Discharge
Basin” sites. These categories are defined below.
1. Creek or Lake Basin sites: Those that eventually discharge into a surface water body
such as a creek, wetland or pond, prior to discharging into Puget Sound; or that discharge
into a storm drain or surface water body such as a creek prior to discharging into Lake
Ballinger.
2. Direct Discharge Basin sites: Those that discharge runoff directly to Puget Sound via a
pipe system, ditch, or other direct means without first entering a creek or other water
body. Sites located in Direct Discharge Basins may have a different standard for flow
control or may be exempt from flow control (See Sections 4.7 and 5.7).
A map of watersheds in Edmonds is presented as Figure B-1 in Appendix B to this Supplement. Direct
Discharge Basins are those labeled “Puget Sound,” Puget Sound Piped,” and “Edmonds Way.” All other
basins are considered as Creek or Lake Basins. Approximately 83 percent of the land area of the City is
within a Creek or Lake Basin. An applicant with site-specific information that is contrary to the basin
designations shown in Figure B-1 can present this information to the Public Works Director or designee
for a possible change in basin designation. The Public Works Director or designee will make a
determination on any requests for a site-specific change in basin designation.
Packet Page 330 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Figure 2-1: Project Classification Figure 2-1: Project Classification
Is the project part of a larger
common plan of development
or sale where the total
disturbed area for the entire
plan will total 1-acre or more
of land-disturbing activity?
Large Site Project:
Read Chapter 3 and see
Chapter 4 for
requirements Yes
Does the project create or add 5,000 square feet of
new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface
or new plus replaced impervious surface?
OR
Convert ¾ acre or more of native vegetation to lawn
or landscaped area
OR
Through a combination of creating effective
impervious surface and converted pervious
surfaces, causes an increase of 0.1 cubic feet per
second in the 100-year flow frequency from a
threshold discharge area as estimated using an
approved model?
Does the Project involve one or more of the
following:
2,000 square feet or more of new impervious
surface, replaced impervious surface or new
plus replaced impervious surface?
OR
7,000 square feet of land-disturbing activity?
OR
50 cubic yards or more of either grading, fill,
or excavation as defined in Chapter 18.40.000
ECDC? No Yes
Start1
No
No
Yes
No
Category 2 Small Site Project:
Read Chapter 3 and see Chapter
5 for requirements
Category 1 Small Site Project:
Read Chapter 3 and see Chapter 5
for requirementsMinor Site Project:
Read Chapter 3 and see
Chapter 6 for requirements
Yes Does the project involve 1-
acre or more of land-
disturbing activity?
1 Assumes the project in question meets applicability requirements of ECDC18.30.030. 1 Assumes the project in question meets applicability requirements of ECDC18.30.030.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 5 08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 5
Packet Page 331 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Figure 2-2: Determining What Qualifies as “New Impervious Surface” for a Project Figure 2-2: Determining What Qualifies as “New Impervious Surface” for a Project
Existing impervious surface
created since July 6, 1977
plus proposed impervious
surface is considered New
Impervious Surface.
No
Does the site have existing
impervious surfaces that
were created after July 6,
19771?
Was a waiver granted
for a stormwater
facility for this
existing impervious
area?
START
No
Yes
No No
Yes
Only the
impervious
surface
proposed with
the project is
considered
New
Impervious
Surface3.
Is the site within a Creek or
Lake drainage basin4? Yes
Is this existing
impervious surface
currently connected
to a City-approved
stormwater facility?2
No
Yes
Is the site zoned as single
family residential (Zone RS)? Yes
1 This is the effective date of the City’s first drainage control ordinance. The intent of this cumulative impacts mitigation
requirement is to adequately mitigate for impervious surfaces on project sites that are submitted under separate permits. The
separate submittals could have project areas that do not meet thresholds, but would meet thresholds if the projects are
combined as one project.
1 This is the effective date of the City’s first drainage control ordinance. The intent of this cumulative impacts mitigation
requirement is to adequately mitigate for impervious surfaces on project sites that are submitted under separate permits. The
separate submittals could have project areas that do not meet thresholds, but would meet thresholds if the projects are
combined as one project.
For parcels that were annexed to the City after this date, the date of annexation shall substitute for the effective date of the
City’s first drainage control ordinance. For annexed parcels, a functioning Snohomish County-approved stormwater
management facility can substitute for a City-approved facility.
For parcels that were annexed to the City after this date, the date of annexation shall substitute for the effective date of the
City’s first drainage control ordinance. For annexed parcels, a functioning Snohomish County-approved stormwater
management facility can substitute for a City-approved facility.
2 For the purpose of this flowchart, it is assumed that all existing impervious surface will remain after the proposed project is
complete. If any existing impervious surface will be demolished for this project, the project may contain a combination of new
and replaced impervious surface. Consult the City’s Engineering Division for direction.
2 For the purpose of this flowchart, it is assumed that all existing impervious surface will remain after the proposed project is
complete. If any existing impervious surface will be demolished for this project, the project may contain a combination of new
and replaced impervious surface. Consult the City’s Engineering Division for direction.
3 If there is an existing stormwater management system on site, contact the City’s Engineering Division to discuss whether the
existing system has the capacity for the new impervious surface area.
3 If there is an existing stormwater management system on site, contact the City’s Engineering Division to discuss whether the
existing system has the capacity for the new impervious surface area.
4 See Figure B-1 and Section 2.3. 4 See Figure B-1 and Section 2.3.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 6 08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 2.0 CLASSIFYING PROJECTS 6
Packet Page 332 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
3.0 Low Impact Development
Low impact development (LID) is a relatively new approach to stormwater management. Formulation of
LID principles began in Prince George's County, Maryland in the late-1980s to address the growing
economic and environmental limitations of conventional stormwater management practices. For the
purposes of this document, LID is defined as:
“Stormwater management and land development strategies applied at the parcel and subdivision
scale that emphasizes the conservation and use of onsite natural features integrated with
engineered, small scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic the predevelopment
hydrologic functions” (PSAT and WSU, 2005).
The goal of LID is to mimic a site's predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate,
filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source in small, decentralized facilities. Instead of
managing and treating stormwater in large, costly, end-of-pipe facilities at the bottom of drainage areas,
LID seeks to manage stormwater using small, cost-effective landscape features at the lot level. Well-
designed and appropriately sited LID measures can also improve the habitat and aesthetics of a developed
site.
3.1 LID and this Stormwater Supplement
This Supplement allows the use of LID techniques or BMPs on Large Site Projects, when feasible and as
required by the Phase II Permit. The Permit requires that the City identify and summarize barriers to the
use of LID techniques. To accomplish this, the Supplement requires that Large Site Projects consider the
use of LID techniques and document the decision-making processes used to select their application. More
information on this requirement can be found in Sections 4.5 and 4.7. While small sites are not required to
consider or use LID techniques, the use of LID is allowed by the City, where feasible.
LID BMPs are found throughout this Supplement. These BMPs emphasize minimizing the volume and
rate of stormwater runoff from a site both during and after construction. Use caution when using some
LID BMPs: site conditions, such as the presence of “hardpan” or till soils, steep slopes, and proximity of
adjacent proprieties may preclude the use of LID BMPs due the possibility of causing flooding or erosion
impacts to nearby properties.
Minimizing the stormwater runoff that leaves the site during the construction phase of a project is
discussed in Minimum Requirement #2 (Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) for Large,
Small, and Minor Site Projects (Sections 4.2, 5.2, or 6.1). Minimizing stormwater runoff that leaves a site
after construction with a permanent stormwater control plan is accomplished in two main ways, in the
following order:
1. Minimize the amount of rainwater that becomes stormwater runoff through site
design practices that use LID planning methods, including those that minimize
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 3.0 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT 7
Packet Page 333 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 3.0 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT 8
impervious surface area using Minimum Requirement #1, Stormwater Site Plan (Sections
4.1 or 5.1).
2. Minimize or eliminate runoff going off site with LID techniques, if site conditions
allow by implenting Minimum Requirement #5, Onsite Stormwater Management
(Sections 4.5 or 5.5).
LID methods that are allowed and encouraged in Edmonds include:
• Retaining or restoring native forest cover, other trees, and site vegetation to capture,
infiltrate, and evaporate all or part of the precipitation falling on the site.
• Developing a site with the smallest impervious footprint possible and minimize land-
disturbing activities such as clearing and grading.
• Preserving or restoring the health and water-holding capacity of the soils by compost-
amending.
Other LID methods that are allowed but that should only be implemented if site conditions allow are:
• Designing with runoff reduction methods such as vegetated roofs, rainwater harvesting
and permeable pavement.
• Managing stormwater runoff using infiltration, bioretention, and dispersion to the extent
practicable.
Once these LID practices have been explored for applicability, stormwater runoff that cannot be managed
onsite and flows offsite must meet applicable flow control and water quality requirements: Minimum
Requirement #6, Runoff treatment and Minimum Requirement #7, Flow Control (Sections 4.6 and 4.7 or
5.6 and 5.7).
Packet Page 334 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
4.0 Large Site Requirements
This chapter explains how to comply with the Large Site Project minimum requirements (ECDC
Chapter 18.30.060A-D1). For all large sites, the Thresholds, Definitions, Minimum Requirements and
Exceptions, Adjustment and Variance Criteria found in Appendix I of the NPDES Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit are applicable per Chapter 18.30 ECDC, as well as the mandatory incorporated
provisions of the Stormwater Manual.
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 (located at the end of this chapter) will help you determine whether a Large Site
Project is considered new development or redevelopment, which minimum requirements apply, and to
which site surfaces (new impervious, replaced impervious, land disturbed, and/or converted pervious) the
requirements apply. The minimum requirements for Large Site Projects are described below. Appendix B
contains supplemental technical information on watershed boundaries and the location of steep slopes and
soil types to assist with a stormwater site plan.
4.1. Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan
Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared for all Large Site Projects in accordance with Volume 1,
Chapter 3 of the Stormwater Manual. The Stormwater Site Plan will document compliance with all
applicable minimum requirements and the design of all best management practices (BMPs). For all
Large Site Projects that involve 5,000 square feet or more of new or replaced impervious surface,
stormwater best management practices must be designed by a civil engineer. See handouts prepared by
the City’s Engineering Division for specific submittal requirements.
The Stormwater Site Plan shall include the submittal requirements in the handout, reflect consideration of
site planning and design measures intended to reduce project impact on stormwater quality and quantity,
and must consider the use of LID approaches.
The use of LID should also include approaches that minimize the effective impervious surface area (area
directly connected to the City’s drainage system or surface waters) therefore reducing the amount of
impervious surface area that requires mitigation using stormwater management BMPs. By reducing the
amount of stormwater runoff generated, LID site planning and design techniques can also be used to
satisfy the flow control requirements of Minimum Requirement #7. See Section 4.7.2 for criteria.
Simplified design tools are available to encourage the use of LID and allow easy evaluation of LID flow
control benefits (see Section 4.7.3.2).
Table 4-1 summarizes some potential LID site planning measures.
Large Site Minimum Requirement #5 (Section 4.5) discusses LID techniques for managing stormwater
runoff on site to reduce or eliminate the amount of runoff that flows offsite to receiving waters.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 9
Packet Page 335 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Table 4-1: Site Planning and Design Techniques to Reduce the Amount of Stormwater Runoff Generated
BMP # Stormwater Management Technique Reference(s)/Design Guidance
T5.21 Better Site Design (e.g., ,Reduce Effective
Impervious Areas Associated with Roads, Shared
Accesses, Alleys, Sidewalks, Driveways, and
Parking Areas)
Volume V Stormwater Manual; Chapter 3
LID Manual
T5.20 Native Vegetation Protection, Reforestation, and
Maintenance
Volume V Stormwater Manual; Chapter 4
LID Manual
-- Minimize disturbance area Volume V Stormwater Manual; Section 5
LID Manual
-- Vegetated Roofs City Building Division
-- Rainwater Harvesting LID Manual/City Building Divison
-- Permeable Pavement (asphalt, concrete, paving
blocks, “grass-crete”)
Section 6.3 LID Manual or Volume 3 Seattle
Manual 2009 (base course requirements)
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005)
LID Manual = Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
Volume 3 Seattle Manual = Stormwater Flow Control & Water Quality Treatment Technical Requirements Manual.
4.2 Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
All new development and redevelopment projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of
sediment and other pollutants into receiving waters during construction. See Section 4.2, Appendix 1 of
the Phase II Permit and Volume II of the Stormwater Manual for a complete description of minimum
requirement and direction on BMP selection and design. Compliance with this minimum requirement
may be achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology’s General NPDES Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, if the provisions of such permit are fully
implemented, and such a permit is approved by the Public Works Director or designee. The City does not
approve erosivity waivers, as described in Section 4.2, Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit.
4.3 Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution
All known, available, and reasonable source control BMPs shall be applied to control pollution. Source
control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained according to the Stormwater Manual. See
Volume IV of the Stormwater Manual for guidance on the applicable source control BMP selection and
implementation.
Specific source controls are not required for single family residential sites. General requirements for these
sites include preventing the discharge of pollutants to the City’s storm drainage system per Edmonds City
Code Chapter 7.200 (Illicit Discharges). This includes common household items such as pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers, detergents and fluids from vehicle maintenance.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 10
Packet Page 336 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
4.4 Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage
Systems and Outfalls
Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained. Run-on (from a potential upstream site) and runoff
discharges from the project site shall occur at the location of the natural drainage system and outfall, to
the maximum extent practicable. In most cases, the “natural location” is the existing discharge location on
the site. For some redevelopment projects, the natural location for runoff discharge may have been
previously altered. Contact City Engineering staff with questions about the natural discharge location.
The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause an adverse impact to
downstream receiving waters and downgradient properties. All outfalls to creeks, ditches, or other open
channels require energy dissipation to prevent erosion. Minimum Requirement #10 describes offsite
analysis that is required to identify potential downstream concerns so that adverse impacts are avoided
through appropriate onsite design.
See Section 2.5.4 of Volume I of the Stormwater Manual for guidance on complying with this minimum
requirement. The supplemental requirement in 2.5.4 of Volume I of the Stormwater Manual apply to
Large Site Projects.
4.5 Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management
Onsite stormwater management BMPs described in this section are considered LID techniques. These
LID BMPs must be used to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on site to the maximum
extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts, in accordance with Section 4.5, Appendix 1
of the Phase II Permit. These onsite/LID BMPs can be used for flow control and/or runoff treatment to
reduce the size of, or eliminate the need for, additional facilities designed for Minimum Requirements #6
and #7, if applicable. All Large Site Projects are required to consider the use of LID practices and
document the decision–making processes used to select or screen out their application.
As described in Minimum Requirement #1, the use of LID should begin in the site planning stage to
minimize the amount of stormwater released from the site. Once site planning and design is complete and
the generation of offsite runoff is minimized, stormwater runoff from the planned impervious surface and
converted pervious surface areas must be mitigated.
All sites are required to implement:
• Roof downspout control BMPs, (either infiltration or dispersion) functionally equivalent
to those described in Chapter 3 of Volume III of the Stormwater Manual to reduce the
hydrologic disruption of the developed site to the maximum extent feasible without
causing flooding or erosion impacts.
• The soil quality and depth BMP T5.13 for compost-amending, in Chapter 5 of Volume V
of the Stormwater Manual for all disturbed pervious surface areas.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 11
Packet Page 337 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
For some Large Site Projects, reducing the amount of stormwater runoff generated using LID planning
techniques (Section 4.1) and using LID BMPs can satisfy the flow control requirements of Minimum
Requirement #7 as well as Minimum Requirement #5. See Section 4.7.2 for criteria. Simplified design
tools are available to encourage the use of LID and allow easy evaluation of LID flow control benefits
(see Section 4.7.3.2).
4.5.1 BMP Selection
Common onsite/LID practices include but are not limited to:
• Bioretention cells (also known as rain gardens).
• Small-scale “traditional” infiltration facilities (such as dry wells, gravelless chambers,
and trenches).
• Permeable pavement (asphalt, concrete, paving blocks, “grass-crete”).
• Dispersion BMPs such as wheel strip driveways or other pavement sloped to drain to
onsite vegetation adequate for dispersion, or downspout or sheet flow dispersion.
Onsite/LID BMP design requirements shall be those in the LID Manual or the Washington State
Department of Transportation’s Highway Runoff Manual (HRM). BMP design requirements presented in
other stormwater management manuals or standard documents approved by Ecology such as the City of
Seattle and King County stormwater manuals are also acceptable when modified for local conditions such
as precipitation and soil conditions. Table 4-2 presents a summary of onsite/LID measures that could be
used to manage stormwater on site, along with references for design guidance information. Additional
LID BMPs can be proposed as long as they are found in an Ecology-approved stormwater manual, are
appropriate for site conditions, and do not cause on- or offsite flooding or erosion impacts.
LID techniques that rely on infiltration should be designed with caution, due to the prevalence of till or
“hardpan” soil and steep slopes in Edmonds. Section 4.5.2 discusses this matter further.
See Section 5.5.3 for a discussion of installing rain gardens on single-family residential sites without the
services of a geotechnical professional to assess soil infiltration rates.
4.5.2 Onsite/LID Techniques and Infiltration
Onsite/LID features that rely on infiltration (such as bioretention) are not appropriate for every site.
Limitations and considerations include:
• Infiltration is prohibited in the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA)
(ECDC Chapter 19.10), upgradient of the ESLHA, and other areas with geological
instability (landslide hazard areas). See Figure B-3 in Appendix B.
• Infiltration is prohibited in “steep slope areas” with average ground surface slopes equal
to or greater than 15 percent. See Figure B-3 in Appendix B.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 12
Packet Page 338 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Infiltration is prohibited within setbacks from the top of a designated landslide hazard or
steep slope areas.
• Infiltration should be applied in areas that have higher infiltration rates (especially in
areas with soils classified as Everett gravelly sandy loam).
When not restricted as noted above, infiltration should be used as much as possible in the Greater Lake
Ballinger Watershed and in all other creek basins.
Table 4-2: Commonly Used Onsite/LID Stormwater Management Techniques
BMP # Onsite Stormwater Management Technique Reference(s)/Design Guidance
Infiltration BMPs
-- Bioretention Facilities (Rain gardens)Section 6.1 LID Manual and City Pre-Sizing Tables
-- Infiltration Trench (downspout or other)City Pre-Sizing Tables
-- Drywell City Pre-Sizing Tables
-- Gravelless Chamber City Pre-Sizing Tables
T5.13 Preserve and Restore Soil Quality and Depth Volume V Stormwater Manual; “Soils for Salmon”
website, Section 6.1 LID Manual
Dispersion BMPs
C.2.9.3 Wheel Strip Driveway King County Manual. Appendix C.
T5.10,
T5.11 &
T5.12
Downspout or Sheet Flow Dispersion Systems Volume V Stormwater Manual, City Pre-Sizing
Tables
T5.30 Full Dispersion Volume V Stormwater Manual
LID Manual = Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
City Pre-Sizing Tables are available from the City’s Engineering Division
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
King County Manual = 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
Soils reports are required where infiltration is proposed; soil reports for individual lots must include at
least two soil logs for each proposed infiltration location. Each log shall correspond to soil conditions
extending a minimum of 4 feet depth below ground surface (6 feet for drywells). The report shall describe
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, now called the Natural Resource Conservation Service or NRCS)
series of the soil and the textural class of each horizon through the depth of the log, and shall note any
evidence of a high groundwater table, such as mottling. Reports solely using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) will not be accepted. Soils reports must be prepared by or under the
direction of a licensed onsite sewage system designer, civil engineer, engineering geologist, or
geotechnical engineer.
A soils report produced for siting and design of an onsite sewage system may also be used to satisfy this
soils report requirement, provided that (a) the depth of the soil log(s) is at least 4 feet, (b) the depth to
seasonal high water table is determined, and (c) the location of the soil logs is adequate to determine the
feasibility of the infiltration system.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 13
Packet Page 339 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Field infiltration rates can be evaluated using one of two approved methods: USDA Textural
Classification, or the Modified Pilot Infiltration Testing (PIT) Method. These methods are described in
Appendix C to this Supplement.
A correction factor shall be applied to the measured infiltration rate to convert to the design infiltration
rate. This correction factor shall be different based on the time of year of the test. If the test is conducted
from May 1 through October 31, the correction factor shall be two times the correction factor listed in
Table C-1 (USDA method) or Table C-2 (modified PIT method) in Appendix C of this Supplement. For
infiltration rates tested from November 1 – April 30, the correction factor shall be equal to the correction
factor listed in Table C-1 (USDA method) or Table C-2 (modified PIT method) in Appendix C of this
Supplement.
In certain situations, BMPs that rely on infiltration are classified as Underground Injection Controls
(UICs) and may be regulated by Ecology under the UIC Program (Washington Administrative Code
[WAC] 173 218). For more information on Underground Injection Control (UIC) see the 2006 Ecology
document titled Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater. This document is available online at
<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510067.html>.
4.6 Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment
Runoff treatment BMPs must handle the water quality design storm volume or flow rate using the
appropriate treatment type (basic, enhanced, oil control, or phosphorus treatment) for all new and
replaced project pollution-generating surfaces. BMPs to meet this minimum requirement must be
designed by a civil engineer.
4.6.1 Project Thresholds
Stormwater treatment facilities are required for the following:
• Projects in which the total of new and replaced effective, pollution-generating
impervious surface (PGIS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area
of the project.
• Projects in which the total of pollution-generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) is three-
quarters (3/4) of an acre or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a
surface discharge from the site into a natural or man-made conveyance system.
That portion of any development project in which the PGIS or PGPS thresholds listed above is not
exceeded in a threshold discharge area shall apply onsite stormwater management BMPs in accordance
with Minimum Requirement #5 to the maximum extent practicable.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 14
Packet Page 340 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
4.6.2 Runoff Treatment Standards
Runoff treatment standards shall be implemented per Section 4.6, Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit. In
addition, the following Edmonds-specific requirements apply.
4.6.2.1 Oil Control
All projects in areas not zoned as single family residential that collect runoff from 5 or more parking
spaces shall install oil containment catch basins if another approved oil control system is not employed.
The outlet pipe of these catch basins shall have a downturned 90 degree elbow to restrict the outflow of
oil and other floatables. There should be at least 9 inches of clearance between the elbow and the inside
wall of the catch basin to facilitate removal of floatables. A maintenance schedule for the removal of oil
and other floatables from these catch basins must be submitted with all plans for review.
4.6.2.2 Phosphorus Treatment
Per Section 4.6.2, Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit, phosphorus treatment is required for projects that
discharge to a nutrient-critical receiving water. Currently this requirement applies to projects in the
Greater Lake Ballinger Watershed (see Appendix B) that has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for
phosphorus. Bioretention systems with overflows (i.e., systems not providing 100 percent infiltration)
should not be used in this basin due to potential phosphorus export in the treated runoff discharged
ultimately to the lake.
4.6.3 Runoff Treatment BMP Selection
A sampling of runoff treatment BMPs is summarized in Table 4-3, with the treatment levels and design
criteria references. Additional BMPs may be approved by the City’s Engineering Division on a case-by-
case basis. BMPs shall be selected from the list according to the treatment type required, and according to
the following general prioritization guidelines:
• Bioretention systems should be implemented where feasible in creek basins. If infiltration
of runoff is not feasible at the site, consider use of bioretention systems with
underdrains.
• Onsite Stormwater Management Measures (see Section 4.5 above) are preferred, if
feasible, over larger runoff treatment facilities. Be sure that these onsite techniques are
being applied to the maximum extent practicable before selecting runoff treatment
BMPs.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 15
Packet Page 341 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Table 4-3: Runoff Treatment Best Management Practices
BMP #
Runoff Treatment
BMP
Treatment Type
Reference(s)/Design
Guidance
Basic
Treatment
Enhanced
Treatment
Phosphorus
Treatment
Oil
Control
-- Bioretention Facilities
(Rain Gardens)
X X Section 3.1 LID
Manual
T7.10 Infiltration Basins * * * Volume III Stormwater
Manual
T7.20 Infiltration Trenches * * * Volume III Stormwater
Manual
T7.30 Bioinfiltration swale * * * Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T9.10 Basic Biofiltration
Swale
X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T9.20 Wet Biofiltration Swale X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T9.30 Continuous Inflow
Biofiltration Swale
X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T9.40 Basic Filter Strip X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T9.50 Narrow area filter strip X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
RT.02 Compost-Amended
Vegetated Filter Strip
X X X HRM
T10.10 Wetponds (basic) X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T10.10 Wetponds (large) X X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T10.20 Wet vaults X * Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T10.30 Stormwater treatment
wetland
X X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T10.40 Combined
detention/wetpool
facilities
X * * Volume V Stormwater
Manual
-- Sand Filter Basin X * * Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T8.10 Sand Filter Vault X * * Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T8.20 Linear Sand Filter X * * X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
RT.07 Media Filter Drain X X X HRM
T11.10 API (Baffle type)
Separator Bay
X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
T11.11 Coalescing Plate (CP)
Separator Bay
X Volume V Stormwater
Manual
RT.22 Oil Control Booms X HRM
X = BMP meets this treatment type
* = BMP can be designed to meet this treatment type
LID Manual = Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
HRM = WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 16
Packet Page 342 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
4.7 Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control
Flow control BMPs shall be implemented for all effective impervious surface area that is new and
replaced and converted pervious surfaces per Section 4.7, Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit to reduce
the impacts of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and land cover conversions. BMPs to meet
this minimum requirement must be designed by a civil engineer. Large Site Projects that fall below the
Phase II Permit thresholds for flow control but have 2,000 square feet or more effective impervious
surface must comply with the Edmonds-specific flow controls standard described in Section 4.7.2.
The use of LID techniques under Minimum Requirements #1 and #5 can satisfy this minimum
requirement for some Large Site projects. Simplified design tools are available to encourage the use of
LID and allow easy evaluation of LID flow control benefits (see Section 4.7.3.2).
4.7.1 Project Thresholds and Applicability
The applicability of this minimum requirement is dependent upon the drainage basin of the project site.
See Chapter 2 for drainage basin classifications. If flow control is not required, onsite stormwater
management techniques must still be applied to the maximum extent practicable (see Section 4.5).
Creek or Lake Basin Projects
Large Site Projects in Creek or Lake Basins must meet Phase II Permit flow control standards if any of
the following Phase II permit thresholds are met or exceeded:
• Projects in which the total new and replaced effective impervious surface in a threshold
discharge area is greater than 10,000 square feet.
• The native vegetation area converted to lawn or landscaping is 3/4 acres or more, or the native
vegetation area converted to pasture is 2.5 acres or more in a threshold discharge area and from
which there is surface discharge in natural or man-made conveyance systems from the site.
• Where through a combination of effective impervious surface and converted pervious surfaces
the project causes a 0.1 cubic feet per second or greater increase in the 100-year recurrence peak
flow from a threshold discharge area as estimated by an Ecology-approved continuous simulation
model.
Direct Discharge Basin Projects
Large Site Projects in Direct Discharge Basins can be exempt from Small Site Minimum Requirement #7
under one of the following circumstances:
• A quantitative Offsite Analysis as described in Large Site Minimum Requirement #10 is
performed by the applicant and no unacceptable downstream issues (such as a capacity
or erosion issue), are found.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 17
Packet Page 343 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• A quantitative Offsite Analysis as described in Large Site Minimum Requirement #10 is
performed by the applicant, and one or more unacceptable downstream issues are
discovered. A plan is proposed by the applicant to mitigate for the unacceptable
downstream issue and the mitigation plan is approved by the Public Works Director or
designee.
Any Large Site Project in a Direct Discharge Basin can be exempt from Large Site Minimum
Requirement # 10 by meeting the applicable flow controls standard for sites in Creek or Lake Basins (see
Section 4.7.2).
4.7.2 Flow Control Standards
Flow control standards for Large Site Projects vary by basin type and the amount of effective impervious
surface. These standards for projects that must meet Phase II permit requirements are summarized in
Table 4-4, and for all other projects in Table 4-5 (Lake or Creek Basin) or Table 4-6 (Direct Discharge
Basin).
Table 4-4: City of Edmonds flow control requirements for Large Site Projects Triggering Phase II Permit
Requirements
≥ 10,000 sf Effective Impervious Area a
Numerical Standard: Match 1/2 the 2-year to 50-year flow durations to predeveloped forest condition
Applies to: New and replaced impervious surface and disturbed pervious areas
Computational
Methods:
Continuous hydrologic modeling with MGS precipitation data b, c
Options to Meet Numerical Standard
LID Credit Option
(If feasible):
Credit given for meeting the flow control standard using LID techniques described in the
Stormwater Manual
Traditional Option: If it is not feasible to achieve the standard using LID only, larger-scale infiltration or
detention may be used as described in the Stormwater Manual
sf: square feet
LID: low impact development
a Or at least 3/4 acres conversion to lawn/landscape, at least 2.5 acres conversion to pasture, or a greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second increase
in the 100-year flood frequency.
b MGS precipitation is the Puget East 36 precipitation time series developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation by MGS
Engineering Consultants, Inc. and available in WWHM and MGS Flood hydrologic modeling software.
c For infiltration facilities, flood frequency calculations (i.e., determination of recurrence interval peak flows) must be performed using an
approach capable of properly evaluating zero flow years as explained in Section 4.7.3.1 below.
Phase II Permit Flow Control Standard
Large Site Projects in Creek or Lake Basins that meet one or more of the Phase II permit thresholds listed
above must meet the following flow control standard for all new and replaced impervious surface and
converted pervious surface: match 1/2 the 2-year to 50-year recurrence flow durations to the predeveloped
condition as determined using a continuous hydrologic model.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 18
Packet Page 344 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Edmonds-Specific Flow Control Standards
Large Site Projects in Creek or Lake Basins or in Direct Discharge Basins that do not meet one or more of
the Phase II permit thresholds must meet the City-specific flow control standards. Large Site Projects in
Direct Discharge Basins can be exempt from these flow control standards if a quantitative off-site
analysis indicates that the uncontrolled flows from the site will not cause a flooding, erosion, or other
problem downstream (see Section 4.10).
Recurrence interval flows for the developed condition shall be determined using a continuous hydrologic
model. For sites with 2,000 square feet or greater (and less than or equal to 5,000 square feet) of new plus
replaced impervious surface area the post-development 10-year recurrence interval flow shall not exceed
0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre of impervious surface area for all flow control BMPs.
For sites with greater than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface area, limits for the
post-development peak flows depend upon the BMP type selected:
• For detention BMPs:
Creek or Lake Basins: the post-development 2-, 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak flows shall not exceed 0.07, 0.14, and 0.33 cfs per
acre of impervious surface area, respectively.
Direct Discharge Basins: the post-development 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak flows shall not exceed, 0.25 and 0.45 cfs per acre
of impervious surface area, respectively.
• For infiltration BMPs:
Creek or Lake Basins: the post-development 2-, 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak overflows shall not exceed 0.07, 0.25, and 0.45
cfs per acre impervious surface area, respectively.
Direct Discharge Basins: the post-development 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak overflows shall not exceed 0.25, and 0.45 cfs per
acre impervious surface area, respectively.
There are two methods to satisfy Minimum Requirement #7 for sites subject to the City-specific Standard:
the “LID Credit Option” and the “Traditional Option”. Large Site Projects shall use the LID Credit
Option to implement flow control, if feasible. The LID Credit Option allows an applicant to mitigate only
a portion of the new and replaced impervious surface area if only LID site planning techniques and LID
BMPs are used. The requirements for the LID Credit Option are presented below.
• For projects that generate greater than 2,000 square feet (but less than or equal to 5,000
square feet) of new plus replaced effective impervious surface area, the greater of 1)
2,000 square feet or 2) 85 percent of new plus replaced impervious surface area is
mitigated to meet the flow control standard using LID measures.
• For projects that generate greater than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced effective
impervious surface area, the greater of 1) 5,000 square feet or 2) 90 percent of new plus
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 19
Packet Page 345 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 20
replaced impervious surface area is mitigated to meet the flow control standard using
LID measures.
If it is not feasible to use the LID Credit Option to meet Minimum Requirement #7, the project shall meet
the flow control standard for all new and replaced impervious surface and converted pervious surface. In
this case, the “Traditional Option”, larger-scale infiltration BMPs or detention BMPs may be used to
provide flow control for the areas not mitigated using LID measures.
Packet Page 346 of 465
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
0
ED
M
O
N
D
S
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
D
E
S
U
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
Ta
b
l
e
4
-
5
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
F
l
o
w
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
L
a
r
g
e
S
i
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Cr
e
e
k
o
r
L
a
k
e
B
a
s
i
n
s
a
≥2,
0
0
0
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
b
≥5,
0
0
0
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
Nu
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
F
l
o
w
fr
o
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Si
t
e
:
10
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
2
5
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Fo
r
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
M
P
s
:
2
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
0
7
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
1
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
1
4
c
f
s
/
ac
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
a
n
d
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
3
3
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
.
Fo
r
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
M
P
s
:
2
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
0
7
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
1
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
2
5
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
a
n
d
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
4
5
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
:
Ne
w
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
Ne
w
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
Co
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Me
t
h
o
d
s
Si
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
S
i
z
i
n
g
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
MG
S
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
a
c,
d
Si
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
S
i
z
i
n
g
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
MG
S
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
a
c,
d
Op
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
M
e
e
t
N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
LI
D
C
r
e
d
i
t
Op
t
i
o
n
(
I
f
Fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
)
If
2
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
r
8
5
%
o
f
n
e
w
p
l
u
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
(w
h
i
c
h
e
v
e
r
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
u
s
i
n
g
On
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
#
5
)
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
me
t
.
If
5
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
r
9
0
%
o
f
n
e
w
p
l
u
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
(w
h
i
c
h
e
v
e
r
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
u
s
i
n
g
On
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
#
5
)
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
is
m
e
t
.
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Op
t
i
o
n
If
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
wi
t
h
O
n
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
t
e
.
L
a
r
g
e
r
-
s
c
a
l
e
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
or
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
–
s
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
.
7
.
4
.
If
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
wi
t
h
O
n
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
t
e
.
L
a
r
g
e
r
-
s
c
a
l
e
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
or
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
–
s
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
.
7
.
4
.
cf
s
:
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
sf
:
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
LI
D
:
l
o
w
i
m
p
a
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
Si
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
1
-
a
c
r
e
of
l
a
n
d
-
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
b
B
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
n
e
w
p
l
u
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
a
r
e
a
c
M
G
S
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
h
e
P
u
g
e
t
E
a
s
t
3
6
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
s
e
r
i
e
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
at
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
on
b
y
M
G
S
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
a
n
d
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
W
W
H
M
an
d
M
G
S
F
l
o
o
d
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
.
d
F
o
r
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
ec
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
s
)
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
e
r
f
or
m
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
z
e
r
o
f
l
o
w
y
e
a
r
s
a
s
ex
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
.
7
.
3
.
1
b
e
l
o
w
d
j
/
0
8
-
0
4
1
4
0
-
0
0
0
e
d
m
o
n
d
s
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
d
o
c
4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 21
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
7
of
46
5
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Table 4-6: City of Edmonds Flow Control Requirements for All Other Large Site Projects
Direct Discharge Basins
≥ 2,000 sf
Effective Impervious Surface a
Numerical
Standard:
For detention and infiltration BMPs:
10-year = 0.25 cfs/acre impervious, and
100-year= 0.45 cfs/acre impervious
An exemption from these flow control standards may be allowed by the Public Works Director or designee
if a quantitative offsite analysis per Large Site Minimum Requirement # 10 (see Section 4.10) indicates no
unacceptable downstream issue (such as a capacity or erosion issue). If an unacceptable downstream issue
is found, the applicant can either propose mitigation of the issue to the Public Works Director or designee
(whom will consider the proposal but not necessarily approve it) or design and implement flow control
measures to the Lake or Creek Basin Standard (see Section 4.7.1).
Applies to: New and replaced effective impervious surface
Computational
Methods
Simplified Sizing Approach or continuous hydrologic modeling with MGS precipitation data b, c
Options to Meet Numerical Standard
LID Credit
Option (If
feasible)
For sites with 2,000 sf or more (but less than 5,000 sf) of effective impervious surface: If 2,000
sf or 85% of new plus replaced impervious surface area (whichever is greater) is mitigated to the
numerical standard using Onsite/LID techniques (Minimum Requirement #5), the requirement is
met.
For sites with 5,000 sf or more of effective impervious surface: If 5,000 sf or 90% of new plus
replaced impervious surface area (whichever is greater) is mitigated to the numerical standard
using Onsite/LID techniques (Minimum Requirement #5), the requirement is met.
Traditional
Option
If Onsite/LID techniques are not feasible, larger-scale infiltration or detention may be used to
mitigate capacity impact to the extent necessary - See Section 4.7.4.
sf: square feet
a But less than 10,000 square feet of effective impervious area.
b MGS precipitation is the Puget East 36 precipitation time series developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation by
MGS Engineering Consultants, Inc. and available in WWHM and MGS Flood hydrologic modeling software.
c For infiltration facilities, flood frequency calculations (i.e., determination of recurrence interval peak flows) must be performed using an
approach capable of properly evaluating zero flow years as explained in Section 4.7.3.1 below.
4.7.3 Flow Control Facility Sizing
All flow control facilities for Large Site Projects must be designed by a civil engineer.
4.7.3.1 Modeling Requirements
Flow control facilities must be sized to meet the standards described above using an approved continuous
runoff simulation model. Guidance on application of continuous runoff models for flow control BMP
sizing is provided in Volume III of the Stormwater Manual. Supplemental guidance is provided in this
section.
Approved continuous runoff models include Western Washington Hydrologic Model (WWHM) and
MGS-Flood. Flow control sizing must be conducted using the “Puget East 36” precipitation time series
developed by MGS Engineering Consultants (MGS 2002). This time series is available in WWHM
(labeled “DOT data”), and is one of the default precipitation time series in MGS-Flood.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 22
Packet Page 348 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
In addition, for infiltration facilities, flow frequency calculations (i.e., determination of recurrence
interval peak flows) must be performed using an approach capable of properly evaluating zero flow years.
This is important because infiltration facilities sized to meet the recommended flow control standards will
infiltrate approximately 98 percent of the runoff volume, resulting in an annual peak flow time series that
contains several zero or very low peak flow values. Currently the MGS-Flood model properly calculates
flood frequency for these scenarios, while WWHM does not. Until WWHM integrates a more flexible
flow frequency routine, it is recommended that annual peak flow datasets with multiple low or zero
annual peak flow values be exported from WWHM and analyzed using a spreadsheet method to
determine flow frequency (i.e., 2-, 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval flows). The Gringorten plotting
position formula (Maidment 1993), which is non-parametric (i.e., does not depend on the mean, standard
deviation, or skew of the data), works well for these applications.
4.7.3.2 Simplified Sizing Approach
A pre-sized approach for sizing flow control BMPs has been developed for Large Site Projects in
Edmonds with between 2,000 and 10,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area. This
approach allows the designer to size selected BMPs to meet the numerical flow control standards without
the use of a continuous hydrologic model. Guidance for using the simplified sizing approach for flow
control BMPs is provided in City of Edmonds Handouts available from the Engineering Division.
4.7.4 Flow Control BMP Selection
This section discusses infiltration and flow control BMPs. If onsite/LID is not used, flow control can be
achieved using larger-scale infiltration or detention.
4.7.4.1 Larger-Scale Infiltration
If LID is not feasible, larger-scale, centralized infiltration facilities may be used (as opposed to the small
and distributed infiltration facilities associated with LID). Infiltration is the preferred method of
stormwater flow control relative to detention, but only in certain areas of Edmonds where infiltration of
large amounts of runoff in a concentrated area will not contribute to flooding or offsite slope stability
problems. The feasibility of infiltration as a means to meet stormwater flow control and treatment
requirements will depend upon specific project site locations due to the variations in soil and topography
across the City. See Chapter 4.5.2 for guidelines pertaining to the applicability and testing required for
implementing infiltration for flow control.
Examples of infiltration BMPs for flow control are summarized in Table 4-7.
4.7.4.2 Detention
If infiltration BMPs are not feasible to meet flow control requirements for a site, detention BMPs can be
used. The minimum orifice size for detention facility outlet control structures is one-half inch (1/2 inch).
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 23
Packet Page 349 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Table 4-9 summarizes some available BMPs for flow control, including several detention options. The
City’s Building Division should be contacted prior to designing roof detention systems.
Table 4-7: Flow Control Best Management Practices
BMP # Flow Control BMP Reference(s)/Design Guidance
Larger- Scale Infiltration BMPs
T7.10 Infiltration Basins Volume III Stormwater Manual
T7.20 Infiltration Trenches Volume III Stormwater Manual
T7.30 Infiltration Vaults Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Gravelless Chambers Kitsap County Stormwater Management Design Manual (Kitsap
County 1997)
Detention BMPs
-- Detention Ponds Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Detention Tanks Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Detention Vaults Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Use of Parking Lots for Detention Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Use of Roofs for Detention Volume III Stormwater Manual
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
4.8 Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection
Volume I, Section 2.5.8 of the Stormwater Manual has guidance on meeting Minimum Requirement #8.
Refer also to ECDC Chapter 23.40.
4.9 Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance
BMPs shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 7 of this Supplement.
4.10 Minimum Requirement #10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation
Large Site Projects that discharge stormwater off site shall submit as part of their Stormwater Site Plan
an offsite analysis that assesses the potential offsite impacts of stormwater discharge. Offsite analyses
assess upstream and downstream conditions, including the conveyance capacity and erosion potential in
the downstream system. If a problem is found, mitigation is required to prevent worsening of that
problem.
The existing or potential impacts to be evaluated and mitigated as part of any off- site/downstream
analysis shall include:
• Conveyance system capacity problems.
• Localized flooding.
• Wetlands impacts such as siltation or other damage.
• Upland erosion impacts, including landslide hazards.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 24
Packet Page 350 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Stream channel erosion in the channel or at the outfall location.
• Locations where surface water enters and exits the site.
All projects shall perform a qualitative analysis downstream from the site. A quantitative analysis may
also be required by the Director or his/her designee when there is a potential for downstream flooding or
erosion. Each of these types of analysis is described further below.
4.10.1 Qualitative Analysis
Project applicants shall submit a qualitative analysis of each upstream drainage system entering a site
(run-on) and each downstream drainage system leaving a site (runoff). The upstream analysis shall
identify and describe points where water enters the site and the tributary area. The qualitative analysis
shall extend downstream for the entire flow path, from the project site to the receiving water, or up to
one-quarter mile, whichever is less. A map defining the onsite and offsite areas that contribute stormwater
runoff to the site shall be provided by the applicant. The map shall be prepared with a defined scale.
Upon review of this analysis, the Public Works Director or Designee may require a qualitative analysis
extending further downstream, mitigation measures deemed adequate to address the problems, or a
quantitative analysis, depending upon the presence of existing or predicted flooding, erosion, or water
quality problems, and on the proposed design of the onsite drainage facilities.
4.10.2 Quantitative Analysis
If required, a civil engineer or professional land surveyor must field survey all existing storm drainage
systems downstream of the project site for a minimum distance of 1/4-mile from the point of connection
to the existing public drainage system. If the ultimate discharge point is to Puget Sound via a culvert
owned by BNSF Railway, the analysis must be followed through the drainage system all the way to Puget
Sound. The goal of the inspection and analysis is to evaluate whether the capacity of the drainage
system(s) is adequate to handle the existing flows, flows generated by the project, flooding problems,
erosion damage or potential, amount of freeboard in channels and pipes, and storage potential within the
system.
All existing and proposed offsite surface water conveyance systems shall be sized to convey flows
without surcharging the City’s storm system or the BNSF culvert under the railroad tracks (if applicable)
during the 50-year recurrence event. If the project is in the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA, see Appendix B), contact the City Engineering Division for
requirements.
If a capacity problem, streambank erosion problem, or other problem with the downstream system is
encountered in the analysis, the runoff flow from the project site will be restricted per Minimum
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 25
Packet Page 351 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Requirement #7 – Flow Control or other mitigation may be proposed by the applicant subject to review
by the Public Works Director or Designee.
4.11 Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability
A performance bond shall be posted as a financial guarantee for required stormwater systems and BMPs
related to Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for the following Large Site Projects:
• Single family residential projects located within Critical Areas, Critical Area buffers
including the ESLHA.
• Multi-family residential and commercial projects
• Subdivisions involving 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 26
Packet Page 352 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Figure 4-1: Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements for New Development on Large Site Projects
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 27
Packet Page 353 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Figure 4-2: Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements for Redevelopment on Large Site Projects
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 4.0 LARGE SITE REQUIREMENTS 28
Packet Page 354 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
5.0 Small Site Requirements
This section provides specific guidance on how to comply with the minimum requirements for Small Site
Projects. Appendix B contains supplemental technical information on watershed boundaries and the
location of steep slopes and soil types.
The requirements applicable to Small Site Projects differ for Category 1 and Category 2 project types.
For an explanation of how to classify a Small Site project, see Chapter 2.
Category 1 Small Site Projects are subject to the following Minimum Requirements for all new and
replaced impervious surfaces, converted pervious surfaces, and disturbed pervious surface areas:
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan (Section
5.1)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (Section 5.2)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollutants (Section 5.3, not
required for single family residential sites)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and
Outfalls (Section 5.4)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management (Section 5.5)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control (Section 5.7, may be waived
under certain circumstances)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection (Section 5.8, if wetlands
are on the site or the site drains to certain wetlands)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance (Section 5.9 if a
structural BMP is installed)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability (Section 5.11) for single
family residential sites, applies only to stormwater systems constructed in or adjacent to
Critical Areas or Critical Area buffers).
All nine of these Minimum Requirements may a not be applicable to any particular project. In most cases,
Category 1 single family residential projects are subject to Minimum Requirements #1, #2 , #4 , #9
(possibly), and either Minimum Requirement #5 or #7 or a combination of both #5 and #7.
Category 2 Small Site Projects are subject to the Small Site Minimum Requirements listed for Category
1 Small Site Projects, as well as evaluating the applicability of the following for all new and replaced
impervious surfaces, converted pervious surfaces, and disturbed pervious surface areas:
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment (Section 5.6)
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 29
Packet Page 355 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection (Section 5.8)
• Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation (Section
5.10).
All 11 of these Minimum Requirements may a not be applicable to any particular project. In most cases,
Category 2 single family residential projects are subject to Minimum Requirements #1, #2, #4, #9 and
either Minimum Requirement #5 or #7 or a combination of both #5 and #7
5.1 Small Site Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater
Site Plan
Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared for all Small Site Projects. The Stormwater Site Plan shall
document compliance with all applicable minimum requirements and the design of all BMPs. For all
Category 2 Small Site Projects that involve 5,000 square feet or more of new or replaced impervious
surface (Category 2), stormwater BMPs must be designed by a civil engineer.
This Stormwater Site Plan shall include the following:
• A complete dimension site plan, drawn to scale, showing area of proposed construction,
modifications or repair, topographical information and a tally of the new and replaced
impervious surface.
• Construction plan, details, and specifications when applicable of all stormwater control
features.
Additional information may be required depending on the site conditions and proposed development. See
handouts prepared by the City’s Engineering Division for guidance and details on the submittal
requirements.
The Stormwater Site Plan shall include the submittal requirements in the handout and reflect
consideration of site planning and design measures intended to reduce the impact of the project on
stormwater quality and quantity and should strongly consider the use of LID approaches as outlined in
Section 3.0.
Table 5-1 summarizes some LID site planning measures that can be implemented, with references to
guidance documents for further information.
Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 (Section 5.5) discusses LID techniques for managing stormwater
runoff on site to reduce or eliminate the amount that flows offsite to receiving waters.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 30
Packet Page 356 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Table 5-1: Site Planning and Design Techniques to Reduce the Amount of Stormwater Runoff Generated
BMP # Stormwater Management Technique Reference(s)/Design Guidance
T5-21 Better Site Design (e.g., ,Reduce Effective Impervious
Areas Associated with Roads, Shared Accesses, Alleys,
Sidewalks, Driveways, and Parking Areas)
Volume V Stormwater Manual; Chapter 3
LID Manual
T5.20 Native Vegetation Protection, Reforestation, and
Maintenance
Volume V Stormwater Manual; Chapter 4
LID Manual
-- Minimize disturbance area Volume V Stormwater Manual; Section 5
LID Manual
-- Vegetated Roofs City Building Division
-- Rainwater Harvesting LID Manual
-- Permeable Pavement (asphalt, concrete, paving blocks,
“grass-crete”)
Section 6.3 LID Manual or Volume 3
Seattle Manual (base course requirements)
LID Manual = Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
Volume 3 Seattle Manual = Stormwater Flow Control & Water Quality Treatment Technical Requirements Manual.
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
5.2 Small Site Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan contains two parts: an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan and a Stormwater Spill Prevention Plan. Most Small Site Projects are only required to have
an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Additional pollution prevention measures may be required based
on site specific conditions or construction methods proposed.
All new development and redevelopment projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of
sediment and other pollutants into receiving waters during construction. See handouts prepared by the
City’s Engineering Division for guidance on preparing a stormwater pollution prevention plan for small
sites. See Volume II of the Stormwater Manual for direction on BMP selection and design. The City of
Edmonds does not approve erosivity waivers, as described in Section 4.2, Appendix 1 of the Phase II
Permit.
5.3 Small Site Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution
All known, available, and reasonable source control BMPs shall be applied to control pollution. Source
control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in according to the Stormwater Manual. See
Volume IV of the Stormwater Manual for guidance on the applicable source control BMP selection and
implementation.
Specific source controls are not required for single family residential sites. General requirements for these
sites include preventing the discharge of pollutants to the City’s storm drainage system per Edmonds City
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 31
Packet Page 357 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Code Chapter 7.200 (Illicit Discharges). These pollutants include common household items such as
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents, and fluids from vehicle maintenance.
5.4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural
Drainage Systems and Outfalls
Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, with run-on (from a potential upstream site) and runoff
from effective impervious surface on the project site discharging via the location of the natural drainage
system and outfall, to the maximum extent practicable. In most cases, the “natural location” is the
existing discharge location at the site. For some redevelopment projects, the natural location for runoff
discharge may have been previously altered. If there is a question as to the natural discharge location,
contact City Engineering Division staff.
The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause an adverse impact to
downstream receiving waters and down-gradient properties. All outfalls require energy dissipation to
prevent erosion. Minimum Requirement #10 describes offsite analysis that is required for certain
Category 2 Small Site Projects to identify potential downstream concerns so that adverse impacts are
avoided through appropriate design.
5.5 Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater
Management
Onsite stormwater management BMPs described in this section are considered LID techniques. These
onsite/LID techniques should be considered at all small sites to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater
runoff on site without causing flooding or erosion impacts. If properly designed in the right soil
conditions, these onsite/LID BMPs can be used for flow control and/or runoff treatment to reduce the size
of, or eliminate the need for, additional facilities designed to comply with Minimum Requirements #6
(Runoff treatment) and #7 (Flow Control), if applicable.
As stated in Small Site Minimum Requirement # 1, the use of LID approaches should begin at the site
planning stage to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is released from a site. Once site
planning and design are complete and the generation of offsite stormwater runoff is minimized, the
stormwater runoff from the planned impervious surface and converted pervious surface areas may be
mitigated.
The soil quality and depth BMP T5.13 for compost-amending, in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
Stormwater Manual is required for all disturbed pervious surface areas to restore the water holding
capacity of these areas.
5.5.1 Onsite/LID BMP Selection
Common LID practices include but are not limited to:
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 32
Packet Page 358 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Bioretention cells (also known as rain gardens).
• Small-scale “traditional” infiltration techniques (such as trenches, dry wells, and
gravelless chambers).
• Permeable pavement (asphalt, concrete, paving blocks, “grass-crete”).
• Dispersion BMPs such as wheel strip driveways or other pavement sloped to drain to
drain to onsite vegetation adequate for dispersion, or downspout or sheet flow
dispersion.
Onsite/LID BMP design requirements shall be those in the LID Manual or the Washington State
Department of Transportation’s Highway Runoff Manual. BMP design requirements presented in other
stormwater management manuals or standard documents approved by Ecology such as the City of Seattle
and King County stormwater manuals are also acceptable when modified for local conditions such as
precipitation and soil conditions. Table 5-2 presents a summary of Onsite/LID measures that could be
used to manage stormwater onsite, along with references for design guidance information. Additional LID
BMPs can be proposed as long as they are found in an Ecology-approved stormwater manual, appropriate
for site conditions, and do not cause flooding or erosion impacts onsite or offsite.
LID techniques that rely on infiltration should be designed with caution, due to the prevalence of till or
“hardpan” soil and steep slopes in Edmonds. Section 5.5.2 discusses this matter further.
Table 5-2: Commonly Used Onsite/LID Stormwater Management Techniques
BMP #
Onsite Stormwater Management
Technique Reference(s)/Design Guidance
Infiltration BMPs
Bioretention Facilities (Rain gardens)Section 6.1 LID Manual and City Pre-Sizing Tables
- Infiltration Trench (downspout or other)City Pre-Sizing Tables
- Drywell City Pre-Sizing Tables
Gravelless Chamber City Pre-Sizing Tables
T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth
(compost-amended)
Volume V Stormwater Manual; Section 6.1 LID
Manual
Dispersion BMPs
C.2.9.3 Wheel Strip Driveway King County Manual. Appendix C.
Downspout or Sheet Flow Dispersion
Systems
City Pre-Sizing Tables
LID Manual = Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
City Pre-Sizing Tables are available from the City’s Engineering Division
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
King County Manual = 2009 Surface Water Design Manual.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 33
Packet Page 359 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
5.5.2 Onsite/LID Techniques and Infiltration
Onsite/LID features that rely on infiltration are not appropriate for every site. Limitations and
considerations include:
• Infiltration is prohibited in the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard
Area (ESLHA, see Appendix B) (ECDC Chapter 19.10), upgradient of the ESLHA, and
other areas with geological instability (landslide hazard areas).
• Infiltration is prohibited in “steep slope areas” with average ground surface slopes equal
to or greater than 15 percent (see Appendix B).
• Infiltration is prohibited within setbacks from the top of a designated landslide hazard or
steep slope areas.
• Infiltration should be applied in areas that have higher infiltration rates (including Everett
gravelly sandy loam soils).
When not restricted as noted above, infiltration should be used as much as possible in the Greater Lake
Ballinger Watershed and in all other creek basins.
Soils reports are required where infiltration is proposed, and for individual lots they must include at least
two soils logs for each proposed infiltration location. Each log shall correspond to soil conditions
extending a minimum of 4 feet depth below ground surface (6 feet for drywells). The report shall describe
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, now called the Natural Resource Conservation Service or NRCS)
series of the soil and the textural class of each horizon through the depth of the log, and it shall include
notes of any evidence of a high groundwater table, such as mottling. Reports solely using the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) will not be accepted. Soils reports must be prepared by or under the
direction of a licensed onsite sewage system designer, civil engineer, engineering geologist, or
geotechnical engineer.
A soils report produced for siting and design of an onsite sewage system may also be used to satisfy this
soils report requirement, provided that (a) the depth of the soil log(s) is at least 4 feet, (b) the depth to
seasonal high water table is determined, and (c) the location of the soil logs is adequate to determine the
feasibility of the infiltration system.
Field infiltration rates can be evaluated using one of two approved methods: the USDA Textural
Classification, or the Modified Pilot Infiltration Testing (PIT) Method.
A correction factor shall be applied to the measured infiltration rate to convert to the design infiltration
rate. This correction factor shall be different based on the time of year of the test. If the test is conducted
from May 1 through October 31, the correction factor shall be two times the correction factor listed in
Table C-1 (USDA method) or Table C-2 (modified PIT method) in Appendix C of this Supplement. For
infiltration rates tested from November 1 – April 30, the correction factor shall be equal to the correction
factor listed in Table C-1 (USDA method) or Table C-2 (modified PIT method) in Appendix C of this
Supplement.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 34
Packet Page 360 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
In certain situations, BMPs that rely on infiltration are classified as Underground Injection Controls
(UICs) and may be regulated by Ecology under the UIC Program (Washington Administrative Code
[WAC] 173 218). For more information on Underground Injection Control (UIC) see the 2006 Ecology
document titled Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater. This document is available online at
<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510067.html>.
5.5.3 Bioretention Cells or Rain Gardens for Single Family Residential Sites
Rain gardens may be designed using the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington Homeowners
(WSU Extension 2009) (without the services of certified geotechnical professional) under the following
circumstances:
• The area of land-disturbing activity on the site is below the regulatory threshold (1 acre
of land-disturbing activity).
• The site is zoned as single-family residential.
• The rain garden(s) will receive runoff from less than 2,000 square feet of impervious
surface.
If the amount of new, replaced, or new plus replaced impervious surface area (regulated impervious area)
is 2,000 square feet or greater, the applicant may subtract the amount of regulated impervious surface area
that will be served by the rain garden(s) from the total regulated impervious surface area. The balance of
the regulated impervious surface area will still be subject to all applicable minimum requirements (even if
this balance is less than 2,000 square feet). For example, suppose a Category 1 single-family residential
Small Site Project has 3,700 square feet of regulated impervious surface area. An owner plans to use two
rain gardens designed per the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington Homeowners, each
handling 950 square feet of regulated impervious surface area. The owner must apply other BMPs to the
remaining 1,800 square feet of regulated impervious surface area to meet this minimum requirement.
If a rain garden is removed from service at any time, the impervious surface draining to it becomes new
impervious surface subject to applicable stormwater requirements.
5.6 Small Site Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment
Runoff treatment BMPs, if applicable, must handle the water quality design storm volume or peak flow
rate using the appropriate treatment type (basic, enhanced, oil control, and/or phosphorus treatment) for
all new and replaced project pollution generating surfaces. BMPs to meet this minimum requirement must
be designed by a civil engineer.
5.6.1 Project Thresholds
Stormwater treatment facilities are required for the following Category 2 Small Site Projects:
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 35
Packet Page 361 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Projects in which the total of new and replaced effective, pollution-generating
impervious surface (PGIS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area
of the project.
• Projects in which the total of pollution-generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) is three-
quarters (3/4) of an acre or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a
surface discharge from the site into a natural or man-made conveyance system from the
site.
That portion of any development project in which the PGIS or PGPS thresholds listed above are not
exceeded in a threshold discharge area should consider the use onsite stormwater management BMPs in
accordance with Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 to the maximum extent practicable.
5.6.2 Runoff Treatment Standards
Runoff treatment standards shall be implemented per Section 4.6, Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit. In
addition, the following Edmonds-specific requirements apply.
5.6.2.1 Oil Control
All projects in areas not zoned as single family residential that collect runoff from 5 or more parking
spaces shall install oil containment catch basins, if other approved oil control systems are not employed.
The outlet pipe of these catch basins shall have a downturned 90 degree elbow to restrict the outflow of
oil and other floatables. There should be at least 9 inches of clearance between the elbow and the inside
wall of the catch basin to facilitate removal of floatables. A maintenance schedule for the removal of oil
and other floatables from these catch basins must be submitted with all plans for review.
5.6.2.2 Phosphorus Treatment
Per Section 4.6.2, Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit, phosphorus treatment is required for projects that
discharge to a nutrient-critical receiving water. Currently, this applies to projects in the Greater Lake
Ballinger Watershed that have a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus. Bioretention
systems with overflows (i.e., systems not providing 100 percent infiltration) should not be used in this
basin due to potential phosphorus export.
5.6.3 Runoff Treatment BMP Selection
A sampling of runoff treatment BMPs is summarized in Table 4-3, Section 4.6, with the treatment levels
and design criteria references. BMPs shall be selected from the list according to the treatment type
required, and according to the following general prioritization guidelines:
• Bioretention systems should be implemented where feasible in creek basins. If infiltration
of runoff is not feasible at the site, consider use of bioretention systems with
underdrains.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 36
Packet Page 362 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Onsite stormwater management measures (see Section 5.5 above) are preferred, if
feasible, over larger runoff treatment facilities. Be sure that these onsite techniques are
being applied to the maximum extent practicable before selecting runoff treatment
BMPs.
5.7 Small Site Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control
To reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and land cover conversions, flow
control BMPs shall be implemented for all effective impervious surface that is new and replaced and
converted pervious surfaces. To meet this minimum requirement, flow control BMPs for Category 2
Small Site Projects must be designed by a civil engineer. As discussed in Section 5.5.1, the use of LID
techniques under Small Site Minimum Requirements #1 and #5 can reduce or eliminate the need for
compliance with this minimum requirement.
5.7.1 Project Thresholds and Applicability
The applicability of this minimum requirement is dependent upon the drainage basin of the project site.
See Chapter 2 for drainage basin classifications.
Creek or Lake Basin Projects
For Small Site Projects in Creek or Lake Basins, Edmonds-specific flow control standards must be met if
the total new and replaced impervious surface area exceeds 2,000 square feet.
Direct Discharge Basin Projects
For Small Site Projects in Direct Discharge Basins Edmonds-specific flow control standards must be met
if the total new and replaced impervious surface area exceeds 2,000 square feet. Small Site Projects in
Direct Discharge Basins can be exempt from Small Site Minimum Requirement #7 under any one of the
following circumstances:
• A quantitative offsite analysis as described in Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 is
performed by the applicant and no unacceptable downstream issues are found.
• A quantitative offsite analysis as described in Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 is
performed by the applicant and one or more unacceptable downstream issue is
discovered. A plan is proposed by the applicant to mitigate for the unacceptable
downstream issue and the mitigation plan is approved by the Public Works Director or
designee.
Any Small Site Project in a Direct Discharge Basin can be exempt from Small Site Minimum
Requirement # 10 by meeting the applicable flow control standards for sites in Creek or Lake Basins (see
Section 5.7.2).
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 37
Packet Page 363 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
5.7.2 Flow Control Standards
Flow control standards for Small Site Projects vary by basin type and the amount of new and replaced
effective impervious surface area and whether the project is in a Creek or Lake Basin or a Direct
Discharge Basin. These standards are summarized in Table 5-3 and 5-4 below.
Small Site Projects in Creek or Lake Basins must meet the Edmonds-specific flow control standards.
Recurrence interval flows for the developed condition shall be determined using a continuous hydrologic
model. For sites with 2,000 square feet or greater (and less than or equal to 5,000 square feet) of new plus
replaced effective impervious surface area the post-development 10-year recurrence interval flow shall
not exceed 0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre of impervious surface area.
For sites with greater than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface area, limits for the
post-development peak flows depend upon the BMP type selected:
• For detention BMPs:
Creek or Lake Basins: the post-development 2-, 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak flows shall not exceed 0.07, 0.14, and 0.33 cfs per
acre of impervious surface area, respectively.
Direct Discharge Basins: the post-development 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak flows shall not exceed, 0.25 and 0.45 cfs per acre
of impervious surface area, respectively.
• For infiltration BMPs:
Creek or Lake Basins: the post-development 2-, 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak overflows shall not exceed 0.07, 0.25, and 0.45
cfs per acre impervious surface area, respectively.
Direct Discharge Basins: the post-development 10-, and 100-year
recurrence interval peak overflows shall not exceed 0.25, and 0.45 cfs per
acre impervious surface area, respectively.
There are two methods to satisfy Minimum Requirement #7 for sites subject to the Edmonds-specific
standard: the “LID Credit Option” and the “Traditional Option”. Small Site Projects should strongly
consider the LID Credit Option to implement flow control, if feasible. The LID Credit Option allows an
applicant to mitigate only a portion of the new and replaced impervious surface area if only LID site
planning techniques and LID BMPs are used. The requirements for the LID Credit Option are presented
below:
• For projects that generate greater than 2,000 square feet (but less than or equal to 5,000
square feet) of new plus replaced effective impervious surface area, the greater of 1)
2,000 square feet or 2) 85 percent of new plus replaced impervious surface area is
mitigated to meet the flow control standard using LID measures.
• For projects that generate greater than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced effective
impervious surface area, the greater of 1) 5,000 square feet or 2) 90 percent of new plus
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 38
Packet Page 364 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 39
replaced impervious surface area is mitigated to meet the flow control standard using
LID measures.
If the LID Credit Option is not used to meet Minimum Requirement #7, the project shall meet the flow
control standard for all new and replaced impervious surface and converted pervious surface. In this case,
the “Traditional Option”, larger-scale infiltration BMPs or detention BMPs may be used to provide flow
control for the areas not mitigated using LID techniques.
Packet Page 365 of 465
AP
R
I
L
2
0
1
0
ED
M
O
N
D
S
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
D
E
S
U
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
Ta
b
l
e
5
-
3
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
F
l
o
w
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
ts
f
o
r
S
m
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
–
C
r
e
e
k
o
r
L
a
k
e
B
a
s
i
n
s
a
≥2,
0
0
0
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
b
≥5,
0
0
0
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
Nu
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
In
t
e
r
v
a
l
F
l
o
w
fr
o
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Si
t
e
:
10
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
2
5
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Fo
r
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
M
P
s
:
2
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
0
7
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
1
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
1
4
c
f
s
/
ac
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
a
n
d
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
3
3
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
.
Fo
r
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
M
P
s
:
2
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
0
7
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
1
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
2
5
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
a
n
d
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
=
0
.
4
5
c
f
s
/
a
c
r
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
:
Ne
w
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
Ne
w
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
Co
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Me
t
h
o
d
s
Si
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
S
i
z
i
n
g
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
MG
S
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
a
c,
d
Si
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
S
i
z
i
n
g
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
MG
S
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
a
c,
d
Op
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
M
e
e
t
N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
LI
D
C
r
e
d
i
t
Op
t
i
o
n
(
I
f
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
)
If
2
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
r
8
5
%
o
f
n
e
w
p
l
u
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
(w
h
i
c
h
e
v
e
r
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
u
s
i
n
g
On
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
#
5
)
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
me
t
.
If
5
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
r
9
0
%
o
f
n
e
w
p
l
u
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
(w
h
i
c
h
e
v
e
r
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
)
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
u
s
i
n
g
On
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
#
5
)
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
is
m
e
t
.
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Op
t
i
o
n
If
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
wi
t
h
O
n
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
t
e
.
L
a
r
g
e
r
-
s
c
a
l
e
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
or
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
–
s
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
7
.
4
.
If
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
wi
t
h
O
n
s
i
t
e
/
L
I
D
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
i
t
e
.
L
a
r
g
e
r
-
s
c
a
l
e
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
or
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
–
s
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
7
.
4
.
cf
s
:
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
sf
:
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
LI
D
:
l
o
w
i
m
p
a
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
Si
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
1
-
a
c
r
e
of
l
a
n
d
-
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
b
B
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
n
e
w
p
l
u
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
c
M
G
S
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
h
e
P
u
g
e
t
E
a
s
t
3
6
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
s
e
r
i
e
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
at
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
on
b
y
M
G
S
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
a
n
d
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
W
W
H
M
an
d
M
G
S
F
l
o
o
d
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
.
d
F
o
r
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
ec
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
p
e
a
k
f
l
o
w
s
)
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
e
r
f
or
m
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
z
e
r
o
f
l
o
w
y
e
a
r
s
a
s
ex
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
7
.
3
.
1
b
e
l
o
w
.
d
j
/
0
8
-
0
4
1
4
0
-
0
0
0
e
d
m
o
n
d
s
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
d
o
c
5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 40
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
36
6
of
46
5
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Table 5-4: City of Edmonds Flow Control Requirements for Small Site Projects – Direct Discharge Basins a
≥ 2,000 sf
Effective Impervious Area
Numerical
Standard:
For detention and infiltration BMPs:
10-year = 0.25 cfs/acre impervious, and
100-year= 0.45 cfs/acre impervious
An exemption from these flow control standards may be allowed by the Public Works Director or
designee if a quantitative offsite analysis per Large Site Minimum Requirement # 10 (see Section 4.10)
indicates no unacceptable downstream issue (such as a capacity or erosion issue). If an unacceptable
downstream issue is found, the applicant can either propose mitigation of the issue to the Public Works
Director or designee (whom will consider the proposal but not necessarily approve it) or design and
implement flow control measures to the Lake or Creek Basin Standard (see Section 5.7.1)..
Applies to: New and replaced impervious surface and disturbed pervious areas
Computational
Methods
Simplified Sizing Approach or continuous hydrologic modeling with MGS precipitation data a, b
Options to Meet Numerical Standard
LID Credit
Option (If
feasible)
For sites with 2,000 sf or more (but less than 5,000 sf) of effective impervious surface: If 2,000
sf or 85% of new plus replaced impervious surface area (whichever is greater) is mitigated to
the numerical standard using Onsite/LID techniques (Minimum Requirement #5), the
requirement is met.
For sites with 5,000 sf or more of effective impervious surface: If 5,000 sf or 90% of new plus
replaced impervious surface area (whichever is greater) is mitigated to the numerical standard
using Onsite/LID techniques (Minimum Requirement #5), the requirement is met.
Traditional
Option
If Onsite/LID techniques are not feasible, larger-scale infiltration or detention may be used to
mitigate capacity impact to the extent necessary - See Section 5.7.4.
sf square feet
a MGS precipitation is the Puget East 36 precipitation time series developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation by MGS
Engineering Consultants, Inc. and available in WWHM and MGS Flood hydrologic modeling software.
b For infiltration facilities, flood frequency calculations (i.e., determination of recurrence interval peak flows) must be performed using an
approach capable of properly evaluating zero flow years as explained in Section 5.7.3.1 below
5.7.3 Flow Control Facility Sizing
5.7.3.1 Modeling Requirements
Flow control facilities must be sized to meet the standards described above using an approved continuous
simulation runoff model. Guidance on application of continuous runoff models for flow control BMP
sizing is provided in Volume III of the Stormwater Manual. Supplemental guidance is provided in this
section.
Approved continuous runoff models include the Western Washington Hydrologic Model (WWHM) and
MGS-Flood. Flow control sizing must be conducted using the “Puget East 36” precipitation time series
developed by MGS Engineering Consultants (MGS 2002). This time series is available in WWHM
(labeled “DOT data”), and is one of the default precipitation time series in MGS-Flood.
Flood frequency calculations (i.e., determination of recurrence interval peak flows) must also be
performed for infiltration facilities, using an approach capable of properly evaluating zero flow years.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 41
Packet Page 367 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
This is important, because infiltration facilities sized to meet the recommended flow control standards
will infiltrate approximately 98 percent of the runoff volume, resulting in an annual peak flow time series
that contains several zero or very low peak flow values.
Currently, the MGS-Flood model properly calculates flood frequency for these scenarios, but WWHM
does not. Until WWHM integrates a more flexible flood frequency routine, it is recommended that annual
peak flow datasets with multiple low or zero annual peak flow values be exported from WWHM and
analyzed using a spreadsheet method to determine flood frequency (i.e., 2-, 10-, and 100-year recurrence
interval flows). The Gringorten plotting position formula (Maidment 1993), which is non-parametric (i.e.,
does not depend on the mean, standard deviation, or skew of the data), works well for these applications.
5.7.3.2 Simplified Sizing Approach
A pre-sized approach for sizing flow control BMPs has been developed for Small Site Projects in
Edmonds with between 2,000 and 10,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area. This
approach allows the designer to size selected BMPs to meet the numerical flow control standards without
the use of a continuous hydrologic model. Guidance for using the simplified sizing approach for flow
control BMPs is provided in handouts available from the City Engineering Division.
5.7.4 Flow Control BMP Selection
This section discusses infiltration and flow control BMPs. If onsite/LID techniques are not used, flow
control can be achieved using larger-scale infiltration or detention facilities.
5.7.4.1 Larger Scale Infiltration
If LID techniques are not feasible to meet this minimum requirement, larger-scale, centralized infiltration
facilities may be used (as opposed to the small and distributed infiltration facilities associated with LID).
Infiltration is a preferred method of stormwater flow control relative to detention, but only in certain areas
of Edmonds where infiltration of large amounts of runoff in a concentrated area will not contribute to
flooding or offsite slope stability problems. The feasibility of infiltration as a means to meet stormwater
flow control and treatment requirements will depend upon specific project site locations due to the
variations in soil and topography across the City. See Chapter 5.5.2 for guidelines pertaining to the
applicability and testing required for implementing infiltration for flow control.
A sampling of infiltration BMPs for flow control is summarized in Table 5-5.
5.7.4.2 Detention
If infiltration BMPs are not feasible to meet flow control requirements for a site, detention BMPs can be
used. The minimum orifice size for a detention control structure is one-half inch (1/2 inch). Table 5-4
summarizes some available detention BMPs for flow control.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 42
Packet Page 368 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
5.8 Small Site Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection
Section 2.5.8 of Volume I of the Stormwater Manual has guidance on meeting Small Site Minimum
Requirement #8. Refer also to ECDC Chapter 23.40.
5.9 Small Site Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance
BMPs shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 7 of this Supplement.
Table 5-5: Flow Control Best Management Practices
BMP # Flow Control BMP Reference(s)/Design Guidance
Larger-Scale Infiltration BMPs
T7.10 Infiltration Basins Volume III Stormwater Manual
T7.20 Infiltration Trenches Volume III Stormwater Manual
T7.30 Infiltration Vaults Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Gravelless Chambers Kitsap County Stormwater Management Design Manual
(Kitsap County 1997)
Detention BMPs
-- Detention Ponds Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Detention Tanks Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Detention Vaults Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Use of Parking Lots for Detention Volume III Stormwater Manual
-- Use of Roofs for Detention Volume III Stormwater Manual and City Building Division
Stormwater Manual = Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
5.10 Small Site Minimum Requirement #10 – Offsite Analysis and
Mitigation
Offsite analyses assess upstream and downstream conditions, including conveyance capacity limitations
or erosion potential in the downstream system. A qualitative or quantitative analysis may be required by
the Public Works Director or a designee when there is a potential for downstream flooding or erosion. If a
problem is found, mitigation is required to prevent worsening the problem.
The existing or potential impacts to be evaluated and mitigated as part of any offsite/downstream analysis
shall include:
• Conveyance system capacity problems.
• Localized flooding.
• Wetlands impacts such as siltation or other damage.
• Upland erosion impacts, including landslide hazards.
• Stream channel erosion in the channel or at the outfall location.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 43
Packet Page 369 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
• Locations where surface water enters and exits the site.
5.10.1 Qualitative Analysis
If required, project applicants shall submit a qualitative analysis of each upstream drainage system
entering a site (run-on) and each downstream drainage system leaving a site (runoff). The upstream
analysis shall identify and describe points where water enters the site and the tributary area. The
qualitative analysis shall extend downstream for the entire flow path, from the project site to the receiving
water, or up to one-quarter mile, whichever is less. A map defining the onsite and offsite areas that
contribute stormwater runoff to the site shall be provided by the applicant. The map shall be prepared
with a defined scale.
Upon review of this analysis, the Public Works Director or Designee may require a qualitative analysis
extending further downstream, mitigation measures deemed adequate to address the problems, or a
quantitative analysis, depending upon the presence of existing or predicted flooding, erosion, or water
quality problems, and on the proposed design of the onsite drainage facilities.
5.10.2 Quantitative Analysis
If required, a civil engineer or professional land surveyor must field survey all existing storm drainage
systems downstream of the project site for a minimum distance of 1/4-mile from the point of connection
to the existing public drainage system. If the ultimate discharge point is to Puget Sound via a culvert
owned by BNSF Railway, the analysis must be followed through the drainage system all the way to Puget
Sound.
The goal of the inspection and analysis is to evaluate whether the capacity of the drainage system(s) is
adequate to handle the existing flows, flows generated by the project, flooding problems, erosion damage
or potential, amount of freeboard in channels and pipes, and storage potential within the system. All
existing and proposed offsite surface water conveyance systems shall be sized to convey flows without
surcharging the City’s storm system or the BNSF culvert under the railroad tracks (if applicable) during
the 50-year recurrence event. If the project is in the ESLHA (see Appendix B), contact the City
Engineering Division for requirements.
If a capacity problem, streambank erosion problem, or other problem with the downstream system is
encountered in the analysis, the flow from the project shall be restricted per Minimum Requirement #7 –
Flow Control or other mitigation may be proposed by the applicant subject to review by the Public Works
Director or designee..
5.11 Small Site Minimum Requirement #11 – Financial Liability
A performance bond shall be posted as a financial guarantee for required stormwater systems and BMPs
related to Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for the following Small Site Projects:
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 44
Packet Page 370 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 5.0 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS 45
• Single family residential projects located within Critical Areas (including the ESLHA)
and critical area buffers.
• Multi-family residential and commercial projects
• Subdivisions involving 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity.
Packet Page 371 of 465
Packet Page 372 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
6.0 Minor Site Requirements
Minor Site Projects must comply with Minor Site Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Practices.
6.1 Minor Site Minimum Requirement – Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
All new development, redevelopment, and construction projects are responsible for preventing erosion
and discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City’s municipal storm drainage system and
receiving waters. For Minor Site Projects, a shorter Minor Site Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan can be prepared.
The following BMPs must be applied:
For Sites with Clearing and Grading:
• Plan and implement proper clearing and grading of the site. It is most important to clear
only the areas needed, preserve vegetation, protect soils, and keep exposed areas to a
minimum.
• Re-vegetate, cover with straw, or otherwise stabilize all exposed soil as soon as possible.
• Locate any soil piles away from drainage systems. Temporary stabilization or covering of
soil piles must occur at the end of each work day or other best management practices
must be implemented to prevent discharges of soil or sediment to the City’s storm
drainage system or surface waters or adjacent properties.
• Provide storm drain inlet protection within the project area and downstream as required
to prevent sediment and pollutants from entering the City’s storm drainage system. Inlet
protection must be maintained throughout the life of the project and not cause any
discharge of sediment or localized flooding issues. All inlet protection must be removed
and properly disposed of immediately after project completion.
Additional Requirements for Underground Utility Projects
• Areas within the paved City right-of-way that have soil or sediment deposited during
construction must be swept or otherwise removed and properly managed at the end of
each work day, unless other arrangements have been made with the City’s Engineering
Division.
• Water-tight trucks must be used to transport any saturated soils from the site.
• All contractors must a have a spill containment and clean up kit onsite at all times that is
compatible with the applicable pollutants
• All utility workers must exercise proper pollution prevention techniques during all
construction activities including the proper storage of any hazardous materials.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 6.0 MINOR SITE REQUIREMENTS 47
Packet Page 373 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 6.0 MINOR SITE REQUIREMENTS 48
De-watering shall be controlled per Element #10, Section 3.2.3, Volume II, of the Stormwater Manual.
All discharges into the City-owned storm system or water of the state shall be in compliance with ECC
7.200, Illicit Discharges. Sanitary sewer discharges must have the approval from the Edmonds Treatment
Plant and Engineering Division.
See Volume II of the Stormwater Manual for additional guidance on the selection and design of
construction-phase best management practices designed to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
Packet Page 374 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
7.0 Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
See the LID Manual and Volume III and Volume V of the Stormwater Manual for guidance on operation
and maintenance measures for BMPs.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 7.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 49
Packet Page 375 of 465
Packet Page 376 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
8.0 Terminology
This section explains terms used in this Supplement. Additional definitions for stormwater requirements
are found in ECDC 18.30.010 and the Stormwater Manual.
Basin plan: A plan or study to manage the quality and/or quantity of stormwater or water bodies within a
watershed that has been formally adopted by the City of Edmonds.
Civil engineer: A professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington in civil engineering.
Direct discharge basin: A drainage basin that discharges runoff directly to Puget Sound via a pipe
system, ditch, or other direct means without first entering a creek or other water body.
Disturbed pervious surface: Any part of a pervious area that is disturbed during a development or
redevelopment project, but remains pervious after the project is completed.
Effective impervious surface: Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete
conveyance to the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system.
Grade: The slope of a surface such as a road, channel, or natural ground.
Grading: Any one or a combination of the following: excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of
the soil profile that contains decaying organic matter.
Greater Lake Ballinger Watershed: That portion of the City of Edmonds that discharges stormwater
runoff directly or indirectly into Chase Lake, Hall Creek, or Lake Ballinger.
Mitigation: Implement best management practices to reduce or eliminate the impacts of development on
the City’s stormwater system and receiving waters.
Nutrient-critical receiving water: Any surface water or water segment listed as Category 5 (impaired)
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for total phosphorus through the State of Washington’s
Water Quality Assessment program and approved by EPA. Lake Ballinger is considered a nutrient-critical
receiving water.
Pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS): Those impervious surfaces considered to be a
significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to:
• Vehicular use
• Industrial activities as defined in the Stormwater Manual (Volume I, Glossary- p. 26)
• Storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals
• Receiving direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 8.0 TERMINOLOGY 51
Packet Page 377 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals are those substances which, when exposed to
rainfall, measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff. Examples include
erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes,
kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage.
Metal roofs are also considered PGIS unless they are coated with an inert, non-leachable material (e.g.,
baked-on enamel coating). A surface, whether paved or not, shall be considered subject to vehicular use if
it is regularly used by motor vehicles. The following are considered regularly-used surfaces:
• Roads
• Unvegetated road shoulders
• Bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway
• Driveways
• Parking lots
• Unfenced fire lanes
• Vehicular equipment storage yards
• Airport runways.
The following are not considered regularly used surfaces:
• Paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor
vehicles
• Fenced fire lanes
• Infrequently used maintenance access roads
• Sidewalks separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles.
Pollution-generating pervious surfaces (PGPS): Any non-impervious surface subject to application of
pesticides or fertilizers, or loss of soil. Typical PGPS include lawns, landscaped areas, golf courses, parks,
cemeteries, and sports fields.
Predevelopment condition: For sites that meet or exceed the regulatory threshold, and exceed the
thresholds that require flow control in Table 4.2, Section 4.7 of the Phase II Permit, shall use the
appropriate predevelopment condition described in said section of the Phase II Permit.
Regulatory Threshold: When referring to site size, those that have one acre or more of land-disturbing
activity, including projects less than one acre of land-disturbing activity that are part of a larger common
plan of the development or sale.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant
that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 8.0 TERMINOLOGY 52
Packet Page 378 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 8.0 TERMINOLOGY 53
the pollutant’s sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all
contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that
the water body can be used for the purposes the state has designated. The calculation must also account
for seasonable variation in water quality. Water quality standards are set by states, territories, and tribes.
They identify the uses for each water body, for example, drinking water supply, contact recreation
(swimming), and aquatic life support (fishing), and the scientific criteria to support that use. The Clean
Water Act, section 303, establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs. In Washington
State, the Department of Ecology establishes water cleanup plans to guide TMDL implementation.
Packet Page 379 of 465
Packet Page 380 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc 9.0 REFERENCES 55
9.0 References
Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 5 vols. Ecology Publications 05-
10-029 through 05-10-033. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. February
2005.
Ecology. 2009. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewers in Western Washington. Modified June 17 2009.
Herrera. 2009. Basis for Updated Stormwater Management Standards for New Development and
Redevelopment Projects in the City of Edmonds. Technical Memorandum prepared for City of Edmonds.
Herrera Environmental Consultants. July 10, 2009.
King County. 2009. King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division.
Kitsap County. 1997. Kitsap County Stormwater Management Design Manual.
Maidment, D.R. 1993. Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
PSAT and WSU. 2005. Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for the Puget Sound. Puget
Sound Action Team, Olympia, Washington and Washington State University Pierce County Extension,
Tacoma, Washington.
SCS. 1983. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. July 1983.
Seattle. 2009. Stormwater Manual, Volume 3, Stormwater Flow Control & Water Quality Treatment
Technical Requirements Manual, Director Rules 2009-005 SPU, 17-2009 DPD, November 2009.
WSU Extension. 2009. Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington Homeowners: Designing your
Landscape to Protect our Streams, Lakes, Bays, and Wetlands. Washington State University Pierce County
Extension, Tacoma, Washington.
Packet Page 381 of 465
Packet Page 382 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Appendix A – Synopsis of the Western
Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit
The City of Edmonds has a population of approximately 41,000 and owns and operates a municipal
stormwater system that is separate from the sanitary sewer system. As such, the City is regulated by the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to comply with the provisions of the Western Washington
Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Phase II Permit) for stormwater entering into and discharging
from this municipal stormwater system.
The complete text of the NPDES Phase II Permit is available on Ecology’s website 1 . This section
provides a summary of permit provisions that relate to the City’s management of stormwater.
Section S5.C.4 of the Phase II Permit prescribes how the City should regulate runoff from new
development, redevelopment, and construction sites. For projects that involve 1 acre or more of land-
disturbing activity 2 (“regulatory threshold”), the Phase II Permit requires compliance with certain
minimum technical requirements. The City has adopted these minimum technical requirements from
Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit for sites that meet or exceed the regulatory threshold (Large Site
Projects). Appendix 1 of the Phase II Permit also modifies or changes portions of the Stormwater Manual
related to certain minimum requirements and exceptions/variances. These changes/additions have been
incorporated into ECDC Chapter 18.30 and this Supplement and will be noted as such.
The Phase II Permit requires the City of Edmonds stormwater regulations to have a site planning process
and BMP selection and design criteria that, when used to implement the Permit’s minimum requirements
(Appendix 1), will protect water quality, reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable and satisfy the State requirement under Chapter 90.48 RCW to apply all known, available and
reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) prior to discharge. The Phase II
Permit also states that Permittees who choose to use the site planning process and BMP selection and
design criteria in the Stormwater Manual, or an equivalent manual approved by Ecology under the Phase I
Permit, may cite this choice as their sole documentation to meet this requirement. For Large Site Projects,
the City of Edmonds has chosen to use the site planning process and BMP selection and design criteria in
the Stormwater Manual, as modified by other equivalent manuals approved by the Department under the
Phase I Permit. This Supplement provides details on implementing those requirements in Edmonds on
sites of all sizes.
1<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/phaseIIww/wwphiipermit.html>
2 Including projects less than 1 acre of land-disturbing activity that are part of a larger common plan of the
development or sale.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX A 57
Packet Page 383 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX A 58
For sites that fall below regulatory threshold, the Phase II Permit gives regulated jurisdictions a choice: 1)
either continue to apply the local stormwater requirements in effect at the time of permit issuance
(February 2007) or 2) apply the same minimum requirements as for the Large Site Projects. The City of
Edmonds has chosen to continue using the current stormwater requirements for projects that fall below
the regulatory threshold but to clarify the requirements and provide more choices (Best Management
Practices or BMPs) for achieving these requirements including the use of Low Impact Development
(LID) techniques. The most recent stormwater requirements for City of Edmonds were adopted in March
1995. The field of stormwater management has advanced substantially in the almost 15 years since
adopting these requirements. This Supplement incorporates advancements that aim to strike a balance
between encouraging desirable development and providing environmental protection.
Most development projects in Edmonds will only be subject to the Small Site Project or Minor Site
Project requirements since very few parcels in the City are 1 acre or greater. The Small Site Project
requirements are tailored to primarily address stormwater management issues related to development and
redevelopment of single family residential projects in the urban environment of Edmonds. These projects
make up the majority of the development activity in the City. These requirements apply to non-single-
family residential projects as long as these sites meet the definition of a Small Site Project.
Packet Page 384 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Appendix B – Supplemental Technical
Information
Edmonds Watersheds
Broadly speaking, the stormwater runoff in Edmonds either travels west to Puget Sound (either via a
creek or directly piped) or to the east to Lake Ballinger or Hall Creek, which discharges to Lake Ballinger
(Figure B-1).
Lake Ballinger has a Department of Ecology-mandated limit on the amount of phosphorus (a chemical
element) that can enter the lake. Excess phosphorus from stormwater runoff is the primary driver for
unwanted algae blooms in the lake. Due to this limit (or TMDL-total maximum daily load) for total
phosphorus imposed by Ecology, special water quality treatment requirements are included under
Minimum Requirement # 6 or Small Site Minimum Requirement #6. Private properties on the lake
experience periodic flooding during large storm events. The City of Edmonds in conjunction with its
watershed partners (Cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park and
Snohomish County) have developed a Strategic Action Plan for the greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer
Creek Watershed to begin to address flooding a water quality issues in the basin.
Edmonds Soils and Slopes
Edmonds is fortunate to be located adjacent to Puget Sound and possess topography that facilitates
desirable views. The underlying soils and relatively steep slopes, however, complicate the application
stormwater management techniques.
Prior to logging and subsequent development of the Edmonds area, trees and the forest duff layer above
the soil surface (consisting or primarily or needles, leaves, branches, bark, and stems, in various stages of
decomposition) covered the City. The tree canopy stored a large amount of the rainfall and the duff layer
acted as a giant sponge storing and soaking up rainfall. Virtually all of this rainfall was stored in the tree
canopy and the duff layer, absorbed by the roots of trees or other vegetation, or slowly moved through the
soil on top of less permeable layers, forming the headwaters of Edmonds creeks. There was little or no
“runoff” from these forests.
With logging came the elimination of the majority of the tree canopy and the duff layer and the
elimination of the associated water-holding capacity. The soils that remain, in the vast majority of the
City, once the forest is removed, is till or hard pan that does not store or absorb the rainwater. Rain water,
instead, primarily becomes runoff that flows off the impermeable soils and the hardscape or impermeable
surfaces built during development (roofs, parking lots, roads, sidewalks, etc.). This runoff is collected in
ditches or pipes and these concentrated flows are discharged to creeks, Lake Ballinger, or Puget Sound
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX B 59
Packet Page 385 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
(without treatment). By planting trees and using compost-amended soils the water-holding capacity of a
developed site can improve, to a limited extent.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service or USDA-NRCS (formerly
the Soil Conservation Service) has mapped soil types in Edmonds (Figure B-2). Based on the most recent
data from 1983, approximately 82 percent of the land area in Edmonds is underlain by Alderwood series
soils (till or hardpan). Approximately 12 percent of Edmonds has Type A or permeable soils. Given this
soil regime, infiltration, and low impact development techniques that primarily rely on infiltration, are
challenging to implement in the majority of Edmonds.
Approximately 25 percent of the land area of Edmonds has a slope of 15 percent or greater or is in an
Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (the Meadowdale area in the northernmost portion of the
City) (Figure B-3). Geologic hazards in these areas can be increased when stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces percolates into the soil.
Planners and designers should use the information on Figures B-2 and B-3 as guidelines since soil and
slope conditions on an individual parcel may vary from the information presented. Nevertheless, careful
consideration should be applied when infiltration or LID techniques relying on infiltration are considered
in areas of till soils or steep slopes.
There are areas in the City where infiltration and low impact development techniques that rely on
infiltration are feasible based on favorable soil type and relatively flat slopes; Southwest Edmonds, for
example. In these areas infiltration and LID techniques are encouraged over more conventional
stormwater management techniques.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX B 60
Packet Page 386 of 465
Shell Creek
Perrinville
Edmonds Way
Halls Creek
Shellabarger
Good Hope Pond
Hindley
Lake Ballinger
Fruitdale
Northstream
Talbot Park A
Willow Creek
Talbot Park B
Terrace Creek
Deer Creek
Meadowdale A
Lund's Gulch
Puget Sound Piped
Stilthouse Creek
Southwest Edmonds A
Outfall Creek
Westgate Pond
Edmonds Marsh
Southwest Edmonds B
Puget Sound
Meadowdale B
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
HWY
9
9
I-
5
Main St
Edmonds W y
Pine St
O
ly
m
pic View Dr
9t
h
A
v
e
N
66
t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
N 205th St/244th St SW
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Bowdoin Wy
Dayton St
212th St SW
T a l b o t R d
Puget D r
3r
d
A
v
e
S
5t
h
A
v
e
S
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
200th St SW
208th St SW
74th Ave
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
224th St SW
95
t
h
P
l
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
Casper St
7 5 t h P L W
Lund's Gulch Rd
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
72
n
d
A
v
e
W
M
e
adowdale Rd
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
Sun
s
e
t
A
v
e
N
2 3 1 st St SW
206th St SW
168th St SW
240th St SW
Wachussett Rd
7 4 t h A v e W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
F I G U R E B - 1
F I G U R E B - 1C I T Y O F E D M O N D S
C I T Y O F E D M O N D SW A T E R S H E D S
W A T E R S H E D S
±
No warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchantabilityaccompany this product.
March 30, 2010
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000
Feet
¯
Deer Creek
Edmonds Marsh
Edmonds Way
Fruitdale
Good Hope Pond
Halls Creek
Hindley Creek
Lake Ballinger
Lund's Gulch
Meadowdale A
Meadowdale B
Northstream
Outfall Creek
Perrinville
Puget Sound
Puget Sound Piped
Shell Creek
Shellabarger
Southwest Edmonds A
Southwest Edmonds B
Stilthouse Creek
Talbot Park A
Talbot Park B
Terrace Creek
Westgate Pond
Willow Creek
1 in = 2,000 ft
Packet Page 387 of 465
Packet Page 388 of 465
76
t
h
9t
h
SR
9
9
SR 524
3r
d
220th
Main
88
t
h
5t
h
8t
h
196th
10
0
t
h
96
t
h
Pine
84
t
h
212th
98
t
h
236th
228th
6t
h
92
n
d
2nd
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
4th
7t
h
218th
Talbo
t
244th
A
240th
200th
224th
Su
n
s
e
t
Dayton
74
t
h
Fir
Alder
C
208th
Bell
Daley
176th
Walnut
184th
216th
B
95
t
h
75
t
h
Puget
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
93
r
d
SR
1
0
4
67
t
h
232nd
73
r
d
12
t
h
71s
t
230th
11
4
t
h
Ti
m
b
e
r
234th
10
4
t
h
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
68
t
h
72
n
d
Bowdoin
242nd
168th
Fisher
10
6
t
h
210th
206th
Ma
k
a
h
Fir
d
a
l
e
238th
226th
Deer
Admi
r
a
l
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
P
a
r
k
81
s
t
Cedar
231st
15th
L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
Do
g
w
o
o
d
174th
Caspers
83
r
d
77
t
h
Meadowdal
e
Holly
85
t
h
235th
11
6
t
h
179th
91
s
t
70
t
h
164th
80
t
h 199th
190th
217th
189th
188th
191st
Sierra
1
0
2
n
d
160th
203rd
193rd
237th
180th
Access
Maple
66
t
h
187th
175th
222nd
82
n
d
10
8
t
h
Railro
a
d
204th
Norma Beach
192nd
64
t
h
Ca
r
y
215th
86
t
h
97
t
h
11
1
t
h
65
t
h
10th
151st
182nd
Pion
e
e
r
He
i
n
z
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
Cherry
Carol
Frederick
78
t
h
Elm
202nd
B
l
u
e
R
i
d
g
e
An
d
o
v
e
r
11
0
t
h
87
t
h
Hom
e
v
i
e
w
172nd
10
7
t
h
Hig
h
90
t
h
241st
Soun
d
V
i
e
w
Ramp
171
s
t
No
o
t
k
a
Aloha
W
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
9
4
t
h
Algonquin
Kulshan
Map
l
e
w
o
o
d
14th
Madrona
156th
Bertola
22
7
t
h
Glen
Unoc
o
11
t
h
Robin Hood
Wo
o
d
w
a
y
Viewland
10
1
s
t
183rd
169th
194th
Penny
Bella Coola
99
t
h
79
t
h
11
3
t
h
69
t
h
Ridg
e
214th
Pa
r
a
d
i
s
e
11
2
t
h
207th
185th
Hindley
89
t
h
205th
H
i
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
10
5
t
h
Hemlock
201st
198th
229th
Laurel
173rd
162nd
Vista
Cy
r
u
s
11
5
t
h
Howell
165th
181st
161st
Ocea
n
Wh
a
r
f
Gr
e
y
s
t
o
n
e
195th
Su
m
m
i
t
177th
23
9
t
h
186th
Park
Eucl
i
d
Spruce
Forsyth
Berry
Sprague
1
5
7
t
h
213th
NottinghamHu
m
b
e
r
Co
r
o
n
a
d
o
225th
243rd
Jame
s
163rd
Birch
13th
Dell
w
o
o
d
Melody
Ka
i
r
e
z
63
r
d
178th
223rd
Mountain
150th
Water
Northstrea
m
Homeland
Poin
t
W
e
l
l
s
197t
h
Quail
158th
B
r
a
e
m
a
r
Sater
Brookmere
Somerset
233rd
Seamont
Driftwood
Erben
Se
a
V
i
s
t
a
Cascade
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
B
e
a
c
h
Whitcomb
219th
221st
Skylin
e
170th
Hospital Drwy
Du
r
b
i
n
W
o
o
d
l
a
k
e
211th
209th
Point Edwards
Lake Ballinger
Ea
t
o
n
Shell
McAleer
W
i
n
k
l
e
r
Mead
o
w
d
a
l
e
10
7
t
h
236th
80
t
h
79
t
h
215th 215th
88
t
h
191st
6
8
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
69th
222nd
237th
10
1
s
t
178th
78
t
h
64
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
64
t
h
8
2
n
d
66
t
h
Access
229th
95th
2n
d
182nd
Acc
e
s
s
81s
t
192nd
70
t
h
94
t
h
206th
82
n
d
10
6
t
h
74
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
96
t
h
74
t
h
194th
Access
Acce
s
s
204th 74
t
h
Access
66
t
h
86
t
h
Alder
69
t
h
Access
Viewland
Access
182nd
Aloha
81
s
t
206th
200th
Access
Edmonds
66
t
h
225th
221st
84
t
h
79
t
h
194th
207th
90
t
h
67
t
h
88
t
h
240th
74
t
h
216th
90
t
h
232nd
187th
65
t
h
79
t
h
240th
10
1
s
t
12
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
67
t
h
238th
226th
6
7
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ac
c
e
s
s
83
r
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
82
n
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
215th
9
4
t
h
Access
204th
Access
218th
194th
A
c
c
e
s
s
72
n
d
Elm
Ac
c
e
s
s
88
t
h
Access
66
t
h
92
n
d
208th
82
n
d
77
t
h
Su
n
s
e
t
189th
221st
Access
94
t
h
207th
98
t
h
225th
82
n
d
203rd
8t
h
230th
Daley
234th
216th
90
t
h
232nd
86
t
h
83
r
d
176th
6
8
t
h
69
t
h
Access
85
t
h
183rd 182nd
201st
86
t
h
217th
90
t
h
236th
Ac
c
e
s
s
193rd
80
t
h
Access
Acc
e
s
s
219th
201st
Acces
s
Access
87
t
h
235th
67
t
h
12
t
h
226th
7
3
r
d
67th
9
4
t
h
Hindley
180th
7
1
s
t
85
t
h
221st
Access
209th
85
t
h
163rd
86
t
h
189th
236th
77
t
h
84
t
h
94
t
h
92
n
d
86
t
h
Carol
Sprague
93
r
d
92
n
d
78
t
h
224th
86
t
h
232nd
86
t
h
Access
225th
188th
222nd
77
t
h
72
n
d
226th
187th
70th
77
t
h
Sprague
7
5
t
h
240th
239th
89
t
h
87
t
h
79
t
h
72n
d
65
t
h
193rd
97
t
h
93
r
d
202nd
7t
h
192nd
81
s
t
214th
178th
68
t
h
79
t
h
7
3
r
d
216th
75
t
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
208th
85
t
h
1
0
t
h
7
4
t
h
226th
82
n
d
67
t
h
Elm
228th
185th
7
7
t
h
191st
86
t
h
10
6
t
h
68
t
h
93
r
d
78
t
h
70
t
h
158th
99
t
h
238th
Access
201st
Spruce
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
83
r
d
67
t
h
8t
h
209th
73
r
d
224th
6t
h
Edmo
n
d
s
74
t
h
10
2
n
d
Bell
72
n
d
99
t
h
183rd
214th
65th
82nd
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ac
c
e
s
s
70
t
h
68
t
h
6t
h
Access
97
t
h
89
t
h
200th
Puget
66
t
h
231st
205th
185th
6t
h
80
t
h
186th
77th
Access
91
s
t
Access
81
s
t
6
6
t
h
215th
242nd
160th
Access
196th 73
r
d
190th
180th
70
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
79
t
h
198th
12
t
h
9
1
s
t
221st
2n
d
1
0
2
n
d
72
n
d
10
7
t
h
180th
244th
Ac
c
e
s
s
204th
210th
79
t
h
10
5
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
Access
8
6
t
h
82
n
d
204th
240th
14th
64
t
h
Ramp
Brookmere
79
t
h
227th
Acces
s
Elm
68
t
h
190th
7
4
t
h
6t
h
86
t
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
83
r
d
231st
90
t
h
225th
78
t
h
7
2
n
d
Maple
85
t
h
72
n
d
196th
19
0
t
h
80
t
h
190th
Fir
8t
h
177th
73
r
d
14th
205th
7th
91
s
t
82
n
d
Access
243rd
76
t
h
70
t
h
8t
h
192nd
92
n
d
86
t
h
231st
Elm
181st
185th
Access
181st
244th
224th
218th
Access
236th
76
t
h
224th
Hemlock
220th
198th
226th
Cedar
74
t
h
80th
Access
67
t
h
68
t
h
207th
73
r
d
86
t
h
83
r
d
240th
85
t
h
1
0
1
s
t
244th
193rd
202nd
7
7
t
h
239th
175th
5th
Access
230th
8
5
t
h
236th
Ra
m
p
77
t
h
Access
238th
78
t
h
69
t
h
71
s
t
7t
h
228th
191st
Glen
76
t
h
Access 84
t
h
6
5
t
h
86
t
h
86
t
h
202nd
242nd
234th
10
t
h
188th
82
n
d
Access
71
s
t
7
3
r
d
74t
h
80th
Ac
c
e
s
s
10
1
s
t
Acc
e
s
s
Access
210th
Ram
p
198th
237th
192nd 191st
68
t
h
92
n
d
8
7
t
h
239th
85
t
h
6
6
t
h
Access
A
c
c
e
s
s
227th
80
t
h
95
t
h
Access
182nd
92
n
d
84
t
h
164th
Pa
r
k
91
s
t
81
s
t
228th
81
s
t
69th
219th
70
t
h
214th
73
r
d
215th
78
t
h
Access
92
n
d
81
s
t
Access
191st
95
t
h
Access
88
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
89
t
h
68
t
h
SR 104
Ac
c
e
s
s
8
0
t
h
242nd
215th
85
t
h
83
r
d
233rd
157th
Vista
181st
Access
Ac
c
e
s
s
70t
h
227th
97
t
h
8
3
r
d
66
t
h
21
0
t
h
19
2
n
d
87
t
h
81
s
t
72
n
d
82
n
d
73
r
d
78
t
h
8
3
r
d
7
0
t
h
99
t
h
95
t
h
Access
65
t
h
Ram
p
69
t
h
94th
91
s
t
90
t
h
201st
Access
Access 81
s
t
8t
h
238th
226th
82
n
d
8t
h
72
n
d
194th
84
t
h
Access
Ac
c
e
s
s
82
n
d
10
4
t
h
6
8
t
h
67
t
h
75
t
h
69
t
h
69th
73
r
d
Holly
187th
4t
h
80
t
h
237th
97
t
h
235th
191st
227th
7t
h
Access
65
t
h
7
5
t
h
Elm
229th
LEGEND
City of Edmonds BoundarySoil Map UnitsSOIL_NAMEAlderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 2-8 % slopesAlderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 8-15 % slopesAlderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 15-25 % slopesAlderwood Urban land complex, 2-8 % slopesAlderwood Urban land complex, 8-15 % slopesAlderwood-Everett Gravelly sandy loams, 25-70Custer fine sandy loamEverett gravelly sand loam, 0-8 % slopesEverett gravelly sand loam, 8-15 % slopesEverett gravelly sand loam, 15-25 % slopesFluvaquents, tidalKitsap silt loam, 0-8 % slopesKitsap silt loam, 8-25 % slopesMcKenna gravelly silt loam, 0-8 % slopesMukilteo muckPitsUrban land
F i g u r e B - 2
F i g u r e B - 2C i t y o f E d m o n d s
C i t y o f E d m o n d sS o i l M a p U n i t s ( S C S 1 9 8 3 )
S o i l M a p U n i t s ( S C S 1 9 8 3 )
±
No warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchant ability accompany this product.
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000
Feet1 in = 2,000 ft
Packet Page 389 of 465
Packet Page 390 of 465
76
t
h
9t
h
SR
9
9
SR 524
3r
d
220th
Main
88
t
h
5t
h
8t
h
10
0
t
h
196th
96
t
h
Pine
84
t
h
212th
98
t
h
236th
228th
6t
h
92
n
d
2nd
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
4th
7t
h
218th
Talbo
t
244th
A
240th
200th
224th
Su
n
s
e
t
Dayton
74
t
h
Fir
Alder
C
Bell
208th
Daley
176th
Walnut
184th
216th
B
95
t
h
75
t
h
Puget
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
93
r
d
SR
1
0
4
67
t
h
232nd
73
r
d
12
t
h
71s
t
230th
11
4
t
h
Ti
m
b
e
r
234th
10
4
t
h
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
68
t
h
72
n
d
Bowdoin
242nd
10
6
t
h
168th
210th
Fisher
206th
Ma
k
a
h
Fir
d
a
l
e
192nd
238th
226th
Deer
Admi
r
a
l
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
P
a
r
k
81
s
t
Cedar
231st
15th
L
a
k
e
v
i
e
w
Do
g
w
o
o
d
174th
Caspers
83
r
d
77
t
h
Meadowdal
e
Holly
85
t
h
235th
11
6
t
h
179th
91
s
t
70
t
h
164th
80
t
h 199th
190th
217th
189th
188th
Sierra
1
0
2
n
d
160th
203rd
237th
Access
191st
Maple
66
t
h
187th
175th
82
n
d
10
8
t
h
Railro
a
d
193rd
204th
64
t
h
180th
Ca
r
y
Norma Beach
215th
86
t
h
222nd
97
t
h
11
1
t
h
65
t
h
10th
151st
Pion
e
e
r
He
i
n
z
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
Cherry
Carol
Frederick
78
t
h
Elm
202nd
B
l
u
e
R
i
d
g
e
An
d
o
v
e
r
11
0
t
h
182nd
87
t
h
Hom
e
v
i
e
w
172nd
10
7
t
h
Hig
h
90
t
h
241st
Soun
d
V
i
e
w
Ramp
171
s
t
No
o
t
k
a
Aloha
W
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
9
4
t
h
Algonquin
Kulshan
Map
l
e
w
o
o
d
14th
Madrona
156th
Bertola
Glen
Unoc
o
11
t
h
Robin Hood
Wo
o
d
w
a
y
Viewland
10
1
s
t
169th
194th
Penny
Bella Coola
99
t
h
22
7
t
h
79
t
h
11
3
t
h
69
t
h
Ridg
e
214th
183rd
Pa
r
a
d
i
s
e
11
2
t
h
207th
185th
Hindley
89
t
h
205th
H
i
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
10
5
t
h
Hemlock
201st
198th
229th
Laurel
173rd
162nd
Vista
Cy
r
u
s
11
5
t
h
Howell
165th
181st
161st
Ocea
n
Wh
a
r
f
Gr
e
y
s
t
o
n
e
195th
Su
m
m
i
t
177th
23
9
t
h
186th
Park
Euc
l
i
d
Spruce
Forsyth
Berry
Sprague
1
5
7
t
h
213th
NottinghamHu
m
b
e
r
Co
r
o
n
a
d
o
243rd
Jame
s
163rd
Birch
13th
Dell
w
o
o
d
Melody
Ka
i
r
e
z
225th
178th
223rd
Mountain
150th
Water
Northstrea
m
Homeland
Poin
t
W
e
l
l
s
197t
h
Quail
158th
B
r
a
e
m
a
r
Sater
Brookmere
Somerset
233rd
Seamont
Driftwood
Erben
Se
a
V
i
s
t
a
Cascade
R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
B
e
a
c
h
Whitcomb
219th
221st
Skylin
e
170th
Hospital Drwy
Du
r
b
i
n
W
o
o
d
l
a
k
e
211th
63
r
d
209th
Point Edwards
Lake Ballinger
Ea
t
o
n
Shell
McAleer
W
i
n
k
l
e
r
85
t
h
74
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
227th
2n
d
Bell
94
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
Puget
230th
Mead
o
w
d
a
l
e
77
t
h
200th
Access
72
n
d
85
t
h
86
t
h
Elm
19
2
n
d
Access
237th
Acce
s
s
90
t
h
240th
Access
66
t
h
67
t
h
194th
78
t
h
225th
Access
88
t
h
87
t
h
78
t
h
91
s
t
187th
7
7
t
h
Maple
Ram
p
Fir
85
t
h
Access
206th
88
t
h
92
n
d
1
0
1
s
t
87
t
h
194th
85
t
h
Access
80
t
h
6t
h
79
t
h
224th
7
4
t
h
67
t
h
66
t
h
221st
Cedar
89
t
h
Access
89
t
h
99
t
h
202nd
74t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
73
r
d
86
t
h
231st
10
2
n
d
Access
230th
97
t
h
81
s
t
157th
66
t
h
237th
80
t
h
178th
Vista
185th
Access
12
t
h
95
t
h
93
r
d
207th
12
t
h
Access
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
229th
7
4
t
h
90
t
h
204th
205th
67th
94th
183rd
196th
86
t
h
240th
74
t
h
Carol
219th
227th
201st
Access
6
8
t
h
9
4
t
h
68
t
h
239th
80th
99
t
h
192nd
180th
10
t
h
225th
86
t
h
19
8
t
h
Access
79
t
h
Access
SR 104
Ac
c
e
s
s
6
5
t
h
218th
8
0
t
h
78
t
h
Edmonds
82
n
d
222nd
236th
203rd
Edmonds
Edmo
n
d
s
234th
79
t
h
6t
h
175th
193rd
190th
72
n
d
80
t
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
180th
69th
86
t
h
95
t
h
84
t
h
80
t
h
89
t
h
208th
68
t
h
8t
h
Access
210th
216th
241st
83
r
d
86
t
h
200th
86
t
h
232nd
70
t
h
219th
201st
10
7
t
h
72
n
d
194th
8t
h
81
s
t
71
s
t
R
a
m
p
214th
75
t
h
78
t
h
Access
81
s
t
Alder
74
t
h
244th
4t
h
221st
Access
Acc
e
s
s
209th
Access
96
t
h
Access
Pa
r
k
70t
h
228th
9
4
t
h
79
t
h
78
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
92
n
d
67
t
h
160th
66t
h
226th
217th
235th
73
r
d
190th
235th
Ac
c
e
s
s
226th
8
3
r
d
80
t
h
78
t
h
78
t
h
69th
66
t
h
94
t
h
239th
89
t
h
7
0
t
h
223rd
91
s
t
5th
240th
215th
226th
Ac
c
e
s
s
86
t
h
89
t
h
182nd
7t
h
215th
86
t
h
7
7
t
h
225th
Ac
c
e
s
s
69
t
h
Elm
6
8
t
h
68
t
h
Acces
s
224th
Access
82
n
d
204th
70
t
h
71
s
t
2n
d
Elm
Ac
c
e
s
s
Laurel
177th
191st
81
s
t
8
2
n
d
242nd
234th
Access
240th
8t
h
209th
Access
88
t
h
202nd
76
t
h
Aloha
10
5
t
h
87
t
h
79
t
h
99
t
h
183rd
Access
10
t
h
82
n
d
82
n
d
93
r
d
86
t
h
215th
238th
192nd
96
t
h
66
t
h
6
7
t
h
Spruce
82
n
d
80th
Access
Ac
c
e
s
s
Access
Access
84
t
h
196th
78
t
h
181st
215th
224th
229th
73
r
d
191st
224th
64
t
h
16
8
t
h
233rd
83
r
d
79
t
h
236th
185th
Acc
e
s
s
221st
82
n
d
77
t
h
10
7
t
h
68
t
h
92
n
d
232nd
68
t
h
79
t
h
244th
71
s
t
193rd
204th
201st
14th
21
0
t
h
180th
192nd
158th
216th
79
t
h
80
t
h
225th
9
0
t
h
70th
6t
h
91
s
t
65
t
h
179th
6t
h
194th
90
t
h
243rd
72
n
d
77th
235th
66
t
h
92
n
d
191st
9
5
t
h
190th
Elm
233rd
Ac
c
e
s
s
191st
229th
Ac
c
e
s
s
Ac
c
e
s
s
87
t
h
8
6
t
h
74
t
h
73
r
d
238th
98
t
h
230th
82
n
d
204th
Access
222nd
Ra
m
p
229th
91
s
t
185th
73
r
d
181st
186th
216th
72
n
d
Puget 73
r
d
81
s
t
92
n
d
202nd
Ramp
Access
234th
Su
n
s
e
t
81
s
t
83
r
d
72
n
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
81
s
t
207th
92
n
d
242nd
83
r
d
8
5
t
h
194th
8t
h
Access
217th
8
3
r
d
67
t
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
239th
228th
74
t
h
Holly
Access
Elm
77
t
h
7th
69
t
h
70
t
h
238th
188th
228th
188th
Brookmere
10
1
s
t
76
t
h
84
t
h
Edmonds
86
t
h
182nd
198th
81
s
t
191st
82nd
226th
Fir
164th
191st
203rd
96
t
h
64
t
h
8t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
Access
19
0
t
h
Acc
e
s
s
191st
228th
93
r
d
6
6
t
h
72
n
d
78
t
h
92
n
d
193rd
Ac
c
e
s
s
187th
12
t
h
221st
234th
84
t
h
81
s
t
240th
69th
Daley
91
s
t
244th
238th
73
r
d
90
t
h
215th
78
t
h
78
t
h
67
t
h
242nd
226th
Access
66
t
h
231st
76
t
h
205th
Hindley
68
t
h
236th
80
t
h
242n
d
215th
AccessSprague
181st
Access
Access
70
t
h
Glen
97
t
h
214th
231st
210th
8
7
t
h
226th
72
n
d
82
n
d
73
r
d
Access
78
t
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
83
r
d
9
1
s
t
227th
7
5
t
h
182nd
94
t
h
94th
Access
Hemlock
Access
227th
214th
81s
t
192nd
82
n
d
85
t
h
77
t
h
Acc
e
s
s
7
3
r
d
198th
82
n
d
10
2
n
d
Access
10
4
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
6
8
t
h
67
t
h
69
t
h
69
t
h
7t
h
Access
97
t
h
85
t
h
189th
84
t
h
7t
h
85
t
h
Ac
c
e
s
s
10
6
t
h
85
t
h
75
t
h
198th
LEGENDNorth Edmonds Earth Subsidence & Landslide Hazard AreaCity of Edmonds BoundarySlope >15%
F i g u r e B - 3
F i g u r e B - 3C i t y o f E d m o n d s
C i t y o f E d m o n d sS l o p e s G r e a t e r t h a n 1 5 p e r c e n t a n d
S l o p e s G r e a t e r t h a n 1 5 p e r c e n t a n dN o r t h E d m o n d s E a r t h S u b s i d e n c e
N o r t h E d m o n d s E a r t h S u b s i d e n c e& L a n d s l i d e H a z a r d A r e a ( E S L H A )
& L a n d s l i d e H a z a r d A r e a ( E S L H A )
±
No warranty of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchant ability accompany this product.
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000
Feet
1 in = 2,000 ft
Note : For the ESLHA see ECDC 23.80.020 B.1. and ECDC 19.10.
Packet Page 391 of 465
Packet Page 392 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Appendix C – Approved Methods for
Obtaining Design Infiltration Rates
This appendix supplements the infiltration requirements found in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.5.2 of this
document. The Unites States Department of Agriculture (USDA) textural classification or the modified
pilot infiltration test (PIT) may be used to obtain a site design infiltration rate. The City may require the
modified PIT procedure on large sites and/or on sites that demonstrate considerable variability between
samples using the USDA textural classification.
USDA Textural Classification
Short-term infiltration rates may be estimated from soil grain size distribution (gradation) data using the
USDA textural analysis approach. This estimated short-term infiltration rate can then be converted to a
design infiltration rate using information in the Stormwater Manual.
The soil particle size distribution and soil texture analysis to obtain a short-term infiltration rate should be
implemented in accordance with the USDA (Soil Survey Manual, USDA, October 1993, Chapter 3 pages
60-65).
This manual only considers soil passing the #10 sieve (2 mm) (U.S. Standard) to determine percentages
of sand, silt, and clay for use in Figure C-1. These short-term (field) infiltration rates should be used with
the required correction factors in the Stormwater Manual to obtain the design (long-term) infiltration rates
(Table C-1 below from the Volume 3 of the Stormwater Manual). With prior approval by the City of
Edmonds Engineering Division, the correction factors may be reduced (to a minimum of 2.0) if there is
little soil variability and there will be a high degree of long-term facility maintenance and adequate
pretreatment to reduce total suspended solids in influent stormwater.
Table C-1: Recommended Infiltration Rates Based on USDA Soil Textural Classification
*Short-Term
Infiltration Rate
(in./hr)
Correction
Factor
CF
Estimated Design
(Long-term) Infiltration
Rate
(in./hr)
Clean sandy gravels and gravelly sands (i.e.,
90% of the total soil sample is retained in the
#10 sieve)
20 2 10
Sand 8 4 2
Loamy Sand 2 4 0.5
Sandy Loam 1 4 0.25
Loam 0.5 4 0.13
Source: Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005).
* From WEF/ASCE (1998).
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 67
Packet Page 393 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
Figure C-1: Soil Classification Based on the Textural Triangle Figure C-1: Soil Classification Based on the Textural Triangle
/08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 68
Shaded area is applicable for design of infiltration BMPs
Modified Pilot Infiltration Testing (PIT) Method
The Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) consists of a relatively large-scale infiltration test to better measure
infiltration rates for design of stormwater infiltration facilities. The PIT reduces some of the scale errors
associated with relatively small-scale double ring infiltrometer or “stove-pipe” infiltration tests. It is not a
standard test but rather a practical field procedure based on the methods recommended by Ecology’s
Technical Advisory Committee. Correction factors must be applied to the infiltration rate measured using
PIT to establish a design infiltration rate for BMP sizing.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 68
Packet Page 394 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
For infiltration basins, there shall be one test pit per 5,000 square feet of basin infiltrating surface with a
minimum of two per basin, regardless of basin size. For bioretention facilities and permeable pavement
facilities, there shall be one test pit per 5,000 square feet of contributing area. For infiltration trenches,
there shall be one test pit per 50 feet of trench length. For drywells, there shall be at least one test pit per
well.
Prepare detailed logs for each test pit and a map showing the location of the test pits. Logs must include
the depth, depth to water, evidence of seasonal high groundwater elevation, existing ground surface
elevation, proposed facility bottom elevation, and presence of stratification that may impact the
infiltration design.
PIT reports shall be stamped by a Professional Engineer or prepared by an onsite wastewater treatment
designer licensed with the State of Washington.
Infiltration Test
• Excavate the test pit to the depth of the bottom of the proposed infiltration facility. Lay
back or otherwise stabilize the slopes sufficiently to avoid caving and erosion during the
test. A pre-formed, bottomless box made of plywood can be useful for limiting the size
of the excavation.
• The size of the bottom of the test pit should be as close to the size of the planned
infiltration facility as possible, but not less than 2 feet by 2 feet. Where water
availability is a problem, smaller areas may be considered as determined by the site
professional.
• Accurately document the size and geometry of the test pit.
• Install a device capable of measuring the water level in the pit during the test. This may
be a pressure transducer (automatic measurements) or a vertical measuring rod
(minimum 5 feet long) marked in half-inch increments in the center of the pit bottom
(manual measurements).
• Use a rigid 6-inch-diameter pipe with a splash plate or some other device on the bottom
of the pit to reduce side-wall erosion and excessive disturbance of the pit bottom.
Excessive erosion and disturbance may result in clogging and yield lower than actual
infiltration rates.
• Add water to the pit at a rate that will maintain a water level between 3 and 4 feet above
the bottom of the pit.
Note: A water level of 3 to 4 feet provides for easier measurement and flow stabilization control.
However, the depth should not exceed the proposed maximum depth of water expected in the completed
facility.
Every 15 to 30 minutes, record the cumulative volume and instantaneous flow rate in gallons per minute
necessary to maintain the water level at the same point (between 3 and 4 feet) on the measuring rod. This
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 69
Packet Page 395 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
can best be accomplished with an in-flow meter. It can also be accomplished by timing how long it takes
to fill a known volume such as a 5-gallon bucket.
Add water to the pit until 1 hour after the flow rate into the pit has stabilized (constant flow rate) while
maintaining the same pond water level (usually 17 hours).
After the flow rate has stabilized, turn off the water and record the rate of infiltration in inches per hour
using the pressure transducer or measuring rod, until the pit is empty.
Data Analysis
Calculate and record the infiltration rate in inches per hour until 1 hour after the flow has stabilized.
Note: Use statistical/trend analysis to obtain the hourly flow rate when the flow stabilizes. This would be
the lowest hourly flow rate.
Apply Correction Factor
The infiltration rate obtained from the PIT shall be considered to be a short-term rate. This “short-term”
rate must be reduced through correction factors to account for site variability and number of tests
conducted, degree of long-term maintenance and influent pretreatment/control, and potential for long-
term clogging due to siltation and bio-buildup. The corrected infiltration rate is considered the “long-
term” or “design” infiltration rate and is used for all BMP sizing calculations.
One exception to the requirement for a correction factor applies to bioretention facilities. Specifically,
when imported bioretention soil is used, no correction factor is required for the infiltration rate of the
underlying native soil.
A minimum infiltration rate correction factor of 2.0 is required for all facilities designed using the
PIT method. Correction factors greater than 2.0 should be considered for situations where long-term
maintenance will be difficult to implement, where little or no pretreatment is anticipated, or where site
conditions are highly variable or uncertain. These situations require the use of best professional judgment
by the site engineer and the approval by the City of Edmonds. The typical range of correction factors to
account for these issues, based on Ecology’s guidance, is summarized in Table C-2. In no case shall the
design infiltration rate exceed 10 inches per hour.
Table C-2: Correction Factors to be Used With In-Situ Infiltration Measurements to Estimate Long-Term
Design Infiltration Rates
Issue Partial Correction Factor
Site variability and number of locations tested CFv = 1.5 to 6
Degree of long-term maintenance to prevent siltation and bio-buildup CFm = 2 to 6
Degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup CFi = 2 to 6
Total Correction Factor (CF) = CFv + CFm + CFi
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 70
Packet Page 396 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
The following discussions are to provide assistance in determining the partial correction factors that may
apply.
Site variability and number of locations tested – The number of locations tested must be capable of
producing a picture of the subsurface conditions that fully represents the conditions throughout the facility
site. The partial correction factor used for this issue depends on the level of uncertainty that adverse
subsurface conditions may occur. If the range of uncertainty is low—for example, conditions are known
to be uniform through previous exploration and site geological factors—one pilot infiltration test may be
adequate to justify a partial correction factor at the low end of the range. If the level of uncertainty is high,
a partial correction factor near the high end of the range may be appropriate. This might be the case where
the site conditions are highly variable due to a deposit of ancient landslide debris, or buried stream
channels. In these cases, even with many explorations and several pilot infiltration tests, the level of
uncertainty may still be high. A partial correction factor near the high end of the range could be assigned
where conditions have a more typical variability, but few explorations and only one pilot infiltration test
is conducted. That is, the number of explorations and tests conducted do not match the degree of site
variability anticipated.
Degree of long-term maintenance to prevent siltation and bio-buildup – a partial correction factor at
the low end of the range may be used if there is certainty that maintenance requirements will be carried
out consistently. If there is a high degree of uncertainty that long-term maintenance will be carried out
consistently, or if the maintenance plan is poorly defined, a partial correction factor near the high end of
the range may be justified.
Degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup – A partial correction factor near the
high end of the range may be justified under the following circumstances:
• If the infiltration facility is located in a shady area where moss buildup or litter fall
buildup from the surrounding vegetation is likely and cannot be easily controlled
through long-term maintenance
• If there is minimal pre-treatment, and the influent is likely to contain moderately high
TSS levels.
If influent into the facility can be well controlled such that the planned long-term maintenance can easily
control siltation and biomass buildup, then a partial correction factor near the low end of the range may be
justified.
The determination of long-term design infiltration rates from in-situ infiltration test data involves a
considerable amount of engineering judgment. Therefore, when reviewing or determining the final long-
term design infiltration rate, the local jurisdictional authority should consider the results of both textural
analyses and in-situ infiltration tests results when available.
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 71
Packet Page 397 of 465
APRIL 2010 EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE SUPPLEMENT
dj /08-04140-000 edmonds stormwater supplement.doc APPENDIX C 72
Example:
The area of the bottom of the test pit is 8.5 feet by 11.5 feet.
Water flow rate was measured and recorded at intervals ranging from 15 to 30 minutes throughout the
test. Between 400 minutes and 1,000 minutes, the flow rate stabilized between 10 and 12.5 gallons per
minute or 600 to 750 gallons per hour, or an average of (9.8 + 12.3) / 2 = 11.1 inches per hour.
Applying at least the minimum correction factor of 2.0 (example only) the design long-term infiltration
rate becomes 5.6 inches per hour, anticipating adequate maintenance and pre-treatment.
Packet Page 398 of 465
1 1
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
d
e
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
fo
r
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
u
n
o
f
f
f
r
o
m
N
e
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
R ed
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
,
2
0
1
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
39
9
of
46
5
2 2
Wh
a
t
i
s
a
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
d
e
?
Wh
a
t
i
s
a
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
d
e
?
••
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
:
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
:
––
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Co
n
t
r
o
l
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
o
f
f
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
o
f
f
fr
o
m
:
fr
o
m
:
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
Ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
––
To
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
:
To
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
:
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
s
)
f
r
o
m
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
s
)
f
r
o
m
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
or
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
or
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
Th
e
Th
e
qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
o
u
r
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
s
qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
o
u
r
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
s
fr
o
m
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
fr
o
m
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
or
o
t
h
e
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
or
o
t
h
e
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
o
f
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
o
f
ex
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
f
l
o
w
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
u
s
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
ex
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
f
l
o
w
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
u
s
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
0
of
46
5
3 3
Wh
y
t
h
e
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
?
Wh
y
t
h
e
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
?
••
De
p
t
.
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
I
s
s
u
e
d
De
p
t
.
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
I
s
s
u
e
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
to
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
a
n
d
8
0
+
to
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
a
n
d
8
0
+
ot
h
e
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
.
ot
h
e
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
.
In
t
e
n
t
:
In
t
e
n
t
:
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
wa
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
wa
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
b
y
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
o
f
,
b
y
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
o
f
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
••
Co
d
e
L
a
s
t
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
1
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
g
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
Co
d
e
L
a
s
t
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
1
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
g
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
sc
i
e
n
c
e
o
f
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
sc
i
e
n
c
e
o
f
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
ch
a
n
g
e
d
a
l
o
t
i
n
t
h
a
t
t
i
m
e
.
ch
a
n
g
e
d
a
l
o
t
i
n
t
h
a
t
t
i
m
e
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
1
of
46
5
4 4
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
••
La
r
g
e
S
i
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
>
=
1
a
c
r
e
)
La
r
g
e
S
i
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
>
=
1
a
c
r
e
)
––
Pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
r
e
l
y
o
n
t
h
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
2
0
0
5
Pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
r
e
l
y
o
n
t
h
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
2
0
0
5
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
u
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
u
a
l
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
--
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
“e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
”
a
n
d
L
I
D
M
a
n
u
a
l
s
.
“e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
”
a
n
d
L
I
D
M
a
n
u
a
l
s
.
••
Sm
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Sm
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
––
up
d
a
t
e
d
up
d
a
t
e
d
––
Al
l
o
w
s
L
I
D
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
Al
l
o
w
s
L
I
D
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
)
pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
)
––
Mo
r
e
p
r
e
Mo
r
e
p
r
e
--
si
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
r
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
si
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
r
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
in
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
d
r
y
w
e
l
l
s
)
in
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
d
r
y
w
e
l
l
s
)
––
Up
d
a
t
e
d
s
i
z
i
n
g
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
o
d
e
r
n
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
m
o
d
e
l
s
Up
d
a
t
e
d
s
i
z
i
n
g
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
o
d
e
r
n
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
m
o
d
e
l
s
••
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Mo
r
e
C
h
o
i
c
e
s
Mo
r
e
C
h
o
i
c
e
s
&
&
Up
d
a
t
e
d
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Up
d
a
t
e
d
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
2
of
46
5
5 5
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
F
l
o
w
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
F
l
o
w
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
m
o
r
e
Sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
m
o
r
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
e
t
o
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
e
t
o
mo
r
e
m
o
d
e
r
n
mo
r
e
m
o
d
e
r
n
co
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
method method
Al
l
s
i
t
e
s
:
M
a
t
c
h
1
0
Al
l
s
i
t
e
s
:
M
a
t
c
h
1
0
--
yr
e
v
e
n
t
yr
e
v
e
n
t
pr
e
pr
e
--
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Sm
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
Sm
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
>2
,
0
0
0
b
u
t
<
5
,
0
0
0
s
o
>2
,
0
0
0
b
u
t
<
5
,
0
0
0
s
o
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
m
o
r
e
Sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
m
o
r
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
e
t
o
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
u
e
t
o
mo
r
e
m
o
d
e
r
n
mo
r
e
m
o
d
e
r
n
co
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
method method
--
La
k
e
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
:
M
a
t
c
h
2
La
k
e
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
:
M
a
t
c
h
2
--
,
1
0
,
,
1
0
,
10
0
10
0
--
yr
e
v
e
n
t
p
r
e
yr
e
v
e
n
t
p
r
e
--
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
--
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
:
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
:
Ma
t
c
h
1
0
,
1
0
0
Ma
t
c
h
1
0
,
1
0
0
--
yr
e
v
e
n
t
p
r
e
yr
e
v
e
n
t
p
r
e
--
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Sm
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
s
>
=
5
,
0
0
0
Sm
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
s
>
=
5
,
0
0
0
so
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
so
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
Mo
r
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
Mo
r
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
Me
e
t
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
P
e
r
m
i
t
Me
e
t
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
P
e
r
m
i
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
La
r
g
e
S
i
t
e
s
La
r
g
e
S
i
t
e
s
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
i
n
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
d
e
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
i
n
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
d
e
Ty
p
e
Ty
p
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
3
of
46
5
6 6
Ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
s
Ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
s
••
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
'
s
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
'
s
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
p
e
r
m
i
t
:
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
p
e
r
m
i
t
:
––
“R
e
l
i
e
f
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
“R
e
l
i
e
f
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
”
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
”
••
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
P
e
r
m
i
t
v
e
r
y
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
:
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
P
e
r
m
i
t
v
e
r
y
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
:
––
Le
g
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
on
Le
g
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
on
––
Le
g
a
l
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
on
Le
g
a
l
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
on
––
Wr
i
t
t
e
n
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
f
a
c
t
t
h
a
t
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
Wr
i
t
t
e
n
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
f
a
c
t
t
h
a
t
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
••
Ci
t
y
’
s
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
i
s
a
p
p
e
a
s
a
b
l
e
t
o
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
’
s
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
i
s
a
p
p
e
a
s
a
b
l
e
t
o
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
b
y
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
y
.
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
b
y
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
y
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
4
of
46
5
7 7
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
••
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
o
d
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
o
d
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
al
l
al
l
pr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
i
v
a
t
e
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
t
o
b
e
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
t
o
b
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
by by
pr
i
v
a
t
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
pr
i
v
a
t
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
..
••
Al
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
Al
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
in
s
p
e
c
t
in
s
p
e
c
t
th
e
s
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
th
e
s
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
f
re
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
f
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
m
e
t
.
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
m
e
t
.
••
Th
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
o
n
I
l
l
i
c
i
t
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
C
o
d
e
(
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
Th
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
o
n
I
l
l
i
c
i
t
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
C
o
d
e
(
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
7.
2
0
0
)
,
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
m
e
i
n
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
,
7.
2
0
0
)
,
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
m
e
i
n
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
,
if
a
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
i
s
if
a
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
i
s
ca
u
s
i
n
g
a
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
ca
u
s
i
n
g
a
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
pr
o
b
l
e
m
pr
o
b
l
e
m
an
d
an
d
ch
a
r
g
e
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
ch
a
r
g
e
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
fo
r
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
.
fo
r
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
5
of
46
5
8 8
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
?
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
?
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
6
of
46
5
AM-2998 9.
Possible Purchase of Skipper's Property
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public comment regarding possible purchase of Skipper's property.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Public comment will be received regarding the possible purchase of the Skipper's property.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 03:01 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 05:35 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/16/2010 09:04 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/15/2010 02:35
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/16/2010
Packet Page 407 of 465
AM-2917 10.
Public Comment on Budget Cuts
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public comment on budget cuts.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Council will take public comment on budget cuts.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/13/2010 11:56 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/14/2010 04:46 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/14/2010 02:16 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 03/18/2010 09:23
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/14/2010
Packet Page 408 of 465
AM-2949 11.
Council Review of Levy Options
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:45 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Council review of levy options.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Council Review of Levy Options
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 4-21-09 Approved City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 2 - 4-28-09_Approved City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 3 - 5-5-09 Approved City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 4 - 5-19-09 Approved City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 5 - 6-16-09 City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 6 - 6-23-09_Approved City Council Minutes
Link: Attach 7 - 7-21-09_Approved City Council Minu
Link: Attach 8 - 7-28-09_Approved City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 12:11 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/01/2010 08:56
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 409 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 4
$435,000. He noted this was not a windfall to the budget as Fire Chief Tomberg had anticipated this
change although it was approximately $100,000 more than budgeted.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PRESENTATION ON LEVY
Mayor Haakenson explained as reported two weeks ago, the 2009 budget situation was resolved for the
near term with budget cuts previously announced, furloughs agreed to by City employees and other
adjustments he outlined in his last report. This was predicated on no further declines in 2009 revenue
streams. He emphasized the City would not have reached this point without the agreement by all City
employees on furloughs or other give-backs. The City’s employees agreed to these pay losses in order to
protect less senior employees from layoffs; they care about the City and its residents. He cautioned
simply because a way was found to survive the immediate crisis for 2009, next year and the following
years would bring a far worse financial situation. He recognized the Council was aware of this and
thanked them for their plan to go to the voters in November with a levy request.
He explained the Council chose this course of action during the budget process last November rather than
make serious budget cuts at that time. Unfortunately, many of the cuts that were averted at that time have
been made this year anyway in order to make up for lost revenue due to the economy. The Council
affirmed their intension to move forward with a levy several times this year and the recent four-week
exercise with the Citizen Levy Review Committee (CLRC) was the first step in that process. He thanked
Council President Wilson for the effort and hours he put into that exercise.
While City staff cannot lobby on behalf of the levy, they play an integral part in the process and did an
amazing amount of work in preparation as well as added four more night meetings to their already full
schedules. He also thanked the 60+ citizens who gave up four nights to attend the meetings to grasp the
situation in a short timeframe and for taking an interest in the City and how it operates.
When asked by Council President Wilson to identify a dollar amount needed for the levy, staff took many
things into consideration. They saw their task as outlining what was needed to operate the City for the
next five years. They did not seek any new employees or new programs, only maintaining the existing
provision of services. Staff viewed this as an operation levy; not exciting but basic. The first effort was
to increase the ending cash balance to a level acceptable by normal accounting standards; approximately
one month’s worth of cash to pay bills, an amount the City has not had in decades. Next, consideration
was given to items and personnel cuts from the budget over the past nine years that were still necessary
for the provision of City services in the future. Staff also considered what was new that would benefit in
the provision of City services; all the new items were in the area of Information Technology (IT). As past
budgets have been cut, a long list of IT needs have also not been included in the budget. The amount staff
identified was $4.5 million which was the amount the CLRC used as a starting point. This amount would
see the City through approximately 2016. He acknowledged the Levy Work Groups identified different
scenarios, taking the City through different years.
Mayor Haakenson explained once the levy work groups made their reports and the Council selected a
levy amount, staff would work with that number to itemize what will be included in the levy. Staff will
also develop a list of cuts if the levy were to fail.
Mayor Haakenson commented there appeared to be some confusion by the levy work groups regarding
what budget cuts would be made if a smaller levy amount were selected. He explained a smaller levy
amount did not include budget cuts; it simply brought the recurring problem back at an earlier year,
Packet Page 410 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 5
perhaps 2013 or 2014 rather than 2016. He summarized staff viewed this as an operational levy to allow
the continued provision of essential City services through 2016.
4. PRESENTATION FROM CITIZEN LEVY REVIEW COMMITTEE
Council President Wilson expressed his thanks to the Edmonds Beacon for allowing the teams from the
Citizen Levy Review Committee (CLRC) space to present their views. He thanked Councilmember
Wambolt for his active participation, as well as Councilmembers Peterson, Olson, Plunkett and Bernheim
for their participation.
Green Team
Bruce Witenberg introduced the team members: Dianne Hanna, Kristiana Johnson, Ray Martin, Darlene
McLellan, David Thorpe, Robert Van Tassal and Jim Young. He expressed their thanks to the Mayor,
staff, Council President Wilson and Councilmember Wambolt for the enormous amount of work, time
and effort providing information and documentation to the CLRC. Their team believes life as they know
it in the City of Edmonds hangs in the balance. The City can no longer rely on doing business as usual if
Edmonds kinds of days are to continue and maintain the quality of life to which citizens are accustomed.
They believe the time has come for the City Council to work together with the Mayor to solve the serious
financial problems that threaten the City. The City Council needs to put aside politics, special interests
and personal agendas and immediately begin a collaborative effort for the benefit of the community. That
effort must begin without delay and begin work on an economic development plan for every geographic
area of the City that will generate new sources of revenue. The City Council must seriously consider
compromises on design guidelines, building heights, zoning and planning which will implement
economic and revenue-generating growth.
The Green Team believes the City needs to have a less parochial view and instead the City Council must
create a more comprehensive citywide agenda. In order to thrive, Edmonds must have a change in its
culture of thought. Seven members of the Green Team support a six-year levy proposal running through
2016 not to exceed $4.3 million per year. Member Ray Martin supports a maximum $3.35 million levy
for 2 years. The Green Team does not propose additional budget cuts at this time but support the levy to
maintain current levels of public safety, public assets, sense of community and quality of life.
The entire team implores the City Council to work with the Mayor to immediately begin to develop and
implement a plan to consider and capture all prudent revenue sources in order to avoid reductions in
public safety services and parks, recreation and cultural services; pay of necessary capital improvements;
create more effective City planning and streamline City processes; and enhance economic development.
Team Member Kristiana Johnson raised a concern about the City’s transportation budget, indicating the
proposed Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan identified capital needs that should not be
ignored.
The Green Team supports increasing the financial information available to the public and continuing to
make it transparent which will enhance citizen support for the levy. He cautioned their support of the
levy was not unconditional; they expect the City Council to unanimously support the levy. The Council’s
unanimous support will send a message to the CLRC that their work was not in vain, to the community
that the Council desires to be part of the solution and not perpetuate the economic problems, to citizens
that financial sacrifice they are being asked to make by supporting the levy were recognized and that the
financial sacrifice union and non-union employees made to preserve the City’s quality of life were
recognized. They implored the Council to strive for unanimity in developing and implementing an
economic development plan to increase revenue and preserve quality of life of this community. They
recognized a levy was a short lifetime to accomplish this process. The time to change the culture of
thought in the community begins tonight and they hoped the Council was up to the challenge.
Packet Page 411 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 6
David Thorpe explained the Green Team came away with a stark understanding of the City’s financial
situation. Without question, they believe revenue generation through economic development must be
done by looking at creative ways to provide for ongoing City services, maintaining the infrastructure and
funding capital projects. They urged the City to explore potential consolidations of some services through
interlocal agreements with surrounding cities where feasible and effective. Public/private partnerships as
well as non-profits should also be considered where prudent. The City must continue to expand
applications for grants for infrastructure and capital improvements and reconsider a staff position that
includes applying for grants. The City and staff have made positive steps and must continue the process
of making economic development in the City more user friendly without advocating the necessary
oversight such as tighter, cleaner, more clear codes, continued development of design guidelines and
consideration of building heights, zoning and planning with fresh eyes.
The City must enhance its major assets such as the waterfront and parks, recreation and cultural services
without ignoring development in areas such as Five Corners, Firdale, Westgate, Highway 99 corridor,
Perrinville and the hospital district. Through four meetings and a total of ten hours, all teams endorsed
some type of levy. The Green Team saw the need for a new course. The culture of thought must change
with regard to the budget, revenue generation, and expenditures. Citizens enjoy a unique quality of life in
Edmonds but realize it does not come cheap. The Council must act in unity and immediately begin
development of an economic plan for the City. The Council must be better at explaining cause and effect
and communicate to citizens what services and jobs will be lost if the levy fails. The City is at a financial
crossroads and needs vision and leadership.
Blue Team
Steve Burkett introduced the team members: Rick Bader, Wendy Harrison, Scott Hopper, Dave Page,
Evan Pierce, Dave Vincent and Anne Sorley. He summarized the Blue Team recognized the City did not
have an expenditure problem. The City was becoming too dependent on property taxes as a source of
revenue, and they recommended diversifying revenue sources particularly from retail sales tax. Based on
their review of financial and other information regarding the City’s current and projected financial status,
they concluded the City did not have an excess expenditure problem; per capita expenditures were lower
than the average of comparable cities in the region. Total City staffing is also below the average of other
cities, lower than needed to provide the services the community desires.
The Blue Team concluded there was a need for increased revenues to fund highest priority services and
maintain prudent financial reserves but did not believe the proposed levy lid lift of $4.3 million was the
appropriate response to the financial crisis. That amount represents approximately a 33% increase in the
property taxes paid to the City and other agencies may also propose increases such as a proposed increase
in the State sales tax. In the current financial environment, the Blue Team recommends a minimum
amount of increased taxes to allow time to develop a more long lasting solution to the structural budget
problem; a shorter timeframe to accomplish things the Green Team described. The Blue Team
recommends a levy lid lift of $2 million be placed on the November ballot. They believed the smaller
amount had a better chance of approval by voters and would allow the City to fund highest priority
services through the next three years. The additional funding would also allow the City to maintain
adequate reserves in these challenging financial times. Recognizing their proposal as a short term
financial bandaid, they believed it was important to take this small step and use the breathing room to
substantially change the way the City does business and manages it finances.
The Blue Team recommended the Mayor, Council, staff and community accomplish the following
specific goals during the next 18-24 months:
1. Adopt and implement a strategic plan for City government that outlines vision, priorities, and
goals.
Packet Page 412 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 7
2. Develop and maintain a long-range, six-year financial plan that supports the strategic plan that
outlines projected revenues and expenditures and required cash balances and reserves.
3. Develop and implement a specific economic development plan to increase property tax and sales
tax revenue generated in areas such as downtown and Highway 99.
4. Adopt financial policies that should include the six year financial plan, reserves and
contingencies, CIP policies, and debt policies including practical limits.
5. Rebuild and maintain adequate General Fund reserves.
6. Pursue the Regional Fire Authority.
7. Periodically conduct a survey of residents’ satisfaction with City services and priorities.
8. Implement a performance management system that includes specific departmental outcomes and
performance measures linked to the strategic plan.
He summarized Edmonds citizens chose to live in Edmonds because they were attracted by its unique
location and quality of life and understand the importance of quality City facilities and services to that
quality of life. Citizens expect to pay City taxes comparable to other similarly attractive communities.
He relayed their concern with the increasing dependence on residential property taxes to support City
services. Currently property taxes comprise 41% of the City’s General Fund revenue; the 1% cap on
property tax increases makes it imperative to diversify the City’s revenue sources and develop alternatives
such as sales tax. He pointed out Edmonds currently collected approximately $6 million in sales tax or
$155/capita, substantially below the average city in the State. If Edmonds collected the average of other
cities, approximately $1.8 million more revenue could be generated. He pointed out Edmonds property
tax rate was 60% higher than Kirkland and Kirkland generates twice the sales tax, $6 million more than
Edmonds.
Grey Team
Bill Keppler introduced the team members: John McGibbon, Michelle Ruis, Beverly Theunis, Steve
Tholl and Dan White. They thanked the Council and staff who worked so assiduously to present
documentation to the CLRC. In addition to attending the four meetings, team members spent in excess of
80 hours on research, looking at different demographic projections and conducting a great deal of
statistical analysis. The Grey Team unanimously recommends a levy that would raise a certain amount
per year for three years to help support the City’s operational mandates and ending balance requirements.
The levy should result in a concomitant and manageable shortfall to be financed through other City
revenue capabilities such as increased service user fees, service reductions, increased volunteerism and
especially a new economic development plan. The tension between levy and shortfall amounts encourage
citizens, City employees and Councilmembers to collaboratively and squarely face the basic problem of
residential-based funding and deal with it creatively. By their analysis of the present City forecasts, the
levy amount should be $3 million with stipulations for a sunset clause and no new programs.
They recognized City budget shortages were not without context, such as the current national economy,
tax revenue competition among levels of government and local voting history. Close citizen involvement
should be ongoing via committee participation with the Mayor and City Council on budgetary plans and
decisions. Efforts are needed to provide citizens with a better in-depth, local demographic comparisons
and statistical analysis to base informative public dialogue on tax affordability and voting decisions.
They agreed there was a substantial revenue shortfall and not a spending problem in the City. He
provided a quote from Mark Twain, “we are stretching a gnat’s abdomen over a rain barrel.”
Orange Team
Eric Radcliffe introduced the team members: Natalie Shippen, Dick Van Hollebeke, Mark Porter, Don
Hall, Janice Freeman and John Dewhirst. He relayed the majority opinion of the Orange Team, 6 of 7
votes, to recommend a $3.5 million levy be forwarded to the citizens of Edmonds in November 2009.
The Orange Team recommendation is based on the premise that the City Council and the Mayor seriously
commit the City’s resources to broaden the tax base of Edmonds. This effort must commence on or
Packet Page 413 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 8
before July 2009 prior to putting the levy to a vote. Economic development needs to be improved in all
geographic areas of Edmonds including Firdale, Highway 99, Five Corners, downtown core, Perrinville,
Westgate, other new potential areas as well as redevelopment of the waterfront. Economic development
shall focus on retail, office, arts, hospital/healthcare, and related facilities along with potential for light
industry at the Port. If enacted, a minimum of $500,000 of the levy funds shall be used for proactive
economic development activities to broaden the tax base in Edmonds.
The one minority opinion on the Team recommended the Mayor and City Council keep the City’s annual
budget at acceptable levels of revenues and expenditures. Bailing out the Mayor and Council encourages
bad habits. The proposed expenditures do not include any items that look to the future, merely tread
water for seven years. It takes a lot of brass for elected officials to ask residents for a property tax
increase while not availing themselves of the full array of taxing tools.
Pink Team
Tim Jones introduced the team members: John Bennett, Dale Hoggins, Don Eager, Jill Gradwohl, and
Marilyn Brown. They thanked the Council for the unique opportunity to understand the issues the City
faces and staff for their effort in support of this process. The Pink Team agreed the biggest issue facing
the City was revenue and property taxes would not solve that problem. Reducing non-mandatory services
does not help and jeopardizes many of the reasons citizens moved here and stay here and can also affect
the desire of others to locate here. In the short term the City needs to survive to another Edmonds kind of
day. They unanimously recommended the Council put to the citizens a levy of $4 million for a period of
six years. The Council and Mayor must explore additional sources of revenue focusing on economic
development and appropriate fee increases. The levy should restore expected 2009 budget cuts including
but not limited to the Senior Center and Yost Pool.
The Pink Team did not support the introduction of gaming establishments as a means of revenue gain.
The planned shortfall in the sixth year was left as a stick for the Mayor and Council to find funding
alternatives. Improvements in the economy and increased City revenues did not relieve the City or Mayor
from the burden of replacing the levy with other sources of revenue.
Yellow Team
Bea O’Rourke introduced the team members: Michael Bowman, Diane Buckshnis, Priya Cloutier,
Daniel McMillin, Susan Phillips, Elizabeth Scott and Richard Senderoff. She relayed their thanks to staff
for their hard work and time spent with the CLRC. The majority of the Yellow Team recommends a $3.7
million levy to fund the City through 2014 with the caveat that a Budget Planning Committee be formed
within 60 days and their first meeting to occur within 90 days. The Committee should be comprised of 5-
7 citizens and at least 1 Councilmember and staff member as liaisons. They supported a levy but believe
the Council must plan and develop and did not believe that would occur if the full levy were granted. The
Budget Planning Committee would:
1. Evaluate non-revenue generating programs to determine whether they could become revenue
generating or establish plans for making programs revenue generating.
2. Evaluate potential revenue generating programs.
3. Develop a comprehensive plan that supports existing businesses and brings new businesses to
Edmonds to develop and increase the tax base.
4. Report to the Council on a quarterly basis to ensure transparency of the budget process.
Daniel McMillin relayed the Yellow Team’s minority opinion by Elizabeth Scott who supported
forming a Budget Planning Committee, stated raising taxes in whatever form takes a person’s hard-earned
money which results in lower revenue because that person now had less to spend on items and services.
A reduction in taxes results in economic growth as was seen in the 1920’s and 1980’s and in other
countries such as New Zealand where a 50% reduction in property taxes in 1984 resulted in an immediate
Packet Page 414 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 9
increase in tax revenue due to economic growth. Therefore cutting taxes, including property taxes, would
be better for the City financially.
Red Team
Jim Crim introduced the team members: Kerry St. Clair-Ayers, Roger Hertrich, Dennis Lowenthal,
Susan Paine, Walter Peale, and Tina Vincent. He emphasized the City did not have a spending crisis but
was experiencing a revenue crisis. The City needed to increase revenues and give economic development
more than lip service and do so quickly. Every program must be closely examined for the potential of
increased revenue and every new revenue source must be aggressively pursued. During that period the
City shall endeavor to create and implement new long and short term revenue production and all city
programs evaluated for additional revenue sources to implement a sustainable future.
Roger Hertrich presented the Red Team’s minority opinion. He expressed support for a levy of $1.1
million for each of 3 years for a total of $3.3 million to cover the revenue shortfall of $1.1 million on a
temporary, limited basis and to make the levy saleable to the public. He pointed out because other
agencies may be requesting increases and the current economy made residents hesitant to spend, a smaller
amount and a shorter time period increased the possibility of approval. He recommended continued
efforts to economize the City including the following service cuts: eliminate K9 police services, reduce
the Park Director by half, transfer Stephen Clifton to Community Service Director, turn Yost Pool over to
a non-profit organization, and eliminate the fiber optic consultant.
Mr. Crim relayed the Red Team’s majority position as reported in the Edmonds Beacon, a levy for city
operations in the amount of $4.5 million for a term of not less than 5 years.
Purple Team
Phil Lovell introduced the team members: Kathleen Dewhirst, Robert Freeman, Linda Lyshall, Denise
Schaefer, Monda Van Hollebeke, and Judy Stead. The majority of the Purple Team supports the levy as
outlined during the April 6 and 13th meetings and recommends next steps be taken toward an appropriate
ballot measure in November 2009. They understand the proposal as described in its currently projected
full amount of $4.3 million will help assure maintaining current levels of City facilities, departments, and
services until 2016. The measure is also intended to restore a budgeting parameter recommended to the
City toward maintaining an adequate cash balance at the end of each fiscal year. In addition, they
requested the City Council develop a longer term vision for Edmonds with goals to achieve this vision
that are fiscally sustainable and environmentally responsible; more specifically, that the budget makeup
and particulars should be tied to the achievement of these goals toward fulfilling this vision. Such goals
should include establishing a larger and more diverse tax base as well as other verifiable revenue
generation programs.
Although they understood that past property tax legislation in Washington and recessive economic
conditions contributed to the current crisis mode, they believed the City was lacking proactive
maintenance of consistent and unified fiscal planning and action. They recommended the Council focus
more on the achievement and maintenance of a fiscally sustainable Edmonds to the benefit of all citizens
and taxpayers. They recognized the largest and most sustainable tax base in the City was real estate and
recommended developing and maintaining a more diversified tax base plus revenue generation vehicles to
supplement this large residential base and thereby bring greater sustainability and predictability to the
revenue side of the City’s budgeting cycles.
As part of preparing for the upcoming levy vote, the Mayor and/or Council shall spell out in clear
language the scope, cost basis and duration of what Edmonds will be losing should the levy vote fail.
This information shall be promulgated to every voting citizen within the city and followed up with public
informational meetings so that voters are well-informed prior to the November ballot.
Packet Page 415 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 10
In the event the proposed levy includes budget cuts made since the start of fiscal year 2009, the scope and
duration and those cuts shall be made clear to the voters ahead of the November ballot. He referred to an
attachment that contained suggested immediate, short term and long term revenue generation potentials
developed by the Purple Team for study and follow-up by the City.
Council President Wilson commented the teams’ recommendations included two fundamental messages,
1) the need to pass a levy between $2 – $4.3 million, and 2) the Council should not dawdle in figuring out
the City’s financial difficulties. He expressed his appreciation to the participants in the CLRC for their
level of sincere engagement. He pointed out everyone who applied to participate on the CLRC was
accepted and anyone who joined during the process was invited to participate. He summarized the
recommendations did not reflect a hand picked opinion but represented the community’s viewpoint.
Councilmember Wambolt echoed Council President Wilson’s comments. To those who believed the levy
lid lift increase was only being sought because of the current economy, he clarified the problem should
have been addressed at least two years ago. The actions Mayor Haakenson took on March 13 were to
address the current economic situation. He referred to the recommendation by several groups that the
City should pursue more revenue from sales tax, pointing out communities that typically collected more
sales tax than Edmonds such as Lynnwood were also suffering in this economy. He agreed the City
needed to expand the opportunity for sales tax but pointed out the City needed to take other actions as
well. He referred to the sales tax, property tax, REET, etc. the City collected from Pt. Edwards, which
illustrate the benefits of additional real estate development. He summarized the Council would work on
identifying additional revenue but there was no easy solution.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the 60+ people and staff for their time and effort. He agreed with
Council President Wilson that the two themes were a levy of some size was needed and the Council and
City government needed to identify long term solutions and diversification. He pointed out the City could
not rely on short term gains or one time funds such as those provided by development of Pt. Edwards. A
third common theme was transparency and ensuring what the Council did was out in the open and that
there was a great deal of public participation; the CLRC was the first step in that effort.
4A. REPORT BY LABOR UNION
Council President Wilson recalled he extended the offer to all bargaining units and non-represented
employees to speak to the Council.
Steve Harbinson, President, Edmonds Police Officers Association, expressed his thanks to the CLRC,
noting Police Officers Association Vice President Linda Mack attended a majority of the meetings and he
attended the final meeting. He agreed with the comments and recommendations of the CLRC teams, that
action needed to be taken immediately.
He relayed an often used phrase by Police Chief Compaan, “perception is reality,” commenting the
following was the reality of the Edmonds Police Officers Association. Not only did Edmonds Officers
agree to give some of their pay back to the City; several live in the City and will be impacted again by the
levy. Officer safety was one of their biggest concerns; Edmonds has approximately 1.32 officers per
1,000. The standard from the National Police Chiefs Association is 2.0 officers per 1,000 and another
standards used in Washington is 1.8 officers per 1,000. He pointed out response times would increase if
police officers were cut, particularly if the levy did not pass. As an example, yesterday the Police
Department was at basic minimum staffing due to training and was required to elicit help from Lynnwood
because of a bank robbery and domestic violence situation that occurred simultaneously. Although
Edmonds has a small town image, he noted the city has its share of criminal activity including two
officers who were shot at last year.
Packet Page 416 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 11
Officer Harbinson commented he had been employed by the City for 14 years but many officers have
been with the City for 25-30+ years. He referred to missed opportunities in the past such as annexing the
Aurora Village area that would have generated millions in taxes. He recommended streamlining building
permits, commenting they often hear from businesses that want to locate in Edmonds but are frustrated
with the amount of time and the cost to obtain permits. He recommended the City consider the potential
purchase of the Fire Department by Fire District 1. If that action were taken, he recommended the
furlough days be discontinued.
Officer Harbinson recognized a levy was necessary to keep the City afloat, pointing out in the past 14
years the City had done nothing to promote new businesses. He recommended consideration be given to
casinos, particularly if legislation is approved allowing cities to site casinos in certain zones. There is a
casino approximately 85 feet from the city limits in Mountlake Terrace and the Police Department’s
involvement with its patrons has been very limited. He acknowledged the popularity of casinos was
diminishing and in the current economy, people were not spending money at casinos at past rates.
He recommended the City “quit spending money like a drunken sailor,” pointing out the City’s purchase
of land in front of Quizno’s for approximately $250,000, the same amount Police Department employees
were giving back, and the installation of an electrical car plug in the parking lot at a cost of $20,000 to
$50,000. He urged the City and the Council to put aside their differences and do what was needed. He
acknowledged being a Councilmember was a thankless job much like being a Police Officer; most people
did not want to see a police officer until they called 911.
He referred to building heights and developers’ inability to develop at the waterfront and downtown and
to expand car dealerships on Hwy. 99. If the Council had the ability to do so now, he urged them to raise
building heights by 3 – 5 feet. Regardless of whether Councilmembers were running for reelection or
seeking the Mayor’s position, he implored them to work together, to put their differences aside for the
betterment of the City and the tax paying citizens who must bail out the City.
Council President Wilson thanked Officer Harbinson for his frankness and for taking the time to talk to
the Council. At the CLRC he learned the following regarding Police Department staffing: Lynnwood,
with a population of 36,000 has 79 uniformed officers or 2.2/1,000 compared to Edmonds, with a
population of 41,000, has 55 uniformed officers or 1.35/1,000. Of the ten cities Edmonds is compared to,
Edmonds ranks at the bottom in terms of police per capita.
5. DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING THE 2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
Council President Wilson reiterated the CLRC teams agreed a levy was needed and the City needed to
work on economic development. Councilmember Peterson and he drafted the proposed resolution as the
next step in the levy process. He advised the public would have two opportunities to comment on the
resolution prior to the Council taking a vote on May 19. He summarized the resolution directs staff to
prepare two levy options for presentation to and consideration by the Council on June 2:
1. A $3.75 million general operations levy that would be reflective of the work done to date by the
CLRC and the internal City levy work group. He noted $3.75 million was approximately the
average of the CLRC’s recommendations.
2. A 3.75 million parks, public safety and families levy that would have at least 75% of the funds
directed to services that support parks, public safety and families. This is reflective of comments
at the CLRC that whatever is on the ballot needs to be tangible, things that citizens use and that
would be cut if the levy failed. He noted some items would be in both the general operation and
the parks, public safety and families levy options such as funding for Yost Pool and the Senior
Center, Discovery programs, and funding to replace staff furloughs and give-backs.
Packet Page 417 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 12
Council President Wilson requested the parks, public safety and families levy option identify the cuts that
would be made in parks and public safety if the levy failed. For example, he recalled the Council
considered a cut of $500,000 from the parks maintenance fund which would effectively close all 31
neighborhood parks because they would be required to be fenced off if they were not maintained.
Council President Wilson anticipated the Council would have a detailed conversation regarding the two
options including what items would be funded by each levy option. There would then be three public
open houses in June and July, led by Council and City staff, to review the two options. The goal would
be for the Council to affirm a final option by the end of July.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with presenting two options. He suggested including crime prevention
in the description of the parks, public safety and families levy and adding funds to adequately staff
economic development activities. He also favored including funds dedicated to economic development
and tourism. He suggested changing the name to a parks, public safety and economic development levy.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested once Mayor Haakenson presented the Council with a list of specific
cuts that would be made if the levy failed, the title of the levy could be determined.
Council President Wilson commented it was the Mayor’s job to manage day-to-day operations and make
emergency cuts in a cash flow crisis. However, it was the Council’s job to make basic priority
determination and the Council should have time by November to make their priorities clear. After a
decision is made August 4 regarding placing the levy on the ballot, the Council could begin deliberations
on what would be cut if the levy failed, beginning with Mayor Haakenson’s recommendations.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the Council must develop a list of cuts, recalling several groups
indicated their agreeing to the levy was contingent on identifying what would be cut if the levy failed.
Council President Wilson announced the Council would take public comment on the resolution on April
28 and May 5 including what items should be in the levy. The Council would vote on the resolution on
May 19 and have a presentation on the levy on June 2.
6. RESOLUTION REGARDING ADDRESSING THE LONG-TERM REVENUE CHALLENGES
FACING THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
Council President Wilson explained Councilmember Peterson and he developed this resolution in an
effort to avoid the City being in this position again, acknowledging the City had a revenue problem rather
than an expenditure problem. He paraphrased the resolution, given the financial situation, the
recommendations by the CLRC teams, the large number of highly qualified citizens who were interested
in participating in this process, the City Council directs staff to create an ordinance forming a Citizens’
Economic Development Commission constituted as follows: each Councilmember shall appoint up to
two members and the Mayor shall appoint up to three members, terms for positions shall not exceed two
years, and the Economic Development Director will staff the Commission. The mission of the
Commission is to, 1) determine new strategies for economic development in the City, 2) identify new
sources of revenue for the City to consider, and 3) the Commission will deliver a written and oral annual
report to the Council and other times as needed. He explained the Commission was an effort to capture
the interest of the CLRC in keeping the process moving forward.
Council President Wilson suggested each Councilmember appoint only one member and the Mayor
appoint two to ensure the Commission was not unwieldy.
Packet Page 418 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2009
Page 13
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1198 REGARDING ADDRESSING THE LONG TERM
REVENUE CHALLENGES FACING THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WITH THE CHANGE THAT
EACH COUNCIL WOULD APPOINT ONE MEMBER AND THE MAYOR WOULD APPOINT
TWO MEMBERS.
Council President Wilson explained the resolution also directs the Planning Board to review and consider
strategies for economic development in conjunction with the Citizens’ Economic Development
Commission that will improve commercial viability and activity in the City of Edmonds and to report
back to the Council on or about the first meeting of December.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RETURN THE RESOLUTION TO THE WAY IT WAS
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN WITH THE LARGER NUMBER OF MEMBERS.
Councilmember Bernheim explained his suggestion was the result of his recent attendance of a meeting of
the Senior Center Board of Directors that has 20-22 members and functions very well, has a lot of energy
and is more effective than a board of 6-10 members.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Council President Wilson explained he recommended the smaller number
of members due to his concern 17 members would be unwieldy.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE TOURISM WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PLANNING
BOARD’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SO THAT THE PLANNING BOARD
WOULD REVIEW AND CONSIDER STRATEGIES FOR ECONOMIC AND TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he assumed tourism was part of economic development in
Edmonds. He noted there were a number of specifics that could be included if the items to be reviewed
were enumerated such as historic preservation, street trees, etc.
Council President Wilson agreed tourism was inferred. He wanted to ensure the resolution did not give
the Planning Board too much direction and that the Council trusted the Planning Board to present good
strategies and recommendations.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out that contrary to Mr. Hertrich’s comments, Community Services/Economic
Development Director Stephen Clifton was doing two full-time jobs for the price of one. He was
extremely busy and this was one more thing added to his job duties. On behalf of the Planning Board,
Mayor Haakenson anticipated they would do a great deal of work and bring the Council a quality work
project and he urged the Council not to dismiss them as has happened in the past.
Vote on Main Motion as Amended: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. UPDATE ON YOST POOL
Mayor Haakenson explained the group that formed to find a way to keep Yost Pool open asked for
additional time for fundraising. Working backward from the projected opening date, staff determined the
group could have until April 14 to raise funds necessary to fund the deficit that the pool normally operates
Packet Page 419 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 8
Carol Hahn, Edmonds, explained when she walks, she uses two canes and can carry items in plastic
bags looped over her arm. If plastic bags were banned, she emphasized it must be replaced with
something as usable such as paper bags with sturdier handles.
Roger Oliver, Edmonds, echoed his wife’s comments. He recalled visiting Orcas Island in the late
1960s where the shore in Eastsound as well as the trees across the road were littered with plastic. That no
longer occurs because the public has been educated. He urged the Council not to take away the tools
many people needed to transport goods.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, wondered what the people involved with the Citizens Levy Review
Committee would say about the Council’s emphasis on plastic bags when their interest was the City’s
financial situation. He preferred to educate the public regarding the use of plastic bags rather than forcing
consumers to comply with a plastic bags ban. He anticipated people would recycle if they were educated
about the importance of recycling and given the opportunity. In his experience most plastic bags ended
up in a landfill and he anticipated most of the plastic in waterways was Styrofoam, plastic rings, bottle
caps, etc. He feared the local economy could be affected by a ban on plastic bags although he
acknowledged it could also be used to draw visitors by advertising a choice between paper and plastic.
Chris Fleck, Edmonds, advised he had been using the same long handled canvas bags for the past 20
years. He doubted anyone would shop outside the City simply to obtain plastic bags, noting Petosa’s
stopped using plastic bags years ago and their store is always busy. He relayed seeing a person at a
drugstore purchasing a tube of toothpaste that was placed in a plastic bag, pointing out many purchases
did not even require a bag. He recalled during a trip to Southern Africa, 60-100 miles from the nearest
town, where there were plastic bags blowing around the bush. With regard to the Trex Company, he
applauded their use of recycled plastic bags, pointing out their concern was the loss of a free raw material
for their product if the City banned plastic bags. Although he preferred not to legislate the use of plastic
bags, it may be great publicity for the City to be the first in the State to ban plastic bags. He circulated a
USA Today article about plastic bags makers trying to stem legislation banning plastic bags.
Michael Young, Edmonds, reported he had 7 separate containers behind his restaurant that prevented
approximately 85% of his waste from entering landfills, pointing out his efforts were worthwhile even if
his neighbors did not do the same. He questioned the truth of the information regarding plastic bags
provided by the American Chemistry Council who produced plastic bags. He noted the Council’s
proposal to ban plastic bags was directed at the health, safety and welfare of citizens, the same basis for
many laws such as the prohibition on DDT, Freon for air conditioners, pouring paint down the drain, or
throwing refrigerators and televisions into a dumpster. He summarized this is the wave of the future; the
City could be in front of it or behind it. He implored the Council to take public comment and then do the
right thing and move on.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the Council would take public comment again on May 19, hold a public
hearing on June 2 and possibly take action on June 16.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT LEVY PROPOSAL AND DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING
2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out although the Council was seeking public input on the draft levy proposal
and a draft resolution regarding the 2009 property tax levy, nothing had been approved by the Council
yet.
Packet Page 420 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 9
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to a letter he provided the City from Senator Rosemary McAuliffe,
District 1 that states her opposition to increased taxes. He relayed Representative Al O’Brien was also
opposed to increasing taxes. Neither Senator McAuliffe nor Representative O’Brien believed a ballot
measure anywhere in the State to increase taxes would pass and both believed the State’s financial
situation would worsen. He pointed out March 2009 was the first time Social Security paid out more than
they collected. He reported seniors would receive a $250 stimulus payment and questioned the
percentage of Edmonds’ population that was over 62 years of age.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, a member of the Citizen Levy Review Committee, expressed opposition to the
concept of a parks, public safety and families levy (Option 2) as it represented special interest. He
questioned why the City would want to tie its hands with Option 2 when the problems or solutions were
not yet fully understood and it was uncertain whether Option 2 met the criteria of being good for the
citywide agenda. He concluded a special interest levy may garner some extra votes but it did not show
leadership in correcting the current financial course nor did it show the public that hard work was
necessary. He urged the Council to avoid business as usual and brush away problems with a solution
such as Option 2.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed Option 2 was too specific about the use of the funds. He commented
anyone with a basic understanding of the City’s accounting system knew there was no way to ensure
money from a levy would be placed in a specific fund because there was the ability to do interfund
transfers. He asserted an interfund transfer allowed staff to move money out of a fund and place it in
another fund including the General Fund and approval by the City Council was not required. To ensure
funds remained in a specific fund would require changing the City’s current system to prohibit staff-
generated interfund transfers unless authorized by the Council.
George Murray, Edmonds, commented there was a bill being developed in Congress to divert Social
Security funds to pay for programs President Obama was developing. He urged the Council to consider
the situation facing seniors as well as the impacts the stock market has had on their retirement savings.
He anticipated Edmonds’ population was 16% seniors. He relayed a comment from a person who
operated a UPS store regarding the volume of unemployment checks. He remarked there were two
bicycles in the parking lot tonight.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, commented other commitments did not allow her to be involved in the Citizen
Levy Review Committee although she appreciated the opportunity to hear the reports they provided at the
last Council meeting that nearly unanimously supported a levy of some amount. She supported listing
specific items that would be cut if the levy did not pass and expressed concern that Option 1 listed the
total levy amount of $3.75 million but did not list any specifics. She recommended the City identify
items that would be cut if the levy failed.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the draft resolution was written by Council President Wilson and neither
Council nor staff had an opportunity to weigh in on the options.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt explained the proposed levy amount of $3.75 million was the
average of the levy amounts recommended by the Citizen Levy Review Committee (CLRC) groups. He
recalled all the groups recognized this was not an optimum time to seek additional property taxes from
citizens. He also recalled during their presentations the CLRC groups asked what would be cut if a levy
did not pass. In proposing the parks, public safety and families option, Council President Wilson simply
grouped items that were likely to be cut in the broad classifications of parks. Further, he disagreed with
Mr. Hertrich’s comments, advising interfund transfers must be approved by the Finance Committee and
then the Council; there was not a single staff member making that decision.
Packet Page 421 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 10
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt summarized anyone with better answers should speak up; the
options were to either raise property taxes or cut services, the type of services that most residents did not
want cut. He assured the Council was doing their best and the residents who participated in the CLRC
agreed the City’s problem was not an expense problem but rather a revenue problem and unfortunately
the only method for generating revenue in a short timeframe was property taxes.
Mayor Haakenson advised public comment on the draft levy proposal and a draft resolution was also
scheduled on next week’s agenda and the Council would discuss it on May 19.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented he and several friends were embarrassed by the Council’s
behavior at last week’s Council meeting, comparing it to a three ring circus. He expressed concern with
Councilmembers attacking each other, Councilmembers attacking the Mayor and the public attacking
Councilmembers, pointing out this set a poor example for the Student Representative and the next
generation. He encouraged the Council and the public to think before speaking. He suggested
Councilmembers study Robert’s Rules of Order in an effort to have meetings run more smoothly.
Edmonds had one of the most open forms of government of any city he had lived in; department heads,
Councilmembers and the Mayor were available to talk to the public. He recommended the Council adopt
a code of public politeness toward each other and for public speakers. He concluded the quickest way for
the levy to fail was friction between Councilmembers.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he had been attending Council meetings since 1989 and was not
bothered by the Council’s behavior, recalling it had happened several times before. He also attends
meetings in Lynnwood and Bothell. He provided the 1997 Mayor’s Roundtable Budget for Mayor
Haakenson’s review.
Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, explained although she did not believe her yard was an ideal habitat for
birds and other creatures, Rich Senderoff encouraged her to apply for certification in Edmonds Backyard
Wildlife Habitat (EBWH) Program. She was surprised to find her yard had all the necessary elements to
be certified. Because her lot does not have tall conifers, her south-facing yard was bathed in sunlight.
She identified the numerous birds that flock to her feeders. Dr. Senderoff convinced her it was not
necessary to turn her yard into a typical northwest habitat and she planned to slowly convert her sod to
meadow and populate it with native grasses, plants and prairie flowers. She noted the south Puget Sound
used to include prairies and oak woodlands, however, only 3% of the native prairies remain today. She
encouraged Edmonds residents to consider joining the other 132 homeowners whose yards have been
certified so that the City could reach the required 150 certified backyards.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented tall trees along Maplewood Avenue between Main and 200th
form a bird and wildlife corridor between Yost Park and Maplewood Park. This corridor has been
significantly compromised by the removal of at least 120 tall fir trees and several large maples during the
past 7 years including 56 trees since January 2008. The canopies of these trees cannot be replaced for
many decades and trees are the oldest new thing in stormwater treatment. He observed there were no
significant efforts underway to replace these lost trees or effort to preserve inter-park wildlife corridors,
the motivation for seeking Tree City USA recognition. He relayed a comment by John Rosenthal,
President of the Arbor Day Foundation, that trees that are planted and cared for today will cool and
beautify communities, increase property values, help clean the air and water and conserve energy for
years to come. An effective community forestry program is an ongoing process of renewal and
improvement and one key element of a tree forestry program is a tree preservation ordinance that
Packet Page 422 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 5, 2009
Page 4
pursuing studies in musical theater. Elizabeth Melnikas is a talented musician who plays the flute and the
saxophone and plans a performing and teaching career in the arts. And, Ingrid Porter is a dancer with a
promising career in the art of dance.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT LEVY PROPOSAL AND DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING
2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
Mayor Haakenson explained the draft levy proposal and resolution were developed by Council President
Wilson and neither staff nor the Council had the opportunity to provide input yet.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, asked whether the funds from the levy would be sufficient for the future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his concern with specifying certain uses for the levy funds because
residents would expect the funds be used for those purposes; however, staff had the ability to transfer
money via Interfund Transfers that was only approved by the Council after the fact. He recommended
changing the process to require Council approval of Interfund Transfers before they occurred.
In response to Mr. Rutledge’s question whether this was the final levy, Council President Pro Tem
Wambolt answered this would be the last levy until the next one, anticipating this would not be the last
levy in the City’s history. If the levy passed, he was hopeful there would be enough revenue growth
during those years and that the legislature would allow cities to raise property taxes by an amount greater
than 1%.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comments, Council President Pro Tem Wambolt pointed out if the levy
passed, none of the City’s services would be enhanced and there would be additional cuts if the levy did
not pass. The levy was required to maintain the status quo with the exception of the cuts made by Mayor
Haakenson in March.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE CHAPTER 20 RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES, PROCESS
REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA, OPEN RECORD
HEARING PROCEDURES, CLOSED RECORD APPEALS, AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was the second public hearing on amendments to Title 20 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code; the first hearing was held in March. He explained this was
part of the overall code rewrite; the objectives of the code rewrite were to, 1) provide clear standards for
permit processing, 2) reduce potential for legal liability, and 3) address the Hearing Examiner’s
procedural concerns.
He identified the major proposed changes:
• Establishing permit types.
• Creating tables that identify the different permit types and decision-making processes.
• Submission requirements and procedures.
• Change public notice requirements and procedures to require the permit applicant to provide the
notice.
• Establishing SEPA consistency regulations.
• Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures.
• Creating a new section regarding Development Agreements.
Packet Page 423 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 19, 2009
Page 12
voluntarily stopped using plastic bags, it put them at a disadvantage with larger corporate stores unwilling
to take that step. When large corporations were unwilling to do what was right, he felt that was when
government needed to step in. He noted the Northwest Grocers Association were not completely opposed
to the proposed legislation but wanted to ensure it was fair. He concluded this was an attempt to get
people to change their habits for the right reasons; it was financially advantageous both for the consumer
and the store for people to bring their own bags.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether SEPA review was mandated by the State. Mr. Snyder answered
that had been one of the bases for challenge in Oakland. Because the ordinance was styled as an
environmental measure, it was important to do at least the environmental checklist procedure. He noted
staff’s determination regarding whether there were negative environmental impacts would be used by the
Council in adopting a final ordinance.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned the timing of the SEPA review, whether the Council could pass an
ordinance subject to SEPA review. Mr. Snyder advised the environmental review must be completed
before a final ordinance was adopted.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt expressed concern with the mounting legal fees related to this issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson advised the next steps were the June 2 public hearing on the options and the
SEPA process. He suggested delaying Council consideration of the ordinance (originally scheduled for
June 16).
8. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONTINUED REFINEMENT OF AND PUBLIC INPUT ON THE
2009 PROPOSED LEVY.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson explained the intent of the resolution was to generate discussion and for the
Council to provide direction to staff. He explained the resolution offered two options, 1) a General
Operations Levy, and 2) a Parks, Public Safety & Families Levy. He anticipated the likelihood of passage
was greater if the levy was more specific. He pointed out all the necessary paperwork to place the levy on
the ballot must be submitted to Snohomish County by August 11; therefore, the last date a public hearing
could be held was July 28 and the ordinance must be passed by the August 4 meeting.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested in the second option, funds for the Crime Prevention Services be
included in the explanation regarding funding public safety. He also recommended adding to the second
option funding dedicated to tourism and economic development such as funding an Economic
Development Director or tourism research.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt pointed out the intent of the levy was to restore cuts made by Mayor
Haakenson at the March 13 meeting, not add more expenses. He was hesitant to add other items, pointing
out the funds from the levy would not last as many years if additional expenses were added.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented the levy amount of $4.3 million took the city to 2016 and $3.75
million, the average of the Citizen Levy Review Committees (CLRC), funded the City through 2013. At
the end of those timeframes, the City would either need to ask voters for more money, have new revenues
in place, or make cuts.
Councilmember Plunkett preferred the General Operations Levy because he was unwilling at this time to
say if the levy did not pass he would cut funding for Yost Pool, the senior center, crime prevention nor
was he willing to make fully compensating public safety employees subject to the vote.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt recalled the CLRC urged the Council identify the consequences if
the levy did not pass. Councilmember Plunkett responded although the CLRC’s input was helpful and
that effort had been interesting, it was Council’s responsibility to make the decision.
Packet Page 424 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 19, 2009
Page 13
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson agreed the Council committing themselves to an action in May predicated on an
outcome in November may not be necessary yet but would need to be done at some point and at least by
August. He explained that in approximately September ordinances would be presented and public
hearings held on potential cuts so that action could be taken if necessary following the November
election. He explained even with the cuts and givebacks, the City would get through 2009 but without
funds from a levy, the City would be in a terrible place again in 2010. His intent with the resolution was
to provide direction to staff regarding potential cuts and levy amounts so that preferred alternatives could
be developed and open houses held. He was comfortable with the Council simply identifying the levy
amount by August and discussing potential cuts in September/October. He summarized it was a
disservice to the community not to be clear about the cuts that would be made should the levy fail.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mayor Pro Tem Wilson explained the resolution directed staff to provide two
alternatives for a levy and to make a presentation to the Council followed by open houses.
Councilmember Orvis observed the resolution was only to start the process; it did not commit the Council
to either option.
Councilmember Peterson recalled during the retreat the Council recognized this was not a “feel good”
levy and the Council needed to be up front with citizens that this was a bare bones, last ditch resort. He
agreed with identifying cuts that would be made if the levy did not pass, pointing out it was important for
citizens to understand that if the levy did not pass, the day-to-day operations of the city would be affected.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson proposed moving staff presentations from to June 2 to June 16 and to direct staff
to make presentations on the two options outlined in the resolution. The Council agreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson asked whether the Council wanted to include Councilmember Bernheim’s
suggestion to add economic development to the second option. Councilmember Bernheim agreed the
intent of the levy was to generate funds necessary for general operations or restoring specific items that
would be cut. He was willing to support the resolution as drafted as long as the Council had the ability to
expand government services if a good idea arose. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson advised the Council always
retained the ability to add or subtract from the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson asked if Council supported a levy of $4.3 million or $3.75 million. Council
President Pro Tem Wambolt preferred $3.75 million; anticipating voter approval of a $4.3 million levy
would be more difficult. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Council President Pro Tem Wambolt.
MAYOR PRO TEM WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1200 (REGARDING THE 2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY) WITH THE
CHANGE MOVING THE STAFF PRESENTATIONS FROM JUNE 2 TO JUNE 16.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson noted most of the items in the General Operations Levy were also in the Parks,
Public Safety and Families Levy; approximately 80% of the items were the same.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 12, 2009
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt reported the Committee was provided a briefing on the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The total cost of the projects in the plan is approximately $102
million. A consultant was hired to consider funding scenarios including a $30, $60, and $80
Transportation Benefit District (vehicle license) fee. The Planning Board will review the plan, hold
public hearings and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Next, the Committee discussed the
proposal to ban single use plastic bags. The Committee then discussed the legalization of hens and voted
Packet Page 425 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 10
and does not include fences or minor improvements under 3 feet in height. He commented the difficulty
with enforcement was typically the definition of permanent. The proposed amendments do not address
appearance or aesthetics.
Building Official Ann Bullis explained the proposed ordinance increases the size of accessory structures
exempt from a building permit from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. The uses stay the same: tool and
storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses. A reference was added to ECDC 17.70.035 for canopies used
for covered storage and carports. The Building Code amendment is only for structures accessory to a
single family dwelling, not commercial, multi-family, or industrial buildings.
Mr. Chave noted there were two ordinances in the packet, Exhibit 1 is the ordinance approved in March
which retains the 120 square foot threshold and Exhibit 2 increases the threshold to 200 square feet.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled the Planning Board was concerned with limiting temporary
buildings to 120 square feet and felt a 200 square foot threshold was more practical, the size of a typical
“Costco canopy.” He recalled the Planning Board did not recommend a 200 square foot threshold
because they were informed by staff that 200 square feet was not legal and they must retain 120 square
feet. The Building Department now agrees the 200 square foot threshold is allowed for a temporary
structure. He expressed concern that the definition referred to structures permanently attached to the
ground which canopies were not.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the problems encountered with citizens constructing tree houses in the
setback and was concerned temporary structures in the setback could become an issue.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Wilson inquired about the allowed impermeable surface on a lot. Mr. Chave answered
the threshold was lot coverage rather than impermeable surface. He did not anticipate a temporary
structure would trip the lot coverage threshold but agreed it was possible on a small lot.
Council President Wilson observed there were no punitive measures for exceeding the lot coverage
requirement other than removing the structure. Mr. Chave agreed, noting there were no fines unless the
property owner did not respond.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3742 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3743, EXHIBIT 2, THE 200
SQUARE FOOT VERSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The two ordinance titles read
as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3742 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TEMPORARY USES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
ORDINANCE NO. 3743 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.05.010, WORK EXEMPT
FROM BUILDING PERMITS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
5. PRESENTATION ON 2009 LEVY OPTIONS.
Mayor Haakenson advised staff prepared only one potential levy scenario although the Council’s
resolution asked for two. The packet includes the one scenario, the most current financial forecast, a list
Packet Page 426 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 11
of items to be included in the levy and a list of starting point cuts should the levy fail. If there were items
in the levy request that the Council was uncomfortable with, he anticipated they would simply be
removed by the Council or other items added.
With regard to a title or a name for the levy, staff deferred to the Council’s wisdom. Any levy proposal
taken to the voters should accurately and completely detail what voters are getting with a yes vote and
that voters should have a good understanding of what is at stake if the levy fails. He pointed out it could
easily be assumed that if voters were asked to reinstate certain budgeted items, a levy failure would most
likely mean the continued loss of those services.
The likelihood of suggested budget cuts today being the same budget cuts six months from now, should
the levy fail, was very high but not a certainty. The Council will make the final decision following the
levy vote. Should the levy fail, he assumed City Departments will remain at 2009 levels, underfunded
and understaffed.
He explained significant adjustments had been made to the 2009-2010 budget allowing the City to survive
this year’s budget deficit. Many of those adjustments will not be available in 2010 should the levy fail.
Programmatic cuts made in March to the parks department and police department would not be reinstated
to the 2010 budget should the levy fail. Therefore the return of Yost Pool, Parks Maintenance, Crime
Prevention, DARE and other similar programs would be highly unlikely. Furloughs and other labor
givebacks that saved the city from layoffs will not be possible in 2010. He expected many positions
would be eliminated from every department in the City.
He explained it may be easier to consider the deficit the City would face if the levy were to fail. The
current forecast shows a surplus in 2010 due to the measures put in place this year and three other
changes. He pointed out any budget cuts had a residual effect on future years. The City would quickly
drop off to a $750,000 balance in 2011 and then over a million dollar deficit in 2012 with the following
years spiraling downward.
The 2010 forecast does not include any furloughs, wage concessions, or layoffs and does include all the
budgeted items that were cut for 2009. It includes the Development Services Director position open until
the results of the levy vote are known or building activity increases. Staff believes the City can go
another year without funding the vehicle replacement fund from the general fund and the projection
includes revenue from red light camera fines, an item on tonight’s agenda. A loss of that projected
revenue would equate to a similar reduction in the ending cash balance for year end 2010.
He noted all the Parks and Police programs that were cut in 2009 were back in the 2010 budget and would
remain if the levy passed. Conversely, should the levy fail, they would once again be eliminated from the
budget. If the levy fails, an orderly budget process will begin to make many of the same cuts that were
made in 2009 plus additional layoffs, the only alternative to survive 2011. Budget year 2012 will see a
much bigger reduction in work force; fewer employees will result in a loss of services and programs.
The Citizen Levy Review Committee did their work predicated on a levy amount of $4.3 million. The
dollar amount the Council selected in their resolution, $3.75 million, will allow the City’s financial
picture to stabilize until budget cycle 2015-2016 at which time the same pattern of deficit occurs.
The Mayor recalled Council chose to include in the levy dollars a cash infusion to the ending balance
fund. He suggested Council consider placing a high and low lid on that fund and if those amounts were
reached, certain predetermined actions will take place. He estimated a cash infusion from the levy of $2.2
million into the ending cash balance fund.
Packet Page 427 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 12
In addition to continuing to fund programs that were cut in 2009, the levy will add back into the budget
many items which have been cut over the past 8 years in successful attempts to balance the budget,
operational items that have resulted in a loss of service levels to our citizens. Also included are
replacement items such as protective clothing for firefighters, fire hoses, tools and other similar items.
Other departments have similar operational needs. Operational needs total nearly $340,000.
He recalled in his budget message last year, he spoke about the future of how the City does business: rely
more heavily on technology and the internet and less on labor costs. The levy includes approximately
$365,000 in technology updates and equipment. Several departments have operated without key
personnel over the past several years and the levy would restore a few of those positions. Ten and half
employees would be funded with the levy proceeds. The total cost of these employees would be
approximately $770,000. The levy would also fund $200,000 in building maintenance projects that have
been deferred due to a lack of capital.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the needs were spread over the various city departments; they were
primarily operational in nature and have a technology component about them. The City’s needs compare
favorably to a typical school district operations and technology levy. While school districts go to the
voters often for these types of levies, the City never has but now has no choice.
A common theme from the Levy Review Committee was that the City has a revenue problem, not an
expense problem. While problematic, it is a testimonial to the citizens of Edmonds that their tax dollars
have been used wisely in the past and he expected that would continue to be the case. He emphasized the
need to submit a levy request to the voters of Edmonds although he questioned the timing. Many entities
who were going to take levies to their users this year have deferred them to next year or beyond, believing
this is the worst possible time to ask voters for money.
Without budget cuts and furloughs, he assured the City would not have survived 2009. The cumulative
effect of those actions has a residual effect on our 2010 budget as well, and with the tweaks previously
mentioned, and if approved by Council, the City would be on pace to make it through 2010 financially. It
would be possible to move the levy to 2010 when the economic forecasts are not as bleak as today.
Several weeks ago the City Council authorized staff to begin negotiations with Fire District One for the
possible provision of fire service to the City. He clarified staff was negotiating a contract to provide fire
services to the city in lieu of having the City’s own fire department. It is not “selling” the fire department
but looking at ways to provide the same service levels citizens currently enjoy in a more cost effective
manner. The negotiations have been ongoing and he believed staff would be presenting proposal in the
near future. There have been negotiations at the management level and at the union level. The fire union
recently was directed by a unanimous vote of the membership to continue to pursue and participate in, the
merger talks. This concept will require a great deal of the Council time and discussion. Although a fire
merger will not solve the City’s revenue problems, it will take the City farther down the road to financial
stability. It does not replace the need for a levy, but may buy time to run the levy next year.
The levy request for Council consideration is $3.75 million. The cost to a home assessed at $500,000
would be $243 per year. It will fund basic operation and technology needs which the City simply does
not have the revenues to support. If the levy were to fail, the first cuts would be the first cuts that are
always made and would get deeper from there. No city departments would be spared and the effect
would be a drastic loss of service to Edmonds citizens. He urged the Council to seriously consider the
timing of the levy and the Fire District One proposal in their deliberations.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified the City could financially do a levy mid 2010 to November 2010
without fire consolidation. Mayor Haakenson answered, according to the numbers in the financial
Packet Page 428 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 13
projection which include revenue from red light cameras, staff believes a levy could be placed on the
ballot in February to November 2010. Councilmember Plunkett asked the amount red light cameras were
expected to generate. Mayor Haakenson answered $600,000. He explained if the Council did not
approve red light cameras, that amount could be deducted from the ending cash balance in 2010, reducing
it from $1.9 million to $1.3 million.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the potential revenue from red light cameras in the packet was
$574,000. He referred to the Executive Summary – Levy Scenario that indicated $592,000 in 2009 and
$640,000 in 2010 in revenue from fines and forfeitures and asked if all the revenue was from red light
cameras. Ms. Junglov answered the levy scenario did not include revenue from red light cameras, only
the Executive Summary - Current Forecast included red light camera revenue.
Council President Wilson thanked Mayor Haakenson and staff for the information they provided. He
reiterated the Citizen Levy Review Committee agreed the City had a revenue problem, not an expense
problem. He commented although the City had utilized a number of bandaids for the past 8-9 years, those
options were no longer available, leaving the City with a revenue problem, not an expense problem. He
recommended the City not use up any more of its margin for error and the sooner the Council could
determine if voters wanted to fund via increased taxes the full range of services the City provided, the
better off everyone would be. He supported placing a levy on the ballot sooner rather than later.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT ON 2009 LEVY OPTIONS
Mitchell Stern, Edmonds, objected to including Yost Pool in the levy discussion. He was supportive of
paying for basic services such as police and fire. He pointed out Yost Pool had sold more season passes
in two weeks this year than all of 2008 and the revenue from season passes and punch tickets to date with
the pool opening June 1 was nearly the same as generated all last season from those sources. He
summarized Yost Pool had its own blood supply and was a vital, symbiotic entity for the City that should
not be touched by politics. He described the beauty of Yost Park, commenting the true value of Yost Pool
could not be measured in dollars and cents but in the health and well being of the community. He was
confident the Council understood the value of Yost Pool and that its future should not be dependent on
the levy vote.
George Murray, Edmonds, agreed with the above comments regarding Yost Pool. He reminded voters
approved the initial Eyman initiative to ensure there was a review of expenses above a certain level.
Although he did not agree with the level the initiative established, it had resulted in an effective process.
He did not agree the City did not have an expense problem and recommended the City compare the
services offered in 2004 with those offered in 2009 to determine the reason for the 30% increase in
expenses. He recalled constantly monitoring expenses during his career; the only exception was during
his service in the military. For example, he has noticed City vehicles idling and suggested consideration
be given to a program whereby employees would turn off vehicles when they were waiting more than
three minutes.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested determining the average amount City employees spent in Edmonds,
anticipating if the levy failed, employees were laid off and no longer shopped in Edmonds, there would be
a reduction in sales tax. He also commented on the possibility of another levy.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, asked why a parks and public safety levy was not presented to the Council
as a levy scenario. She was supportive of a levy, commenting Dr. Senderoff and she had been
doorbelling in support of the levy which has been a difficult sell. She requested updated financial
information, noting the last available financials were January 29, 2008. She recalled Seattle successfully
passed a parks levy.
Packet Page 429 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 14
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented Edmonds had the most efficient employees and department
heads of any city he had lived in. As an example, during today’s Kiwanis meeting, a member had a
medical emergency and the aid car arrived within 4-5 minutes. He summarized that was the kind of
service Edmonds employees provided and he did not want that changed.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented although the Citizen Levy Review Committee educated many
members of the community about City operations, many did not agree with the original levy amount.
Many participants were interested in adding Yost Pool, parks, and senior center so that citizens could see
what programs were funded. He was concerned with the possibility of levy funds identified for a specific
purpose being moved to fund other programs. He reiterated his suggestion to establish dedicated funds.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, agreed the City needed a levy and that the City had a revenue problem. For
example, for the past nine years, the City has provided fire service for Fire District One in Esperance and
Fire District One collects over $1 million/year in taxes based on $2.14/$1000 but paid the City $295,000.
He pointed out Edmonds residents paid $0.50/$1000 for an EMS levy which Mayor Haakenson indicates
does not cover the cost of service. Edmonds also provides fire service to Woodway, one of the richest
communities in the United States, and they do not pay $0.50/$1000. He urged the Council to support a
levy that would fund Yost Pool and the senior center.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the Council needed to discuss what to fund via a levy as well as the
timing of the levy. He referred to the positive information the Council has received regarding fire
consolidation, assuring consolidation did not mean a reduction in service. Fire consolidation was not a
new idea and had been considered numerous times over the past 30 years. Mountlake Terrace Fire
Department consolidated with Fire District One several years ago. He suggested the Council discuss the
Fire District One proposal and hold public hearings before making a decision regarding a levy this year or
next. He urged Mayor Haakenson and Council President Wilson to schedule presentations to the Council
regarding fire consolidation. He was willing to discuss the levy but was reluctant to make any decisions
until the community had a better understanding regarding fire consolidation.
Councilmember Bernheim asked why staff did not provide the second option the Council requested.
Mayor Haakenson responded there was very little difference between the two options the Council
suggested; the Council could call it a parks levy if they wished. Councilmember Bernheim recalled the
intent of the second option was to identify specific items that would be funded via the levy such as parks,
the senior center, Yost Pool, DARE, etc. Mayor Haakenson responded the two options the Council
presented to staff included exactly the same items. The levy option before the Council is $3.75 million.
The Council could dedicate funds to Yost Pool, senior center, etc. and call it a parks levy. The Council
can add and subtract items to make it their levy.
Councilmember Bernheim commented parks items proposed to be funded include $15,000 for a lawn
mower and $68,000 for a parks maintenance worker. Mayor Haakenson advised it would also fund
$500,000 in parks maintenance that was proposed to be cut from the budget. There were numerous other
items that could be included in a parks levy.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett’s comments regarding fire consolidation.
He was concerned the levy would not pass regardless of what it was called because citizens’ property
valuations were down an unprecedented amount, an average of 10% countywide, some as much as 20%.
Citizens may believe their property taxes will go down because of the lower valuation; however, in most
cases the taxes will not decrease, the rate will simply be increased. A resident’s property taxes will only
decrease if their property value decline was greater than the average decrease. He pointed out placing the
levy on the ballot cost the City $70,000 - $80,000. He supported the Council discussing whether to delay
the levy until next year.
Packet Page 430 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 15
Council President Wilson commented the course of moving toward a levy has been a lengthy one,
beginning in October with the creation of a revenue work group, the Council’s unanimous decision in
November to include a budget note that a levy would be placed on the ballot in fall 2009 knowing that it
was a terrible economic climate, the Council’s affirmation in February of a timeline that culminated with
a levy this fall, the formation of the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and presentations from the CLRC
that unanimously supported a fall levy. He agreed the Council needed to discuss
consolidation/contracting with Fire District One, anticipating the Council would not complete discussions
regarding fire consolidation before the July 28 deadline to place the levy on the November ballot. He
summarized there was not a great deal of time to preempt the levy decision and suggested they be
considered in parallel tracks.
Councilmember Orvis agreed with Councilmembers Plunkett and Wambolt that the Council needed more
information regarding fire consolidation before moving forward with the levy.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the adjustments Mayor Haakenson made to the budget recently
gave him more confidence that the City could get through 2010. Mayor Haakenson responded as a result
of severe actions such as budget cuts and City employees taking furloughs, dollars saved in 2009 had an
accumulative effect in 2010 which improved the ending cash balance for 2010.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with the suggestion to discuss the levy and fire consolidation on parallel
tracks. With the new information regarding fire consolidation, he was open to considering a levy this
year or next year. Whether the levy was this year or next, the City still had very serious revenue issues.
If the Council chose not to place a levy on the ballot this year, it must be for the right reasons.
Council President Wilson commented he had hoped the Council would reach a preferred levy option at
the next Council meeting with a final decision on July 21. He suggested a presentation and discussion on
the Fire District One contracting at the July 7 meeting. Mayor Haakenson advised staff was meeting with
Fire District One on June 25 and could have information to present to the Council by the July 7 meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his preference to wait until after the fire consolidation
presentation/discussion to make a decision regarding the levy.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting fire consolidation was not
necessary to delay the levy until 2010. Council President Wilson pointed out although there was an
adequate ending cash balance into 2010, delaying the levy means there was no Development Services
Director, a short-staffed City Clerk’s Office, and no clear plan to fund Yost Pool.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out a levy was needed; whether it was in November 2009 or in 2010 was up to
the Council. A levy was needed even if the city contracted for fire services with Fire District One; those
were two separate issues. He did not anticipate a substantial increase in building activity that would
require hiring a Development Services Director in the near future. With regard to Yost Pool, staff intends
to issues a RFP this summer to identify parties interested in operating Yost Pool via a public/private
partnership. He expressed concern the Council would shortchange themselves if they waited until July 21
to discuss the levy proposal and make a final decision July 28. He suggested discussing the levy proposal
at next week’s meeting including what items would be included in the levy, the levy title, etc.
Alternatively he suggested the Council discuss at next week’s meeting whether to proceed with a levy this
year or delay it until next year.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mayor Haakenson’s suggestion to discuss at next week’s meeting
whether to proceed with a levy this year.
Packet Page 431 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2009
Page 16
Councilmember Bernheim relayed 6-8 months ago he spoke with Redmond’s Mayor who explained after
a general operations levy failed a few years ago, they wised up and placed a parks levy on the ballot that
passed. He agreed with Washington voters when they approved Eyman’s initial initiative, they were
expressing support for voting more often on tax increases rather than legislators approving them without
voter approval. As a fiscally responsible person, he supported a levy that would address future revenue
needs rather than delaying the inevitable. If the levy did not pass, the Council had the option to learn
from that experience and possibly place a parks levy on the ballot in the future.
Council President Wilson commented approximately 50% of the $1.5 million in the levy goes to parks
and public safety for firefighters protective clothing, air compressor to fill firefighters tanks, fire hose
replacement, ALS equipment, and replacement tools and equipment. The cuts that would be in place if
the levy fails total $860,000 and approximately 60% are parks and public safety such as funding park
maintenance, Yost Pool, the flower program, and seasonal landscaping. If the levy is delayed, those cuts
may not be backfilled or incurred as planned such as the senior center funding. He summarized there was
a cost to delaying the levy. Mayor Haakenson clarified none of those cuts were factored into the 2010
budget scenario, they were funded in the 2010 budget scenario. If the levy failed in November 2009, they
would be cut in 2010. He summarized the cuts Council President Wilson mentioned would be effective
in 2011 if the levy failed in 2010. Council President Wilson commented without the red light camera
revenue, the ending cash balance in 2010 is $1.3 million, far below the desired ending cash balance of $5
million and an amount that hinders the City’s bond rating.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the ending cash balance was $3.3 million if the emergency reserve
was included. Council President Wilson noted the Council voted to retain that amount for emergencies.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
George Murray, Edmonds, thanked the Edmonds Beacon for editing his letter. He recognized
Councilmember Wambolt for his informative article regarding Chapter 20. His primary concern with the
changes to Chapter 20 was it was an exclusive action by the Council rather than inclusive. He suggested
the Council use the Edmonds Beacon and the members of the Citizen Levy Review Committee to educate
the public about the Council’s discussion regarding the levy. He referred to the recently promoted
Sergeant Bob Barker, commenting Edmonds was lucky to have a person with his experience and
knowledge but he questioned the timing of the promotion due to the expense.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, recalled after expressing concern with the professional services agreement
with Rick Jenness, specifically the lack of a competitive bid process and the $135/hour fee, she was
assured it would be reviewed by the full Council. The contract is now presented to the Council with
discretionary authority and was not subject to a bid. She raised several concerns regarding the contract
including that Mr. Jenness has been paid ad hoc for some time, the information he provided was
inadequate, and there was no business plan or proforma, revenue or expense projections, or why this was
a good deal for the city. She summarized the contract was extremely advantageous to Mr. Jenness and he
was being given carte blanche approval until 2010 when the contract expires when it was unknown
whether the City would prevail in the lawsuit.
Fred Gouge, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, reported Commissioner Mary Lou Block and he met
with Stephen Clifton to discuss the input the Port and the City plan to provide on the Puget Sound
Regional Council Transportation 2040 Draft EIS to ensure there is a consistent message. The Port’s
primary concern is traffic flow and safety crossing tracks with increased ferry and train traffic.
Packet Page 432 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 23, 2009
Page 6
others were tired of the Senior Center, Yost Pool and other Parks & Recreation programs being used as
pawns and threatened whenever budget issues arose. He urged the Council to fund these necessary
services and stop pitting parks against public safety; both were essential to the community. He expressed
support for a focused and targeted Parks & Recreation/Senior Center levy and ensuring the funds from the
levy were used for those purposes.
Bill Keppler, Edmonds, a member of the CLRC grey team, recalled the grey team was unanimous in
their recommendation for a revenue-generating levy on the November ballot. He reiterated his support
for a levy on the November ballot to, a) address the need for additional revenue streams, and b) to
develop an ongoing current comprehensive economic plan for the next 3-5 years or at least through 2013.
He recommended forming carefully delineated short and long term goals with specific benchmarks and
qualitative and quantitative measurable outcomes for evaluation by the Mayor, City Council and citizens.
He anticipated even without the current economic downturn, the City would be facing significant revenue
shortfalls. He concluded Edmonds did more with less than most of the surrounding or other
municipalities of 40,000+ population in Washington. To the question of whether the time was right for a
levy, he questioned whether the time would ever be right.
5. DISCUSSION AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING THE 2009 LEVY
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1201 REAFFIRMING THE COUNCIL
COMMITMENT TO A NOVEMBER PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
Council President Wilson explained the resolution reviews the history of the levy and concludes “Now
therefore be it resolved that the Council commits to determining the size and scope of a property tax levy
by July 28th in order to be on the ballot for November 2009 for citizen review and approval.” He spoke in
support of the resolution, noting the Council had been discussing a levy for eight months and City leaders
have discussed the unstable fiscal situation for many years. He recalled a Councilmember saying the
Council should have gone to the voters earlier; instead while City leadership waited and solutions were
cobbled together to get the City to this point, one time funds were used to pay for ongoing operations to
buy time such as one-time sales tax revenue from development projects like Pt. Edwards and one-time
expenditure of reserves, spending them down in 2008 a total of $2.3 million. This year the City has relied
on generous give-backs from City employees and citizen contributions to keep Yost Pool open.
Council President Wilson acknowledged when the day of reckoning arrived, it was amid a terrible
economic climate. He emphasized employees gave back, Yost supporters rallied, the eight teams on the
CLRC supported a levy because they were told the sky was falling; none of them said wait until a
convenient time. He stressed the Council had voted unanimously four times to address the City’s fiscal
problems with a levy this fall, Mayor Haakenson had been steadfast in his comments that additional tax
revenue was needed to maintain City services and that focus and cohesion made him proud to be a part of
the City’s leadership. The Council needed to stand by its statements, put the levy on the ballot and
commit to moving forward.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for allowing the voters to create a dedicated fund that would
fund Yost Pool, the Senior Center and park maintenance. Placing funds from the levy into a special fund
for these services would prevent their competing with the police, DARE, or the Fire Department which
would continue to be funded from the General Fund. He recommended informing citizens what parks,
Yost Pool, parks programs, etc. cost and then ask voters if they wanted to pay for those items. If the
voters did not want to pay for them, they could be considered for cuts. He also supported the levy
because it was a voter decision; the lesson of the Tim Eyman era was that when money gets tight, the
Packet Page 433 of 465
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 23, 2009
Page 7
voters decide. He clarified the Council was not making a decision to raise property taxes; the Council
was deciding whether to let voters decide to raise property taxes.
Councilmember Bernheim spoke in support of doing a levy soon. He believed the sky was falling and
nothing had changed in the City’s financial situation in recent weeks. He felt putting off the levy was a
mistake, a bandaid and a cowardly approach. He was uncertain how to create a dedicated fund to ensure
funds from a levy went into a fund to support specific purposes. If the majority of the Council did not
support a levy to support specific items, a General Fund levy would be an alternative.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the Council’s diversion into the discussion of plastic bags did not
delay this process. The Council was on the schedule Council President Wilson established and had not
taken time away from levy discussions to discuss other topics. He acknowledged this was a difficult
decision, noting last week he favored waiting another year, recognizing citizens were hurting in this
economy. He cautioned the levy only affected Edmonds’ portion of the property tax, 20% of the total.
Councilmember Wambolt stated the City had a revenue problem that needed be addressed long term by
economic development. The short term fix was a property tax increase. The most convincing argument
was made by Dr. Keppler that most other municipalities were waiting until next year to place their levy
on the ballot; therefore, this November may be the best time. He emphasized the need to educate voters
about the levy, cuts that may be necessary if the levy fails and that property taxes would not go down due
to declining property values unless the property value decreased more than the 11% average.
Councilmember Peterson commented it was clear at the retreat and through the process of the CLRC that
this wasn’t a levy about saving parks or Yost Pool, this was a nuts and bolts levy; employees have given
up pay and taken furlough days. He was unwilling to gloss over the problem and tell citizens that the
only outcome of a levy failure would be an impact on parks. He commented Mayor Haakenson had done
an admirable job with the available revenues to keep the City afloat this long and had faith he could do it
for another year. However, the best approach was to be truthful with the citizens and educate them about
the reality. He supported placing the levy on the ballot this November, noting the wording of the levy
would be key. He did not support placing the funds into a fund solely for parks.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he still felt a levy in 2010 was best; however, in light of the
remainder of the Council, he would substitute his opinion for what was best for the community – for the
Council to speak with one voice. He did not want there to be dissent on the Council, acknowledging a
tremendous effort would be necessary to pass the levy.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson thanked the Council for being steadfast in their unanimity, particularly
Councilmembers Wambolt and Plunkett who voiced concerns last week.
6. REPORT ON THE 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PLAN.
Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin recalled approximately nine years ago the City was
considering how the old Puget Sound Christian College auditorium could be preserved for public use. As
the possible creation of a performing arts center arose, it became important to create or improve the
connection along 4th Avenue to the downtown core. The Planning Board incorporated the initial concept
into their Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. When Parks & Recreation/Cultural Services undertook
the update of the Streetscape Plan in 2005, the concept of creating an Arts Corridor on 4th Avenue for the
stretch between Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and south of Main Street was developed; a process
that many residents and businesses participated in.
Packet Page 434 of 465
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 435 of 465
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 436 of 465
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 437 of 465
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 438 of 465
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 439 of 465
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 440 of 465
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 441 of 465
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 442 of 465
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 443 of 465
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 444 of 465
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 445 of 465
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 446 of 465
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 447 of 465
AM-2950 13.
Update on Cascade Land Conservancy and Sustainable Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilman D.J. Wilson Time:20 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Quarterly update on activities of Cascade Land Conservancy and Sustainable Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Quarterly update on activities of Cascade Land Conservancy and Sustainable Edmonds.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Memo from Aken re Quarterly Update CLC - Sustainable Edmonds for 4-20-2010 CM
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 10:26 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 01:45 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 02:05 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/01/2010 09:01
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/15/2010
Packet Page 448 of 465
To: Council Member Wilson
From: Jeff Aken, Project Manager---Cascade Land Conservancy
Re: Edmonds-Cascade Agenda Leadership City
Date: April 14, 2010
Overview
The Edmonds City Council voted to become a Cascade Agenda Leadership City on December 1st, 2009 and a contract
was completed in January of 2010. This contract committed CLC to provide the city with a livability assessment, 25
hours of CLC staff time and to convene a learning network of member cities. The City of Edmonds is committed to
designating a staff contact, completing the livability assessment questionnaire and participating in the network. A
summary of current and planned activities is below:
1. (Completed) CLC gave a presentation to the Edmonds Rotary in December about CLC’s regional vision and the
steps Edmonds is taking to become an even more livable city.
2. (Under way) CLC Livability Assessment: This assessment is a policy analysis tool that is used to understand what
policies are in place and how they are working. This is an 81 question electronic survey dealing mainly with
planning policies, but also looks at various public works and parks policies related to the built environment.
Once completed by the City, CLC will conduct a follow up interview with key city staff to answer questions and
then produce a draft report. CLC then presents these findings to the Planning Commission and/or City
Council. The report can also be used in citizen outreach/engagement work to let residents know what steps the
city is taking to enhance the urban environment.
3. (Under way) 25 hours of CLC Staff Time: As a part of the leadership City commitment, the City is entitled to 25
hours of dedicated CLC staff time to support a project of the City’s choosing. The City of Edmonds and CLC
have not yet agreed upon a project for this effort. CLC staff is working with Edmonds Planning Director, Rob
Chave to discuss potential projects and next steps. Initial opportunities that have been identified are:
1. Design in Downtown and Neighborhood Centers
2. Potential TOD opportunities in Edmonds (216th, 238th and/or Edmonds Crossing)
3. Long-term visibility around the comprehensive planning process
4. Complete Streets Policy development
1. CLC is planning to initiate a citizen engagement effort on this topic in May 2010 in
collaboration with Cascade Bicycle Club, Feet First and Transportation Choices
Coalition.
4. (Planned) Community Stewards, The Community Stewards program is a grant-funded program that works to
build a network of volunteers to advocate for carefully planned growth, making their communities even better
places to live. The purpose of the Community Stewards is to create well-informed, well-organized, and well-
prepared citizens who are ready to participate in the decision-making process and guide their neighborhoods
toward a complete, compact and connected future. This program, which CLC is bringing to our leadership
cities as an additional benefit will launch in Edmonds and Shoreline at the end of May. We are currently planning
to host an event on Complete Streets, featuring a panel discussion and community engagement session for
Edmonds/Shoreline to build off momentum of bike-to-work month in May 2010. This will then be followed by
working more closely with interested citizens to develop a Community Stewards network in Edmonds.
5. (Planned) CLC has existing partnerships with 18 cities across the central cascades region – we seek to connect
staff in these cities via a learning network. The next Cascade Agenda Cities Program Learning Network event is
tentatively scheduled for May 26th, 2010 and will include speakers from the City of Renton and Tacoma,
discussing recent design guidelines they have passed relating to Complete Streets policies.
CLC is committed to being an active partner with the City of Edmonds and is willing to discuss ways to strengthen the
partnership around planning projects that enhance the quality of life in Edmonds.
Packet Page 449 of 465
AM-2999 14.
Report on City Council Committee Meetings
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:04/20/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of April 13, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached are copies of the following Council committee meeting minutes:
•04-13-10 Finance Committee
•04-13-10 Public Safety Committee
Please note that copies of the 04-13-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee
Meeting Minutes will be provided at the City Council Meeting on April 20.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 04-13-10 Finance Committee
Link: 04-13-10 Public Safety Committee
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/15/2010 03:01 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/15/2010 05:35 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/16/2010 09:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/15/2010 02:38
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/16/2010
Packet Page 450 of 465
Packet Page 451 of 465
Packet Page 452 of 465
Packet Page 453 of 465
Packet Page 454 of 465
Packet Page 455 of 465
Packet Page 456 of 465
Packet Page 457 of 465
Packet Page 458 of 465
Packet Page 459 of 465
Packet Page 460 of 465
Packet Page 461 of 465
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 13, 2010
Page 1 of 4
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 13, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Council Member D. J. Wilson, Committee
Chair
Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon
Fire Marshal John Westfall
Public Works Director Noel Miller
Public Present: Mr. Bruce Goodnight
Mr. Eric Thuesen
Mr. Tony Shapiro
The meeting was called to order by Chair Wilson at 6:58 p.m. Items were
rearranged by Committee Chair Wilson to accommodate police and guests.
C. Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, 2010-2011 Interlocal
Agreement
ACOP Gannon explained that Edmonds has participated in the Snohomish
Regional Drug Task Force since 1988. The task force receives a majority of its
funding from a federal grant. Participating municipalities, tribal agencies,
Snohomish County and the State of Washington provide local matching funds.
Edmonds’ share of funding for July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 is $9,801, a
$214 increase over last year.
Mr. Wilson asked if this agreement was similar to what the Council approved in
2009. Other than the change in the financial assessment to Edmonds, the
interlocal agreement is identical to last year’s agreement.
Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to
approve.
D. South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force Interlocal
Agreement.
ACOP Gannon explained that the proposed interlocal agreement replaces a
1992 agreement signed by Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The
mission of the task force is to target mid- and upper level drug traffickers in the
three communities. Edmonds has one detective assigned to the task force and
Packet Page 462 of 465
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 13, 2010
Page 2 of 4
contributes 1/3 of the salary of the task force sergeant. That arrangement would
continue under the new agreement.
The proposed interlocal changes the split of seized assets between the three
jurisdictions. Lynnwood will receive 50% of seized assets, and Edmonds and
Mountlake Terrace will receive 25% each. The reason for the revised split is that
Lynnwood provides the majority of the personnel and infrastructure for the unit.
The new agreement also provides clarification regarding the use of task force
vehicles, damage to equipment, and liability for indemnification and defense from
third party claims.
Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to
approve.
B. Discussion on Residential Sprinkler Requirements
With approval by Councilmember Wilson, FM Westfall invited Edmonds
community builders for both single- and multi-family development and invited
their input as vital to a complete discussion. FM Westfall explained the
International Code Council (ICC) adoption process. State of Washington
amended International Residential Code (IRC) to consolidate residential sprinkler
requirements into separate chapters, appendices R and S. Appendix R requires
all residential sprinkler systems to be installed to an accepted standard.
Appendix S offers community determination where the systems will be installed
down to the level of one-family, two-family, and townhouses.
Mr. Bruce Goodnight is an area multiple unit developer and has installed many
multi-unit residential sprinkler systems. Spending dollars in a single-family
dwelling is asking much of the citizens when the current times are slowing
development. Sprinkler system costs and the expense of up-sizing water
connections and meters are prohibitive. A sprinkler system will not add to the
consumption of water and the costs for the larger meter and connection are out
of proportion with the expense of the larger equipment. There is no reduction of
expense for the purposes of installing a mandatory sprinkler system. He feels it
is not important as he hasn’t installed one in his home.
Mr. Tony Shapiro is a local multiple unit designer/developer. Politics come into
code development. Code-writers and legislators adopt requirements in an effort
to removing all risk from living. The costs of protection is not affordable and
should not be a part of additional government requirements. A separate example
and recent mandate from the electrical code requires an arc-fault interrupter
electrical outlet that costs $65 where previously a $3 outlet would be accepted.
Starter homes will become unaffordable for many more.
Mr. Eric Thuesen is a local single-family developer and asked where the
historical need is for such a costly requirement? Implementing a blanket
Packet Page 463 of 465
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 13, 2010
Page 3 of 4
requirement on all new construction will make a great impact on the cost of
construction and people cannot afford it. The costs are such where a startup
family cannot afford their own home. New home construction bears the brunt of
the burden of the sprinkler expense when existing homes are not required the
same upgrades. What is the requirement for remodeled homes? Mr. Thuesen is
concerned with the costs that would be similar to traffic impact fees that are
borne exclusively to new home construction. He believes the cost should be
shared equally to all.
FM Westfall discussed affordability. The costs for the system nationally average
$1.61 per square foot of protected area. Residential sprinklers in single- and
multi-unit applications are installed only in living spaces for the protection of life.
Commercial sprinkler installations require protection in hidden spaces such as
attic and garage. A life safety system can provide the unexpected consequence
of protection to the property itself. Mr. Ken Robinson of Robinson Plumbing, an
area sprinkler designer/installer, finds that most systems in the area can be
installed at $1.25-$1.50 per square foot (s.f.), with a typical up-size one inch
water connection. City and district water departments charge higher rates for
bigger connections. Edmonds Water Department charges additional $1600 for an
increase from ¾” to 1” meter, adding the system cost for a 3000 s.f. home
(without garage) and sprinkler protection will cost $6100.
Mr. Shapiro offered that water damage can become a risk. FM Westfall stated
that insurance companies often provide up to 10% reduction in premium and no
insurance company in the Home Fire Sprinkler Survey penalized a homeowner
for water damage potential.
FM Westfall said there is no serious rash of single-family residential fire deaths to
point to identify a critical public safety alarm, but always a perennial fire death in
non-sprinkered buildings. An Edmonds fire death in January would have a
different outcome in a sprinklered home, however, smoke detectors may have
helped the elderly woman also. Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace have suffered
separate double-fatalities in multi-family residences.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that smoke alarm operation may not be
enough. The elderly population is protected by an active extinguishing system
and alarms sounding assume those involved can act to escape their home. Her
mother reacted to a smoke alarm by sitting down to wait for the fire department
arrival. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas is interested in implementing residential
sprinklers in the city with consideration to starter housing and the costs required
there.
Councilmember Wilson stated that sprinkler protection costs could be reasonable
for the additional protection offered in larger and more expensive homes, 5000
s.f. Not acting on sprinkler requirements also is an option as the state has left it
to the community. Mr. Wilson would like to see more statistics on other
Packet Page 464 of 465
Public Safety Committee Meeting
April 13, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Washington cities that are implementing and results of those that have
implemented residential sprinkler system requirements. Statistics for the need of
such systems will help council to make a sound decision.
Councilmember Wilson asked FM Westfall to bring requested information for
further discussion in the May Committee. The Development Services Committee
should also be involved in the decision.
Action: Councilmember Wilson asked FM Westfall to bring requested
information for further discussion in the May Committee. The Development
Services Committee should also be involved in the decision.
A. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
FM Westfall discussed the adoption of International Fire Code (IFC 2009 edition)
Section 510 mandates that new and existing building owners provide for sufficient
public safety radio communications inside the buildings where emergencies occur. The
new state-wide requirement provides no supportive information for these
“communications booster” systems, where required, and no identifying minimum
design, technical requirements, or acceptance test procedures are called out.
IFC Appendix J provides these minimum design specifications, along with Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) compliance, local permitting, and maintenance
requirements for a booster system to always remain operable once installed. No
buildings have been yet identified for enforcement action and will likely be discovered
when police and fire find the blacked out areas. Often these will be metal buildings
such as the new Lynnwood High School that is experiencing the problem.
Council members agreed that this was an important feature for resolving emergencies.
Council members also agreed this can be incorporated into the final adoption of the
IFC when Chapter 19.25 FIRE CODE is presented for adoption.
Action: Council members agreed that this was an important feature for resolving
emergencies. Council members also agreed this can be incorporated into the final
adoption of the IFC when Chapter 19.25 FIRE CODE is presented for adoption.
The meeting adjourned at 2010 p.m.
Packet Page 465 of 465