2011.02.15 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
6:00 p.m. Executive session regarding labor negotiation strategy.
7:00 p.m. Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-3747 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2011.
C. AM-3741 Approval of claim checks #123783 through #123914 dated February 10, 2011 for
$185,556.57.
D. AM-3736 Ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 10.50 ECC, Public Library Board, to reflect
2001 changes to the agreement between Sno-Isle and the City and the 2006 closing of
Special Library Fund 621.
E. AM-3742 Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications for professional design and right
of way services on the Five Corners Roundabout project.
F. AM-3671 Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.48.190, updating parking provisions
in designated bike lanes.
G. AM-3737 Edmonds Senior Center Roof Project
H. AM-3746 Proposed 2011 equipment rental hourly rates for external agencies and the
Transportation Benefit District.
Packet Page 1 of 143
3. (5 Minutes)
AM-3733
Energy Star Award for City Hall.
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
5. (45 Minutes)
AM-3734
Public hearing on reconsideration of an ordinance amending home occupations
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.20.
6. (20 Minutes)
AM-3748
Ordinances regarding bond refunding.
7. (20 Minutes)
AM-3743
Confirmation of Mayor's Appointment and approval of Professional Services
Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
8. (15 Minutes)
AM-3745
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of February 8, 2011.
9. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 143
AM-3747 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2011.
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.
Attachments
City Council Meeting 2-8-11 draft minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:39 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 02/10/2011 04:26 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 3 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 8, 2011
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Peterson requested the addition of Audience Comment prior to Item 3.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON 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 FEBRUARY 1, 2011
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123662 THROUGH #123782 DATED FEBRUARY 3,
2011 FOR $266,586.21. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#50197 THROUGH #50230 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16, 2011 THROUGH
JANUARY 31, 2011 FOR $641,995.18
D. CORRECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 25, 2011 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Packet Page 4 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 2
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ALY MEDINA
($762.13)
3A. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, circulated material to the Council, commenting on how similarly the Utility
in Shoreline thinks about bonds, that it is less expensive to pay off bonds now rather than invest due to
low interest rates.
Juliana Van Buskirk, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, commented the Chamber has been actively
following the Council’s discussions regarding options for the disposition of the $1.3 million received
from the sale of capital and depreciable assets from the former Edmonds Fire Department. The Chamber
believes the overall guideline should be fiscal responsibility, especially during recent challenging
economic times. The Chamber is hopeful that any decision will focus on the most prudent and responsible
use of the funds to help ensure the economic health of Edmonds and avoid earmarking for a specific
project. The Chamber is not expressing disagreement with any project that may be proposed, but taking
the position that the first step should be to examine the impact on the City’s economic health of retaining
the funds in the Public Safety Reserve or spending the money and reducing the reserve. The Chamber
posed the following questions:
1. Is saving approximately $25,000/year for the next 4 years worth spending $1.3 million of the
City’s reserves on any project, especially in light of the economic climate?
2. Is this what the majority of citizens of Edmonds want? If so, how was this determined?
3. What options can/cannot be considered if these funds are spent and who would make this
decision?
The Council has approved and budgeted for the creation of a Strategic Plan; she suggested it would be
prudent to complete the plan prior to making any major decisions about the use of the funds.
3B. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY
RESERVE FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PAY OFF 1998 LTGO BONDS
Council President Peterson thanked the Chamber and Mr. Hertrich for their comments. This is an
important issue for the City; $1.3 million is a significant amount of money. He was confident the
conversation will be forthright and civil.
Mayor Cooper advised no motion was made regarding this issue during the previous discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3835, A BUDGET AMENDMENT ALLOWING THE USE OF THE
$1.3 MILLION TO PAY OFF THE CITY HALL BONDS.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Chamber for their questions, commenting the questions did not
consider that the City has $1.927 million in an Act of God reserve that was changed two years ago from
use in an economic downturn, a $3 million general operating reserve and the $1.3 million in the Public
Safety Reserve, a total of approximately $6 million in reserves. Her research found Redmond and
Edmonds use a one month reserve, Mukilteo uses a two month reserve, and Bothell has an 18% reserve
which they believe is too high. She concluded the City has sufficient operating reserves, the economy is
improving, and sales tax revenues are higher than projected. Paying off the City Hall bonds with the $1.3
million will free up REET funds that can then be used for street improvements.
Councilmember Petso thanked the Chamber and Harry Gatjens for the citizen survey he conducted on the
internet and the discussion it generated. As a result terms like fiscally irresponsible are no longer being
Packet Page 5 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 3
used and the subject is being rationally discussed. She supported paying off the City Hall bonds. With
regard to how she determined public opinion, it was primarily via talking to people. Most people she has
talked to do not object to using extra money to pay off a debt with a 4% interest rate rather than holding
the money at 1% and refinancing for 4 years. She acknowledged the savings was only approximately
$100,000 over the 4 year period but the benefit to the City was the potential creation through grants and
debt issuance to leverage the $1.3 million up to as much as $8 million in projects for the City over time.
With regard to projects, there are no projects specified at this time. The Council policy in the past was
supposedly to use this REET fund for park acquisition; however, most of the projects funded via the
REET fund are not park acquisition, indicating the policy has varied. She summarized the City has
sufficient reserves, the funds in the Public Safety Reserve only earn 1% interest and paying off the City
Hall bonds retires bonds at a much higher percentage, saves money and frees up money.
Councilmember Petso referred to the Legislative Report the Council received today that includes a bill to
free up REET funds for any purpose including operating expenses. The City has numerous capital
projects and if the bill regarding the use of REET passes and the bonds are paid off, that revenue stream
would also be available for operation and maintenance should the Council choose. She assured if the City
needed to retain the Public Safety Reserve in order to maintain an appropriate level of reserves, that
would be her first choice but that is not the case.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she still did not have clear answers to her questions
including what grants are available. She preferred the Council take action to expand the use of REET
funds prior to spending this money. She did not support spending the money with the current restrictions
on REET funds as it would not address the City’s needs.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with the motion in general concept but had three issues. First, medical
self insurance came up at the Council retreat. It was suggested the $1.3 million would be useful in that
effort although he acknowledged there were other ways of accumulating upfront money for medical self-
insurance. Second, he was interested in removing the restrains placed on the use of REET via Council
ordinance. That would allow the Council to discuss the use of the approximately $300,000 in REET
revenue for infrastructure. He noted it was appropriate to use the funds for infrastructure as they were the
result of the sale of assets. Third, the Council needs a Financial Analyst. This project will require REET
revenue forecasting and he refused to use the forecasts that have been provided. He has 15 reasons for
that refusal; reasons he would prefer to share in executive session because it is a personnel matter. The
Council will need a Financial Analyst to provide financial forecasts with regard to discussions related to
forming a Regional Fire Authority, potential levy, medical self-insurance as well as the use of REET
funds for infrastructure. He would be unable to take action on any of those topics unless the Council has
its own Financial Analyst.
In an attempt to persuade Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Wilson and Plunkett and Council President
Peterson, Councilmember Bernheim explained his rationale did not involve REET. It was purely a fiscal
decision to retire the bonds early to realize a savings to the City of approximately $100,000 over a 4 year
period. He pointed out it was unusual to have an opportunity to save $100,000 over a 4 year period which
makes this a fiscally prudent move. The interest the City pays if the bonds are not paid off is more than
the interest that can be earned if the reserves are retained and bond payments continue. With regard to
citizen support, he has not canvassed the neighborhoods but would tell them that paying this off saves
$100,000/year and over the next 2-3 years the funds in the REET fund will be replenished. He
summarized by the time the Council decided what they wanted to do with the REET funds, the City
would have saved $100,000 and replenished the fund. When a City pays off bonds, it increases its credit
rating and ensures it can borrow at lower rates in the future.
Packet Page 6 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 4
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Councilmember Bernheim’s intent was to pay off the bonds and
bank the money that is saved over the next 3 years. Councilmember Bernheim responded the question of
how the money that is saved would be used was not part of the motion. He did not have any specific plan
for the funds that would be saved.
Councilmember Wilson clarified the City already has a very high credit rating and low debt to equity
ratio. At the retreat, the Council discussed medical self-insurance which had the potential to save the City
far more than $100,000 over 4 years. In 2011 the budget for benefits is $4.2 million, increasing to $6.1
million in 2016, nearly a 50% increase in a 5 year period. The only way the City could effectively
implement a self-insurance plan to give equal or better benefits to employees and save the City money is
to have a reserve to begin. Without that reserve, the savings via self-insurance are not possible. Although
it can be argued that reserves can be acquired in another manner or built up via higher premiums, he
preferred to have an ongoing premium that was lower than existing premiums which will require having
substantial reserves in place at the outset. The $1.3 million could be used for that purpose. One of the
reasons medical self-insurance failed in Edmonds previously was the lack of a reserve.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments, noting self-insurance would
likely require at least $1 million in reserves. If the Council did not pursue self-insurance, she favored
paying off the City Hall bonds.
Council President Peterson expressed his firm opposition to paying off the City Hall bonds, preferring
that the Council make a decision on the REET allocation percentages before paying off the bonds. He
supported the Council considering medical self-insurance, pointing out maximum flexibility via a
significant amount of starting cash would be necessary. Other cities, including Kirkland, have moved to
self-insurance and have realized significant savings. It would be difficult for the Council to pursue self-
insurance without that start-up cash. He concluded there are too many unanswered questions for the
Council to pay off the bonds at this time. To the Chamber’s question about citizen support for paying off
the bonds, the people he has talked with prefer to wait until questions are answered. Although the concept
of paying off bonds can be good, he did not support the motion due to unanswered questions and possible
opportunity to use the funds in a much more constructive manner with a longer vision.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed in concept the motion was a good idea. With regard to the Chamber’s
question about who makes the decision regarding how the funds are spent, he answered the Council
makes that decision. If the motion did not pass, he was hopeful the Council would consider changing the
REET allocation as well as consider hiring a Financial Analyst.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City meets the 200 employee threshold for self-insurance via
its 200 employees plus dependents which increases the number to approximately 400.
Mayor Cooper reminded the City’s bond counsel advised this action required a super majority (five votes)
to pass.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOVED FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND PETSO
VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, WILSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper advised further discussion regarding the use of the Public Safety Reserve would occur on
future agendas.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION REGARDING THE
APPLICATIONS FOR CITY ATTORNEY
Packet Page 7 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 5
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, liked that the Council interviewed the City Attorney applicants in public and
wished the same had been done for the Hearing Examiner applicants. He recalled the Council has
discussed changing to an in-house attorney and one of the applicants referred to being an in-house
attorney. He compared a medical plan that covered everything to an in-house attorney who could handle
all the City’s needs other than bonds. He suggested the Council have members of the public review the
City Attorney applicants’ resumes and provide a recommendation to the Council.
Jan Bush, Edmonds, advocated for the retention of Ogden Murphy Wallace. As an attorney, she was
familiar with establishing and operating a solo practice. She reviewed the candidates’ resumes and could
not imagine a solo practice trying to provide City Attorney services to the City due to the type and
volume of work. Even an attorney with a satellite office or affiliates, there was economy of time and
money in aggregating all legal services in one place. Due to her familiarity with working in a law firm,
she knew how simple it was for an attorney to go down the hall and ask a question of, for example, the
firm’s tax expert. She assumed the City received a great deal of advice in that manner that was not
reflected on the bill. That is an economy that is not available via an attorney with satellite or associate
counsel. The fact that Ogden Murphy Wallace has been the City Attorney for a long time is another
benefit. She cautioned the Council not to do the legislative equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite
one’s face; the Council likely had the ability to negotiate further with Ogden Murphy Wallace. She
suggested setting aside a contingency fund for litigation rather than not budgeting for litigation. She also
suggested the City Attorney contract be reviewed periodically.
Council President Peterson advised final deliberations regarding the selection of a City Attorney would
occur at the February 22 Council meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her interest in hiring a City Attorney had more to do with an
in-house attorney due to her belief that an in-house attorney would be better for the City. She suggested
the Council pursue a one-year contract with a City Attorney and during that year investigate the cost of
attorney who is a staff member and assessable to “all of us all the time.”
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing to a one-year contract would require starting the
process over. Mayor Cooper suggested checking the RFP with regard to the term of the contract. If the
Council wished, they could abandon the process and extend Ogden Murphy Wallace’s contract while an
in-house legal department is explored. The Council may need to consult an attorney other than the City
Attorney to answer that question. Councilmember Plunkett assumed a change to a one-year contract
would complicated the process and require starting the process over.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the RFP states the City anticipates a four year term of agreement
for City Attorney services. It is anticipated that an agreement may be renewed for additional terms with
the express written consent of the parties. Mayor Cooper commented because this is a legislative matter, it
is up to the Council to make the decision regarding the term. If the Council wanted to offer a one year
contract, it would be up to the law firm the Council selects whether they wished to accept a one year
contract.
Council President Peterson commented when this process began last year, an in-house attorney was
discussed but there was not overwhelming support for pursuing that option and the Council agreed to
move ahead with a process for hiring outside counsel. Unless a majority of the Council wished to
consider in-house counsel, he preferred to move forward with the process of selecting a City Attorney.
Packet Page 8 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 6
Mayor Cooper recalled when the Council last deliberated on this issue, options for tonight’s discussion
were to, 1) take public comment and move all four candidates forward, or 2) take public comment and
narrow the list of candidates.
Councilmember Wilson suggested a motion regarding whether to pursue contracting out City Attorney
services or bring attorney services in-house. If the Council chose to contract, he suggested a motion
regarding the selection of finalists.
Council President Peterson agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s suggestion to identify finalists.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she interviewed in-house attorneys in Bainbridge Island and
Renton. Renton’s legal department has 13 employees and a $1.6 million budget. Bainbridge Island has a
$400,000 budget for 1 attorney and 1 paralegal. Lighthouse’s flat fee proposal has seven employees at a
rate similar to Bainbridge Island’s in-house legal department. The City spent approximately $756,000 for
Ogden Murphy Wallace last year. She agreed with the suggestion for an in-house attorney but Lighthouse
Law Group proposes seven employees at a flat fee.
Rather than reducing the number of candidates tonight, Councilmember Bernheim preferred a
Councilmember make a motion to move a candidate forward. Candidates with four votes would move
forward to further discussion on February 22 and the candidates that did not would not be considered
further. He believed an in-house attorney was a good idea but was off topic tonight and further discussion
could be scheduled on a future agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether an in-house attorney could be pursued if the Council
signed a four year agreement with a City Attorney. She was not opposed to moving forward with the
selection of a City Attorney if an in-house attorney could be discussed and possibly implemented within
the four year period. Mayor Cooper assumed the Council could offer a one-year contract to the candidate
selected during final deliberations. The code does not specify the term of the City Attorney, unlike the
Hearing Examiner which the code specifies is a four year term. He suggested Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas make a motion that the Council planned to offer a one-year contract for the purpose of exploring
an in-house attorney during the coming year or wait until clarification is provided on February 22.
Councilmember Petso explained she was not prepared to eliminate any of the candidates tonight. When/if
the Council began voting on candidates to move forward, she would vote for all four, anticipating all four
could do the job. She was uncomfortable limiting the select to two firms, fearing she may learn something
about one of the two finalists during the next two weeks, leaving her only one choice. She preferred not to
limit the candidates as she continued her research.
With regard to cost, Councilmember Petso commented one of the candidates’ proposed costs is $100,000-
$150,000/year more expensive than the others. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that
Lighthouse’s proposal was financially unique. She was uncertain whether Ogden Murphy Wallace could
make a different financial proposal and wanted time to investigate that as well as other contract terms
during the next two weeks.
Council President Peterson agreed Councilmembers could vote for as many candidates as they wished. He
was uncomfortable with delaying a decision until February 22 whether to consider an in-house attorney.
He suggested if there were four Councilmembers who seriously want to consider an in-house attorney,
one of them propose a motion. It is unfair to the applicants to continue the process for two weeks and then
decide to pursue a one-year contract. He anticipated some of the applicants may not be interested in a
one-year contract.
Packet Page 9 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO SET ASIDE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING AN IN-HOUSE
ATTORNEY FOR THE NEAR TERM AND FOCUS ON THE FOUR APPLICANTS TO FILL
THE POSITION FOR CITY ATTORNEY.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged the pursuit of an in-house attorney could change in the future with
four votes of the Council. His motion was related to this contract process.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion but did not want to state he would not consider
an in-house attorney or a one-year contract. He anticipated the contract had a termination clause that
would allow the contract to be terminated if the Council made a decision to hire an in-house attorney. The
motion did not prohibit those in favor of in-house attorney from convincing other Councilmembers to
pursue that option in the future.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Peterson suggested Councilmembers nominate candidates.
Councilmember Wilson proposed sending Ogden Murphy Wallace to the next round. If the motion
passed, he would propose a motion not to advance one of the candidates to the next round because in his
opinion they did not meet the threshold. The Council could then decide whether to select one finalist from
the remaining two. He did not support a process of voting on each candidate because it was unlikely to
result in winnowing down the list of the candidates.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO MOVE OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE FORWARD TO THE NEXT ROUND.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to move all four candidates forward because she has not yet had all
her questions answered.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled this was the process the Council agreed to, that the Council might
winnow down the candidates tonight.
Councilmember Bernheim explained the reason for his probable no vote; he prefers at least one of the
other candidates and for procedural reasons does not want to support the applicants he does not want to
have as the next City Attorney. However, if Ogden Murphy Wallace was selected as the City Attorney, he
was confident he could work effectively with Mr. Snyder.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
MOVE THE LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP FORWARD TO THE NEXT ROUND.
Councilmember Wilson respected Councilmember Petso and Buckshnis’ preference to move all the
candidates forward. He asked whether the Council preferred to move all the candidates forward or only
select two. If the intent was to select two, he suggested the Council discuss the relative merits of the
candidates rather than the absolute merits.
Packet Page 10 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 8
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO NOT FORWARD WEED GRAAFSTRA ON TO
THE NEXT ROUND.
Councilmember Wilson commented if a majority of Councilmembers supported this motion, the Council
could discuss whether to send both Gary McLean and Lighthouse Law Group forward or discuss those
two candidates relative to each other. He did not want to move both forward but was undecided about
which of the two he wanted to move forward.
Mayor Cooper commented he was inclined to rule the amendment out of order because it changed the
intent of the original motion. He declared a brief recess.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he planned to vote against the motion. His reason had nothing to do
with the Lighthouse Law Group’s professionalism; it was because they had only been in existence for five
months.
Councilmember Wilson explained he will vote against the motion because he wanted to an opportunity to
have a fuller conversation via deliberation. He would be happy to reconsider the Lighthouse Law Group
after he had an opportunity to weigh them against the merits of other applicants.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she will support the motion. They are a young, smart, sharp
group although she has concerns with their longevity.
Council President Peterson did not support the motion for the same reasons as Councilmember Wilson.
He supported having a side-by-side discussion of the candidates’ merits.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the motion. She interviewed most of the members of
the Lighthouse Law Group today and was impressed the members of the firm including Chuck Wolfe, an
environmental clean-up attorney.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, PETSO AND BERNHEIM VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO MOVE FORWARD WEED GRAAFSTRA TO THE
NEXT ROUND. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO MOVE GARY MCLEAN TO THE NEXT ROUND.
Councilmember Bernheim liked a great deal of what Mr. McLean said as well as what he heard about him
from others. He liked his willingness to keep time devoted to his learning curve within the retainer for the
first couple months which demonstrated his billing practices would be reasonable. He liked Mr. McLean’s
willingness to support the Police Chief and Police Officers, noting the importance of the City Attorney
working effectively with the Police Department to maximize public safety and minimize public risks. He
also liked Mr. McLean’s willingness to go on a ride-along. He liked Mr. McLean’s philosophical
approach to preventing problems before they arise. Further Mr. McLean has been a City Manager of a
city much larger than Edmonds, giving him sensitivity and competence in problem solving. He noted it
Packet Page 11 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 9
was not unusual for City Managers to be terminated when a City Council changed, it did not reflect on the
effectiveness of the City Manager.
Councilmember Wilson commented he thought highly of Mr. McLean and a mutual friend highly
recommends him. Recognizing the Council’s propensity to kick things down the road, he cared more
about having two finalists than whether the Lighthouse Group or Mr. McLean should be one of the
finalists. He would not support the motion in spite of his esteem for Mr. McLean and full confidence he
could do the job.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for Mr. McLean, remarking she has spoken with him as
well as several of his references including Larry Warren, Renton’s City Attorney. His experience as a
City Manager and knowledge of self-insurance make him a good candidate.
Council President Peterson did not support this applicant based on an overarching philosophy. He
preferred the Lighthouse Law Group and Ogden Murphy Wallace model that includes a number of
experts in various fields. That model has served the City well. The City has a number of complex issues
including labor negotiations and some of the other candidates are better qualified particularly with regard
to labor negotiations. Although Mr. McLean is an excellent attorney, he preferred the model of a larger
firm with more resources.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, PETSO AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, WILSON AND
PLUNKETT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper summarized the Lighthouse Law Group and Ogden Murphy Wallace will advance for
further consideration.
Councilmember Wilson invited staff and the Mayor to provide their opinion regarding the two remaining
candidates. Mayor Cooper responded because only Human Resources Director Debi Humann and he were
present when the interviews were conducted, the only staff analysis that could be provided would be
based on resumes. Recognizing that it was ultimately the Council’s decision, he offered to discuss at the
director’s meeting what level of input staff would provide. Councilmember Wilson suggested inviting
Lighthouse Law Group to a director’s meeting.
Mayor Cooper explained he attended the interviews, reviewed the resumes and reviewed the interviews
again when the meeting was broadcast. He offered to talk to Councilmembers individually or in a group
of up to three regarding the two firms.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged the department directors to meet the Lighthouse Law Group.
She recognized the decision regarding who to hire was ultimately the Council’s decision, but the directors
will work more closely with whomever is hired and she appreciated their input.
Council President Peterson advised final deliberations were scheduled on the February 22 agenda. He
encouraged Councilmembers to contact either firm with any questions as well as meet with the Mayor
and/or staff, recognizing that more information was always a good thing. He thanked all the applicants,
particularly the final four, expressing his appreciation for their experience and willingness to participate
in the process.
5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Packet Page 12 of 143
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 10
Mayor Cooper encouraged the Council and the public to attend the 100th birthday celebration of the
Carnegie Library, now known as the Edmonds Museum, on Thursday, February 17 at 5:00 – 8:00 p.m.
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council affirm the discussion made at the retreat to change the
existing Public Safety Committee to the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
FORMALIZE THE COUNCIL’S DECISION TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY & HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, who was absent from the retreat when this topic was discussed, asked
why Human Resources would be combined with Public Safety.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Council had a lengthy discussion regarding the need to consider the
ongoing cost of medical benefits. Medical benefits represent 50% of ongoing growth in the City’s budget.
Human Resources was combined with Public Safety Committee because without the Fire Department, the
Public Safety Committee has less to do. At the retreat, Councilmember Wilson was asked to begin the
process of researching self-insurance and it should be formalized as part of a Council committee.
Council President Peterson explained the Council discussed forming a special committee to discuss the
self-insurance model and decided because the Public Safety Committee is not as busy, they would have
time on their agenda. Rather than form another committee, it made sense to add it to the Public Safety
Committee.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Human Resources & Public Safety Committee rather than
the Finance Committee would also be discussing the Compensation Consultant and the L5 policies.
Council President Peterson explained the Council President assigns tasks to committees. Recognizing that
some recent Finance Committee agendas have been voluminous, this may be an opportunity to reduce the
Finance Committee’s workload. Council President Peterson clarified at this point the only additional topic
the Human Resources & Public Safety Committee will be considering is self-insurance, other topics may
be assigned in the future.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her initial concern was creating a new committee to study
self-insurance. She was satisfied with forming the committee if they would also be assigned the
Compensation Study and the L5 policy.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Peterson highlighted the following items on the February 15 agenda:
• Ordinance regarding bond refunding
• Public hearing regarding reconsideration of an ordinance amending home occupation regulations
Council President Peterson thanked the Council, staff and citizens who attended the 1½ day retreat. The
retreat was very successful and he will be sending out a report regarding the 2011 agenda.
7. ADJOURN TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to Committee meetings at 7:38 p.m.
Packet Page 13 of 143
AM-3741 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #123783 through #123914 dated February 10, 2011 for $185,556.57.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:185,556.57
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $185,556.57
Attachments
claim cks 2-10-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 02/10/2011 11:46 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 12:32 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/10/2011 10:44 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 14 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123783 2/10/2011 041695 3M XAM3522 SS62339 Reflectivity - Red Electronic Cuttable
Reflectivity - Red Electronic Cuttable
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 333.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 31.70
Reflectivity- Yellow EG Prismatic ShtgSS62340
Reflectivity- Yellow EG Prismatic Shtg
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 300.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 28.50
Reflectivity - White High IntensitySS62341
Reflectivity - White High Intensity
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 472.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 44.88
Total :1,211.33
123784 2/10/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 290359 RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :93.08
123785 2/10/2011 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 34653 AIR FILTER
AIR FILTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.84
Total :55.69
123786 2/10/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5373839 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 25.02
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 15 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123786 2/10/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.38
Total :27.40
123787 2/10/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5361489 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.40
Total :73.78
123788 2/10/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5353780 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5361484
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 MATS655-5366269
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
2Page:
Packet Page 16 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123788 2/10/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
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
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5366270
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5373840
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 MATS655-5378551
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
3Page:
Packet Page 17 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123788 2/10/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 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 :136.60
123789 2/10/2011 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1131 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE1176
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total :200.00
123790 2/10/2011 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0111 Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 35.00
Total :35.00
123791 2/10/2011 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 5278 DISPLAY AD
DISPLAY AD/CEMETERY & COLUMBARIUM
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 108.00
Total :108.00
4Page:
Packet Page 18 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123792 2/10/2011 073511 BELT, TOM ENG20100325 Scope of work changed - inspection not
Scope of work changed - inspection not
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 60.00
Total :60.00
123793 2/10/2011 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 452851 Fleet Inventory Parts- Brake Kits, and
Fleet Inventory Parts- Brake Kits, and
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 717.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 68.14
Total :785.42
123794 2/10/2011 073422 BLAKELY BROTHERS INC ENG20100331 Address in OVWSD.
Address in OVWSD.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 110.00
Total :110.00
123795 2/10/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 798452 INV#798452 - EDMONDS PD - BLACKHAWK
PLATE CARRIER HARNESS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 429.00
IMPAC TRAUMA PLATE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 870.00
MISC BELT ACC-RADIO HOLDER
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 41.90
MISC BELT ACC-CUFF/MAG/LIGHT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 77.85
MISC BELT ACC-SINGLE MAG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 59.85
MISC BELT ACC-UTILITY POUCH
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 83.85
BACK EMBLEMS "POLICE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.50
CAP EMBLEMS "POLICE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.85
SEW VELCRO ON EMBLEMS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 60.00
5Page:
Packet Page 19 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123795 2/10/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 156.83
INV#808182-80-CREDIT BALLISTIC VEST-MACK808182-80
BALLISTIC VEST RETURNED-MACK
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 -850.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 -80.75
Total :876.88
123796 2/10/2011 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &046345 Storm - Stump Recycle
Storm - Stump Recycle
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 32.50
Total :32.50
123797 2/10/2011 073550 BOLIN, HALEY BOLIN020511 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 12.00
Total :12.00
123798 2/10/2011 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 010211 Unit 424 - Rebuild & Recover Seat
Unit 424 - Rebuild & Recover Seat
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 415.00
8.6% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 35.69
Unit 121 - Rebuild and Recover Seat011911
Unit 121 - Rebuild and Recover Seat
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 310.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 26.66
Total :787.35
123799 2/10/2011 065171 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC R-06944 14-FLEXLICENSE RENEWALS
14-Flexlicense Renewals
111.000.653.542.900.490.00 5,421.50
14-Flexlicense Renewals
6Page:
Packet Page 20 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123799 2/10/2011 (Continued)065171 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 5,421.50
14-Flexlicense Renewals
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 5,421.50
14-Flexlicense Renewals
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 5,421.50
Total :21,686.00
123800 2/10/2011 068484 CEMEX 9420878990 Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 132.93
Roadway - Asphalt9420888570
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 316.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.08
Roadway - Asphalt9420894255
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 316.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.08
Total :826.21
123801 2/10/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 165311 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARITES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 193.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 18.42
Total :212.39
123802 2/10/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN01111029 2951000
CYCLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 8.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 0.79
7Page:
Packet Page 21 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :9.09123802 2/10/2011 003510 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
123803 2/10/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 165114 Fleet - Supplies
Fleet - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.77
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.36
Total :4.13
123804 2/10/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT13467 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #13467
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 103.60
Total :103.60
123805 2/10/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2272177 E-Z REACHER
EZ REACHERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.52
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.80
Total :55.32
123806 2/10/2011 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 37282 ECDC code book for new ADB member, Tom
ECDC code book for new ADB member, Tom
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
123807 2/10/2011 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
BUNDLED SERVICES FOR EDMONDS CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 113.81
Total :113.81
123808 2/10/2011 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8207673 WATER WATCH PAGER
pagers-water
8Page:
Packet Page 22 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123808 2/10/2011 (Continued)062891 COOK PAGING WA
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.29
Total :4.24
123809 2/10/2011 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JAN 2011 DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY - JAN - EDMONDS PD
LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING 01/2011
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 889.11
Total :889.11
123810 2/10/2011 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER13677 FUN WITH FROGS
FUN WITH FROGS #13677
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 54.60
Total :54.60
123811 2/10/2011 072189 DATASITE 68313 INV#68313 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 1/13/11-64 GAL TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 80.00
Total :80.00
123812 2/10/2011 072189 DATASITE 68278 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :50.00
123813 2/10/2011 073506 DAVIES, KEVIN & CAROL ENG20080440 Duplicate permit.
Duplicate permit.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 95.00
Total :95.00
123814 2/10/2011 073561 DENNON, BRITT DENNON020211 REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 70.00
9Page:
Packet Page 23 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :70.00123814 2/10/2011 073561 073561 DENNON, BRITT
123815 2/10/2011 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2011-WAR045513 2010 STORMWATER - MUNICIPAL STORMWATER
2010 STORMWATER - MUNICIPAL STORMWATER
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 11,178.86
Total :11,178.86
123816 2/10/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3175 MINUTE TAKING
2/11 City Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 237.00
Total :237.00
123817 2/10/2011 073562 DRAKOS, JOE DRAKOS013111 REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 60.00
Total :60.00
123818 2/10/2011 007253 DUNN LUMBER 465114 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies - Melamine
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies - Melamine
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.75
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies - Screw467472
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies - Screw
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 125.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.94
Total :169.27
123819 2/10/2011 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 190698 INV#190698 - CLIENT#308 - EDMONDS PD
EXAM. MEDICAL PROBLEM/DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 28.25
FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATE/DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 25.00
CRYOSURGERY/DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 45.75
10Page:
Packet Page 24 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123819 2/10/2011 (Continued)008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
E-COLLAR/DASH
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 17.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 1.66
Total :118.16
123820 2/10/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 8-40000 23700 104TH AVE W
23700 104TH AVE W/HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 4,187.71
Total :4,187.71
123821 2/10/2011 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 149030 INV#149030 CLIENT#5118 - EDMONDS PD
NEUTER DOG - IMPOUND#8271
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 85.00
SPAY CAT - IMPOUND #8237
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 89.50
SPAY DOG - IMPOUND#8221
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 109.75
ADD'L CHARGE - IMPOUND#8221
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 50.00
SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #8304
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 97.50
Total :431.75
123822 2/10/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 062372 COPIER RENTAL
COPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 20.81
Total :20.81
123823 2/10/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 062152 MK0653
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 170.26
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 16.17
11Page:
Packet Page 25 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :186.43123823 2/10/2011 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
123824 2/10/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU22225 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.39
Total :4.49
123825 2/10/2011 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 013111 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 10,810.00
Total :10,810.00
123826 2/10/2011 067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING KING13271 ETIQUETTE CLASS
ETIQUETTE: YOUNG LADIES & GENTLEMEN
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 225.00
Total :225.00
123827 2/10/2011 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 170238 Section 132 Plan fees - Annual plan fee
Section 132 Plan fees - Annual plan fee
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 400.00
Total :400.00
123828 2/10/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.43
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 58.65
Total :100.08
123829 2/10/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-771-0158 FS # 16
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 165.35
Total :165.35
12Page:
Packet Page 26 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123830 2/10/2011 073459 GOETZ, CHRISTINE GOETZ13657 STAMPIN' EXTRAVAGANZA
STAMPIN EXTRAVAGANZA #13657
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 24.00
Total :24.00
123831 2/10/2011 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 114430 Fleet- Supplies
Fleet- Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 76.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.30
Unit 51 - Brake Shoe Kit114767
Unit 51 - Brake Shoe Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 148.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.11
Unit 133 - Oil Coole Hose115055
Unit 133 - Oil Coole Hose
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.62
Unit 133 - O Connector115074
Unit 133 - O Connector
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.12
Unit 133 - O Connector115075
Unit 133 - O Connector
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.12
Total :360.29
123832 2/10/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1082918 6035322500959949
SCREENS/TOOL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 26.46
9.5% Sales Tax
13Page:
Packet Page 27 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123832 2/10/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.51
60353225009599492090006
TOGGLE/TOGGLE BOLT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.40
60353225009599494584044
SPADE BIT/HANGER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 47.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.53
60353225009599494593759
PAD LOCKS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.15
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.44
60353225009599497035359
PAINT SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.01
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.62
603532250095994972335
FITTINGS/COUPLING/BUSHING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.20
60353225009599498032582
SHELF
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 204.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.45
603532250095994988973
TORCH FUEL/SHOVEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 100.66
14Page:
Packet Page 28 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123832 2/10/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.56
60353225009599499033718
SLEEVE/HOLESAW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 59.88
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.69
60353225009599499594418
WHEELS FOR HAND TRUCK/CONDUIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 126.58
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.03
Total :673.35
123833 2/10/2011 070042 IKON 84096939 C/A 467070-1003748A4
Finance Copier Rental 1/22/11 - 2/21/11
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07
Additional images Meter charge 12/2/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 218.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 63.89
Total :736.34
123834 2/10/2011 070042 IKON 84112170 Rent on reception copier for billing
Rent on reception copier for billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Total :30.66
123835 2/10/2011 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 84096943 COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 25.18
Total :25.18
123836 2/10/2011 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5016607305 Meter charges on large copier for
9.5% Sales Tax
15Page:
Packet Page 29 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123836 2/10/2011 (Continued)006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 4.54
Meter charges on large copier for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 47.77
Meter charges for Engineering copier5016607306
Meter charges for Engineering copier
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 361.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 34.34
Total :448.13
123837 2/10/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1814323 Council Office Supplies - replace
Council Office Supplies - replace
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 333.94
DVD-R discs for Council Meetings1814324
DVD-R discs for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 41.60
Total :375.54
123838 2/10/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1814219 Misc. office supplies including wall
Misc. office supplies including wall
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 284.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.01
Total :311.28
123839 2/10/2011 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2951021 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
123840 2/10/2011 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 528994 Unit 138 - Work Light
Unit 138 - Work Light
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 269.97
Shop Supplies - Lamps, Lite Bulbs
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 137.36
16Page:
Packet Page 30 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123840 2/10/2011 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.65
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 13.05
Unit 11 - Mirrors529722
Unit 11 - Mirrors
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 125.12
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.89
Total :583.04
123841 2/10/2011 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS ED6215 SUPPLIES
AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.39
Total :27.57
123842 2/10/2011 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 780162 Shop Supplies - Lamps, Posts, Fuses,
Shop Supplies - Lamps, Posts, Fuses,
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 75.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 7.18
Shop Supplies - Oil Absorption Pads780163
Shop Supplies - Oil Absorption Pads
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 104.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 9.97
Shop Supplies - Headlamps780535
Shop Supplies - Headlamps
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 31.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.04
Total :232.60
17Page:
Packet Page 31 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123843 2/10/2011 069851 JACKYE'S ENTERPRISES INC 8690 Street/Storm - Work TShirts, Work
Street/Storm - Work TShirts, Work
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 1,198.50
Street/Storm - Work TShirts, Work
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 1,198.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 113.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 113.85
Total :2,624.70
123844 2/10/2011 065056 JOHNSON, TROY 13111 PAYMENT FOR ROOM MONITOR
Room Monitor/ Brackett Room/ RFA
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
123845 2/10/2011 070145 JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS 48352 DISPLAY AD
HALF PAGE DISPLAY AD IN 2011 CHAMBER OF
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 545.00
Total :545.00
123846 2/10/2011 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS13432 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION, ETC.
WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 10.50
PERSONAL TRAINING #13430
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 56.00
Total :66.50
123847 2/10/2011 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3457981 INV#3457981 - EDMONDS PD
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.17
MULTI USE PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 233.40
18Page:
Packet Page 32 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :290.57123847 2/10/2011 072650 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE
123848 2/10/2011 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN LAMPHERE13473 TAMING YOUR SUGAR BEAST
TAMING YOUR SUGAR BEAST #13473
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 211.25
Total :211.25
123849 2/10/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert City Hall Monitor for 1/27, 2/5, 2/9/11
City Hall Monitor for 1/27, 2/5, 2/9/11
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 108.00
Total :108.00
123850 2/10/2011 072059 LEE, NICOLE 460 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 120.39
Total :120.39
123851 2/10/2011 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20110131 INV 1201641-20110131 EDMONDS PD
Minimum commitment balance jan 2011
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
123852 2/10/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 731683 Unit M16 - Oil, Filters
Unit M16 - Oil, Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 149.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.20
Unit 70 - Cap734523
Unit 70 - Cap
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.37
Total :179.45
123853 2/10/2011 019583 MANPOWER INC 21724541 Receptionist coverage for Jan. 24 & 25,
19Page:
Packet Page 33 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123853 2/10/2011 (Continued)019583 MANPOWER INC
Receptionist coverage for Jan. 24 & 25,
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 156.47
Total :156.47
123854 2/10/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 0988 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE0989
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE0999
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEE1000
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEE1015
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
Total :437.95
123855 2/10/2011 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 11 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 6,270.75
Total :6,270.75
123856 2/10/2011 065574 MCCLURE, JOSH AP98880 OT from sick leave buy back not
OT from sick leave buy back not
001.000.410.521.260.110.00 5.40
Total :5.40
123857 2/10/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 75693504 123106800
CLOCK/FITTINGS/HOSE COUPLING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 422.84
Freight
20Page:
Packet Page 34 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123857 2/10/2011 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.23
Total :432.07
123858 2/10/2011 070381 MICHEL CONSTRUCTION INC BLD20100573 Duplicate payment.
Duplicate payment.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 260.00
Total :260.00
123859 2/10/2011 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0446009-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 54.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 5.20
Total :60.02
123860 2/10/2011 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3762874.001 2091
LAMP
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 948.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 15.23
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 88.62
2091S3801117.001
BREAKER/CUTTING-REEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 220.07
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 20.25
Total :1,292.17
123861 2/10/2011 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 38995 CITYEDMTRE
FITTINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 104.25
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.59
Total :113.84
21Page:
Packet Page 35 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123862 2/10/2011 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 38920 Unit 63 - Face Seal Caps
Unit 63 - Face Seal Caps
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.42
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.53
Total :41.95
123863 2/10/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-244465 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 222.89
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-244563
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: YOST PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 222.89
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-248926
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :635.65
123864 2/10/2011 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 043402 Shop Supplies - 30" Squeegees
Shop Supplies - 30" Squeegees
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 83.72
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.33
8.9% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 7.45
Total :94.50
123865 2/10/2011 073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING 999 Reflectivity - Sign Recycling
Reflectivity - Sign Recycling
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 748.02
Total :748.02
123866 2/10/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 187 Westgate Workshop minutes on 1/25/11
Westgate Workshop minutes on 1/25/11
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 160.00
Five Corners Workshop minutes on
22Page:
Packet Page 36 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123866 2/10/2011 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 176.00
Architectural Design Board minutes on000 00 190
Architectural Design Board minutes on
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 176.00
Total :512.00
123867 2/10/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 635710 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 360.30
OFFICE SUPPLIES648585
OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 13.98
OFFICE SUPPLIES672333
OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 83.00
Total :457.28
123868 2/10/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 580705 STAPLE PULLER
STAPLE PULLER
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.41
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 0.23
INK CARTRIDGE630634
YELLOW INK CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 35.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.34
OFFICE SUPPLIES805580
PENCIL LEAD, LETTER OPENER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.28
Total :44.31
123869 2/10/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 671026 Water/Sewer - Ink for printer
23Page:
Packet Page 37 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123869 2/10/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Water/Sewer - Ink for printer
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 41.99
Water/Sewer - Ink for printer
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 41.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.99
Total :91.96
123870 2/10/2011 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Jan-2011 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 3,928.02
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,150.32
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 396.43
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.000.237.290.000.00 8.88
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.000.237.300.000.00 8.90
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,111.33
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 27,449.08
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 81.00
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 851.33
Total :35,985.29
123871 2/10/2011 069666 OLIVES GOURMET, INC 12909 Council Retreat Lunches for 13
Council Retreat Lunches for 13
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 156.44
24Page:
Packet Page 38 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :156.44123871 2/10/2011 069666 069666 OLIVES GOURMET, INC
123872 2/10/2011 072027 OLYMPIC TRUCK SERVICE INC 53393 Unit 55 - Washer Pump
Unit 55 - Washer Pump
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.51
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.27
Total :26.14
123873 2/10/2011 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 23700 104TH AVE W
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.31
23700 104TH AVE W0060860
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 70.31
Total :83.62
123874 2/10/2011 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 95862 INV#95862 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 1993 SATURN #435YHQ
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
123875 2/10/2011 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 3279863 Unit 133 - Radiator
Unit 133 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 419.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.81
Total :458.81
123876 2/10/2011 073507 PILCHUCK CONTRACTORS ENG20080471&0121 2 Duplicate payments.
2 Duplicate payments.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 730.00
25Page:
Packet Page 39 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :730.00123876 2/10/2011 073507 073507 PILCHUCK CONTRACTORS
123877 2/10/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 189825 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST189987
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST190136
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST190303
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
26Page:
Packet Page 40 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123877 2/10/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST190499
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
Total :48.50
123878 2/10/2011 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ13390 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP
FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP #13390
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 87.50
Total :87.50
123879 2/10/2011 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 10-895 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 -276.25
COURT SECURITY11-048
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,178.13
Total :1,901.88
123880 2/10/2011 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0037369-IN 0047800
STUB SHAFT/LOWER BEARING KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,045.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 99.28
Total :1,144.28
123881 2/10/2011 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 53344 E3JC.SERVICES THRU 12/26/10
E3JC.Services thru 12/26/10
27Page:
Packet Page 41 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123881 2/10/2011 (Continued)068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,213.92
Total :1,213.92
123882 2/10/2011 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1 750024 Fleet - 12V CCW HD Slot
Fleet - 12V CCW HD Slot
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 149.92
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.53
Fleet - Supplies1-712938
Fleet - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.88
Total :212.33
123883 2/10/2011 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7546 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 800.00
Total :800.00
123884 2/10/2011 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 1/31/2011 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD-ANIMAL DISPOSAL
#582610 - 4 NPC 1/10/11
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 42.72
Total :42.72
123885 2/10/2011 070428 SEATTLE MARINERS 498972 TICKET DEPOSIT
TICKET DEPOSIT FOR HEKINAN VISITORS
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 107.50
Total :107.50
123886 2/10/2011 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 10-4626 Unit 106 - Hose, Couplings, Gaskets
Unit 106 - Hose, Couplings, Gaskets
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 143.26
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.80
28Page:
Packet Page 42 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123886 2/10/2011 (Continued)067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.96
Uni t106 - Quick Connects, Stainless11-250
Uni t106 - Quick Connects, Stainless
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.69
Unit 106 - Vac Tube11-304
Unit 106 - Vac Tube
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 202.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.26
Total :563.85
123887 2/10/2011 062830 SEBERS, ROD 1219 TRAVEL/SEBERS
TRAVEL/SEBERS
411.000.656.538.800.430.00 111.06
Total :111.06
123888 2/10/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0119040-IN Unit EQ67PO - LED's
Unit EQ67PO - LED's
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 286.72
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 13.75
Total :300.47
123889 2/10/2011 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-227087-1 Unit 31 - Camera Kit
Unit 31 - Camera Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 399.00
Unit 106 - Camera Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 399.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.81
Unit EQ68EN - X30 Auto Stock14-227706
Unit EQ68EN - X30 Auto Stock
29Page:
Packet Page 43 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123889 2/10/2011 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 55.00
Unit eq67po
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 55.00
Unit 27
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 10.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.22
Unit 97 - Wheel14-227874
Unit 97 - Wheel
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 142.33
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.52
Total :1,210.34
123890 2/10/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-2646-0 1000 EDMONDS ST
1000 EDMONDS ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
610 PINE ST2013-2711-1
610 PINE ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.05
750 15TH ST SW2015-5730-3
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 364.07
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY2016-1027-6
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.70
SPRINKLER SYSTEM201762101
SPRINKLER SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 153.68
OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER202161535
OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 104.86
930 9TH AVE N2022-5063-5
30Page:
Packet Page 44 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123890 2/10/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
930 9TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
Total :733.44
123891 2/10/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 120293593 2019-9517-2
9805 EDMOND WAY/WESTGATE
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 32.05
2030-9778-7160042087
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 32,376.81
Total :32,408.86
123892 2/10/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201103561 SIGNAL LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE
SIGNAL LIGHT - 23800 Firdale Ave
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.31
STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 lights
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,429.64
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS:13 LITES)202529202
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WATTS:13
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)202576153
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,800.95
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :18,714.85
123893 2/10/2011 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Jan-2011 Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 896.65
31Page:
Packet Page 45 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :896.65123893 2/10/2011 070167 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
123894 2/10/2011 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 46962 Relfectivity - Bars Stamp
Relfectivity - Bars Stamp
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 45.92
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.36
Total :50.28
123895 2/10/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DISPOSAL SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.63
Total :569.63
123896 2/10/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 29.95
Total :29.95
123897 2/10/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68
garbage & recycle for FAC103585
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
garbage & recycle for Library103586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
garbage & recycle-City Hall103588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 459.89
Total :2,240.27
123898 2/10/2011 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2411910-01 Storm - 1 Sweatshirt, 2 Jeans - M
Storm - 1 Sweatshirt, 2 Jeans - M
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 119.95
9.2% Sales Tax
32Page:
Packet Page 46 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123898 2/10/2011 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.04
Storm - 1 S Shirt, 5 Jeans - M Brown2411985-01
Storm - 1 S Shirt, 5 Jeans - M Brown
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 199.00
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 18.31
Storm - Exchanged 2 for 5 total Jeans2412520-01
Storm - Exchanged 2 for 5 total Jeans
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 121.75
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.20
Street - 5 Jeans - B Sanders4179067-01
Street - 5 Jeans - B Sanders
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 171.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 16.32
Street - 5 Jeans - K Harris4179116-01
Street - 5 Jeans - K Harris
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 173.55
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 16.49
Street - 1 S Shirt, 5 Jeans - P Rochford4179148-1
Street - 1 S Shirt, 5 Jeans - P Rochford
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 223.15
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 21.20
Street - 5 Jeans - T Hanson4179149-01
Street - 5 Jeans - T Hanson
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 190.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 18.12
Storm - Vests4179325-01
Storm - Vests
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 136.90
33Page:
Packet Page 47 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123898 2/10/2011 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 13.01
Storm - 1 S Shirt, 1 Jeans - R Wichers4179389-01
Storm - 1 S Shirt, 1 Jeans - R Wichers
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 75.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 7.21
Total :1,545.55
123899 2/10/2011 065373 STI-CO INDUSTRIES INC 0000108495 Unit eq67po - Antena System
Unit eq67po - Antena System
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 65.70
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 13.52
Total :79.22
123900 2/10/2011 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18926619 BOLTS, NUTS, WASHERS
BOLTS, NUTS, WASHERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.68
Total :19.40
123901 2/10/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101416-E0JA E0JA.INVITATION TO BID ADVERTISEMENT
E0JA.Invitation to Bid Advertisement
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 175.68
E7AC.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT101416-ENG
E7AC.RFQ Advertisement
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 206.64
Total :382.32
123902 2/10/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-1/31/2011 Street/SW MW I ad, (#11-04)
Street/SW MW I ad, (#11-04)
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 163.10
Aquatic Manager ad (#11-01)
34Page:
Packet Page 48 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
123902 2/10/2011 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 163.10
Total :326.20
123903 2/10/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 108763 PLAZA ROOM WEDDING AD
PLAZA ROOM AD IN WEDDING SECTION OF
001.000.640.574.200.440.00 426.20
Total :426.20
123904 2/10/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1722110 NEWSPAPER ADS
Council & Planning Agenda
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,634.27
NEWSPAPER AD1725544
Bids for waterline replacements
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 175.68
NEWSPAPER ADS1725765
Ord. Amend. Home Occupations
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 85.40
Total :1,895.35
123905 2/10/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101416 Legal Notices:~
Legal Notices:~
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 97.42
Total :97.42
123906 2/10/2011 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 302385 PW - Faucet Parts
PW - Faucet Parts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.58
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.90
Total :44.98
123907 2/10/2011 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 10 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 442.00
35Page:
Packet Page 49 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :442.00123907 2/10/2011 042750 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE
123908 2/10/2011 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8625101 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
FILTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 123.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.77
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8625103
RETROFIT CAPS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.27
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8626126
FILTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.81
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8626131
ADAPTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.35
Total :186.71
123909 2/10/2011 073050 VERDIEM CORP 2361 VERDIEM POWER MONITORING SOFTWARE MAINT
Maintenance, including full tech310-00147
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 536.25
DIS Master Contract T06-MST-002 Admin
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 2.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 50.94
Total :589.87
123910 2/10/2011 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I11006461 INV#I11006461 EDM301
BACKGROUND CHECKS 01/2011
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 308.00
36Page:
Packet Page 50 of 143
02/10/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:04:22AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :308.00123910 2/10/2011 065035 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
123911 2/10/2011 047960 WEAN, GREG 12 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 361.99
Total :361.99
123912 2/10/2011 073558 WHITWORTH LAND CO, LLC CRA20100033 3rd party review has been completed and
3rd party review has been completed and
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 13.92
Total :13.92
123913 2/10/2011 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 112168 GARDENING SUPPLIES
CASERON, SPEEDZONE, ROUND UP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 753.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.06
Total :823.44
123914 2/10/2011 073479 WU, THOMAS 1048 INTERPRETER FEE - Mileage portion only
INTERPRETER FEE - Mileage portion only
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 48.39
Total :48.39
Bank total :185,556.57132 Vouchers for bank code :front
185,556.57Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report132
37Page:
Packet Page 51 of 143
AM-3736 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Carrie Hite Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee:Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 10.50 ECC, Public Library Board, to reflect 2001 changes to
the agreement between Sno-Isle and the City and the 2006 closing of Special Library Fund 621.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend approval.
Previous Council Action
Intent to annex to the Library District, Ordinance 3342, approved by City Council 1/2/2001 and
authorization for Mayor to sign Library Annexation Agreement on April 3, 2001. City Council approval
of Ordinance 3612 including closing Fund 621, effective 12/05/2006. Approved by CSDS Committee for
Consent Agenda, 2/8/11.
Narrative
The proposed ordinance provides amendments to the Edmonds Community Code Chapter 10.50 Public
Library Board to reflect changes that have been made by City Council in past years but were never
updated in the ECC.
Effective January 2002, the City and Sno-Isle Regional Library District reached an agreement in which
the City, following a vote of the citizens, was annexed to the Library District. Under this agreement the
City provides quarters for the Library to the Library District in the building located at 650 Main Street
(the Peggy Pritchard Olson Building). The City is responsible for maintenance, repair or capital costs to
the building, and the Library District provides library services to the residents of the City.
The City appointed Library Board serves in an advisory capacity to the City and to the Library District.
The primary responsibilities of the Library Board following annexation pertain to the facility and the
Library Board has not acted as a managing body for the provision of library services since 1998
(Ordinance 3213). The Special Library Fund 621 was originally established in 1967 by Ordinance 1312
for donations to the Library which were allocated by the Library Commission for the purpose of
"bettering the services of the library." This is no longer a function of the Library Board and the fund was
closed in 2006.
The amendments in the proposed ordinance bring the ECC up to date to reflect past actions by the
Edmonds City Council.
Attachments
Revised Library Ordinance
Form Review
Packet Page 52 of 143
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 10:27 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 02/09/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 53 of 143
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
10.50 ECC, PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
, TO REFLECT THE
CLOSE OF SPECIAL LIBRARY FUND 621 AND TO REVISE
REFERENCES TO SNO-ISLE LIBRARIES AND ITS
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, library services at the City of Edmonds are provided by Sno-Isle
Libraries, partly under the terms of the Library Annexation Agreement entered into by the parties
in 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Public Library Board serves, in part, as an advisory board
to the Mayor, City Council, and Sno-Isle Libraries concerning library facility and services at the
City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the special library fund 621 was closed when Ordinance No. 3612
was adopted and became effective; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amended.
Section 2.
Chapter 10.50 ECC is hereby amended to read as set forth
in Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference.
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 54 of 143
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 2 -
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
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 55 of 143
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
10.50 ECC, PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD, TO REFLECT THE
CLOSE OF SPECIAL LIBRARY FUND 621 AND TO REVISE
REFERENCES TO SNO-ISLE LIBRARIES AND ITS
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 56 of 143
{BFP848729.DOC;1\00006.900120\ } - 4 -
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 10.50
PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
Sections:
10.50.010 Appointment of trustees – Terms.
10.50.020 Powers and duties.
10.50.010 Appointment of trustees – Terms.
As provided in RCW 27.12.190, the mayor shall appoint five trustees to serve on the public
library board. Appointments shall be for a full term of five years on a rotating basis, i.e., one
term shall expire and one new trustee shall be appointed each year. No trustee shall serve more
than two consecutive full terms. An appointment to fill an unexpired term less than two years in
length shall not be considered a full term. Trustees who are serving on the date this amendment
is adopted shall complete their term of office.
10.50.020 Powers and duties.
A. Advice to the Mayor and City Council. The public library board shall advise the mayor and
city council at least annually or on such other reporting schedule as may be agreed by the mayor,
council, and board, regarding:
1. The planning, management, use, care, and disposition of the library's property, equipment
and physical facilities;
2. The policies, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the library and its facilities;
3. The budget, administration, scope and quality of library resources and services provided to
the city of Edmonds by the Sno-Isle Libraries;
4. The acceptance or rejection of all gifts of money or property to the city for the benefit of
the library and its patrons;
5. Such other matters as the mayor or city council may assign to the board at their discretion.
B. Coordination. The board shall coordinate its advice to the mayor and city council with the
liaison staff of the parks, recreation, and cultural services department of the city of Edmonds
before bringing matters to the mayor and council.
C. Advice to the Sno-Isle Libraries. The board shall advise the Sno-Isle Libraries, an inter-
county rural library district organization which provides library services to the city of Edmonds,
on policies for the development of the library's collection, the use of the library, and the scope
and quality of the services provided.
Packet Page 57 of 143
AM-3742 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications for professional design and right of way services
on the Five Corners Roundabout project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization to advertise.
Previous Council Action
On February 8, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the
consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W currently experience long queues and delays during peak traffic
hours for all approaches. The intersection operates at level of service (LOS) F and the City's 2009
Transportation Plan identifies the intersection as a concurrency project since the City's LOS standard is D.
The project will install a modern landscaped roundabout at 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W in order
to improve traffic flow and raise the level of service above the City's standard. The project will require
the acquisition of right of way at the intersection to complete the improvements. The City was successful
in securing a $463,000, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) federal grant for this work. A
13.5% local match is required and will be funded by motor vehicle fuel tax revenue from the Street
Construction Fund.
The scope of services for the contract will include the completion of the plans, specifications,
environmental documentation, cost estimate, and right of way services. The design and environmental
phases are scheduled for 2011 through 2012 and the right of way acquisition phase will begin in the fall
of 2012.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 02/10/2011 11:34 AM
Public Works Kim Karas 02/10/2011 04:26 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 04:31 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 02/10/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 58 of 143
AM-3671 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.48.190, updating parking provisions in designated
bike lanes.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve Ordinance.
Previous Council Action
On January 11, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the
consent agenda for approval.
Narrative
One element of the Interurban Trail project (construction scheduled to begin in Spring 2011 and
completed by the end of 2011) consists of the addition of bike lanes on both sides of 76th Avenue W,
between SR-104 and 228th Street SW, and along 228th Street SW between 76th Avenue W and the
Interurban Trail.
The ECC doesn’t include a section indicating that parking along bike lanes is restricted. Therefore, the
purpose of this amendment is to state that stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle upon a designated
bike lane is restricted. Such actions will subsequently become enforceable by the Police Department.
This change is included as item 3 in subsection (B) of ECC 8.48.190.
The Parking Committee reviewed and approved this item at their meeting on February 2, 2011.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Proposed Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 02/10/2011 11:14 AM
Public Works Kim Karas 02/10/2011 04:26 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 04:31 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 01/12/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 59 of 143
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
2/25/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 8.48.190 RELATING TO
PROHIBITED PARKING UPON DESIGNATED BIKE LANES,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code prohibits stopping, standing or parking
when such action would reduce the street lane width to less than ten (10) feet for vehicles
traveling in the same direction, and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is in the process of installing new bike lanes
pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan element relating to bikeways, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to clarify
parking restrictions along streets with bike lanes, and
WHEREAS, by doing so, the City Council authorizes the erection of no parking
zones and signs by the transportation engineer in conjunction with the designation of bicycle
lanes, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code Section 8.48.190 Stopping, Standing or
Parking Prohibited Along Certain Roadways
, Section B is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Page 60 of 143
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Section 8.48.190 Stopping, Standing or Parking Prohibited
Along Certain Roadways
A. Except as otherwise permitted by the Edmonds City Code,
no person may stop, park, or leave any vehicle, whether attended
or unattended, upon any paved portion of any uncurbed street.
B. Except as otherwise permitted by the Edmonds City Code,
no person may stop, stand or park or leave standing any vehicle,
whether attended or unattended, upon any paved portion of a
curbed street in the following manner:
1. Upon street lanes, where such action reduces the street lane
width to less than ten (10) feet for vehicles traveling in the same
direction; or
2. Upon cul-de-sacs when such action reduces the radius of
the cul-de-sac to less than 35 feet.
3. Upon designated bike lanes
.
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 MIKE COOPER
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:
Packet Page 61 of 143
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 62 of 143
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 8.48.190 RELATING TO
PROHIBITED PARKING UPON DESIGNATED BIKE LANES 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 63 of 143
AM-3737 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Senior Center Roof Project
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend the Council award the project for the Edmonds Senior Center Roofing Repairs Project to the
low bidder, Wright Roofing in the amount of $96,156.33. Recommend the acceptance of the total project
budget amount to comprise $110,579.78.
Previous Council Action
The supporting information for this bid award was reviewed by the Community/Development Services
Committee at its meeting on February 8, 2011, and approved for presentation to the full Council on the
consent agenda.
Narrative
The Edmonds Senior Center currently holds a contract for funding through the Washington State
Department of Commerce, a Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) grant totaling
$197,000. Because this grant is for the current state biennium, it expires this July, and any remainder will
very likely be pulled back into the state coffers to assist with its budget woes.
The grant was written to cover a variety of building repairs and improvements, and, at this time,
approximately $140,000 remains unspent. One of the major items listed on the grant contract is a solution
for the three areas of the Senior Center roof that remain unaddressed since the City completed a roofing
project there in 2006. These areas are in sore need of attention, in fact, the area of the breezeway has a
leak that lands on the walkway beneath whenever it rains. To qualify for grant eligibility, the roofing
work must carry a manufacturer's warranty of at least 10 years, so the specifications for the project
include this requirement, as well as the technical specifications covering the installation of the new
roofing material and associated repairs to joists, caps, parapet walls, etc.
The City Purchasing Policies and Procedures allow for bidding for projects valued less than $200,000 to
be conducted by employing the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) Small Works Roster to
request contractors of the appropriate category provide bid information on work the City is bidding. Late
last year, staff used this process to select five firms from the roster to provide pricing for this work using
one particular roofing manufacturer's system. Unfortunately, none of the bids received for this effort were
within the reach of the CTED funding available, and all bids were rejected.
Nonetheless, the project needed to be accomplished for the good of the facilities and the expiration of the
grant loomed closer. On January 3, 2011, reformulated bid documents were sent out to all the contractors
in the MRSC Small Works Roster roofing subcategory. The project was opened to manufacturers of
Packet Page 64 of 143
in the MRSC Small Works Roster roofing subcategory. The project was opened to manufacturers of
additional roofing systems and the work was split up to comprise smaller chunks of what is needed. In
this way, staff intended that it would be possible to complete at least some part of the roofing work and
still access the maximum amount of grant funding possible before the expiration of the contract.
Bids were opened on January 31, 2011 (see the attached bid recap form), and the firm providing the low
bid is Wright Roofing. Because of the way the bid form was structured, there are two base schedule
pieces and two alternates. The City is most fortunate to have received a bid from this firm that will allow
all the reamining roof work to be addressed, but, even better, there is also budget to accept both the
alternates. These alternates provide adding insulation to the areas above the occupied portions of the
Center (Thrift Shop and two-story building) to increase the energy efficiency of the structure and reduce
the heating costs paid by the Center by approximately $500 - $800 per year.
At this point, staff recommends that the Council approve the award of this contract to Wright Roofing in
the total amount, including tax, of $96,156.33. Because there is at least one known leakage issue
affecting the areas to be addressed, and because the entire project area is covered by roof material of
advanced age, staff also recommends a contingency amount of 15% be established, contributing to a total
project budget of $110,579.78. This level of approved funding will put the City in a better position to
address any additional issues of water intrusion that may come to light as the work progresses.
Because the Edmonds Senior Center is the agency holding the grant that is intended to pay for this work,
staff has coordinated with Farrell Fleming, its Executive Director, that the City will pay the contractor
directly for the project, and the Senior Center will apply for grant reimbursement. Grant payments from
the state to the Center will be funneled back to the City using a process that already has assisted the City
in paying for additional work performed in the Senior Center Kitchen Improvement Project and the
Senior Center Entryway Renovation Project. In this way, there will be ultimately no expense incurred by
the City because the entire project is reimburseable and will be completed well ahead of the grant deadline.
Attachments
Bid Recap
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Kim Karas 02/10/2011 04:26 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 04:31 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 02/09/2011 12:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 65 of 143
BID TABULATION SHEET
ABSTRACT OF QUOTES/BIDS AUTHORIZATION DATE: N/A OPENING DATE: 1-31-11 AWARD DATE: TBD
Supplies or Ser vices:NAME OF BIDDERS:Remar ks
SCSC Roofing Repairs Project 1 2 3 4
Pacific Tech Lloyd A. Lynch Wright Roofing Wayne's Roofing
Originating Office: Public Works Construction Roofing
Department: Public Works
ITEM
1a BASE BID - SCHEDULE A 60,350.00 44,913.00 21,302.00 94,800.00
1a BASE BID - SCHEDULE B 130,000.00 65,869.00 28,030.00 81,100.00
2 ALTERNATE #1 10,000.00 6,022.00 11,492.00 14,700.00
3 ALTERNATE #2 23,500.00 18,661.00 26,990.00 29,300.00
WA State Sales Tax $18,083.25 $10,524.29 $4,686.54 $16,710.50
TOTAL BASE BID $208,433.25 $121,306.29 $54,018.54 $192,610.50
Unit Price #1 $11.50 $1.50 $4.10 2
Unit Price #2 $8.50 $10.00 $26.00 $20.00
Bid Deposit Bond Bond Bond Bond
Bid Signed Yes Yes Yes Yes
Warranty
Rec'd Addenda if Required #1 #1 #1 #1
Is this product a WA State Contract item? Yes No XXX
Indicate vendors from above listing who have previously provided services or products to the City and indicate whether the results were satisfactory or unsatisfactory:
Recommended Awar dee: I CERTIFY THAT ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION WERE OPENED,
READ AND RECORDED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.
Low Bid That Is Unacceptable:__________________________________
Agent for the City of Edmonds:________________________________________________________________
Note: Indicate N/A in each of the above categories that does not apply to the bid being presented
EXCELDATA\ADMIN\BIDS
Packet Page 66 of 143
AM-3746 Item #: 2. H.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed 2011 equipment rental hourly rates for external agencies and the Transportation Benefit District.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
On 02/08/2011 the Finance committee recommended moving this item to consent for council approval.
The Mayor and staff also support this action.
Previous Council Action
Updated the hourly rates back in 2009 based on FEMA rates.
Narrative
There are instances when the City is required to use City equipment for projects that will be reimbursed
by an outside agency. When the City is reimbursed by a governmental agency, for example grant
reimbursement, the City historically has used rates set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
When a private contractor is to reimburse the City, the rates are set at twice the amount of FEMA rates.
This memo seeks Council approval to update the Equipment Rental Hourly Rates for reimbursement by
external agencies. The rates were last updated in July of 2009. The City uses FEMA rates as a
guideline and these rates were recently updated. This was the first update since the rates were brought
before the Council in 2009.
This increase also affects the City's rates to the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The
rates charged to the TBD will be the same rates used for governmental reimbursement.
Attachments
2011 Proposed Equipment Rental Rates
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 12:32 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:39 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 02/10/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 67 of 143
Intergovernmental Contractor
UNIT #DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates
2 2005 Ford F-250 8802 $20.00 $40.00
3 1995 Case Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y.8571 $23.50 $47.00
4 2006 Toyota Forklift 8300 $11.75 $23.50
5 1997 Chevrolet Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
6 2008 Ford F250 8802 $20.00 $40.00
7 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
8 2002 Ford Tractor Mower 8381 $19.00 $38.00
9 2002 CAT Loader 2 c.y.8392 $28.75 $57.50
10 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
11 2001 International Dump Truck 8721 $45.00 $90.00 (3)
Snow Plow addition 8457 $16.00 $32.00
Sand spreader 8457 $7.50 $15.00
12 1993 Dodge Pickup 8802 $20.00 $40.00
13 2008 W acker - Asphalt Roller 8222 $25.00 $50.00
14 2009 International Dump truck 8721 $45.00 $90.00
Snow Plow addition 8457 $16.00 $32.00
18 1995 Ford Tractor Loader 8391 $21.50 $43.00
19 1995 Ford Service Truck 8802 $20.00 $40.00
20 1995 Freightliner Dump Truck 8 c.y.8720 $35.00 $70.00
21 1995 GMC Dump Truck 8 c.y.8720 $35.00 $70.00
22 2000 International Dump Truck 8 c.y.8720 $35.00 $70.00
Snow Plow addition 8457 $16.00 $32.00
Sand spreader 8457 $7.50 $15.00
23 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
24 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
25 2006 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
28 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
29 2004 Chevrolet Colorado 8801 $14.00 $28.00
30 1999 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
31 1996 Volvo Vactor 8721, 8713 $66.50 $133.00 (2,3)
32 2007 Brush Bandit Chipper 8202 $21.75 $43.50
33 2001 Grimmer Air Compressor 175 CFM 8013 $20.00 $40.00
34 2008 Ford Escape (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
35 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8805 $30.00 $60.00
36 2006 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
37 2008 Ford F-450 Utility 8802 $30.00 $60.00
38 1995 Ford Pickup 8802 $20.00 $40.00
39 1996 Ford Pickup 8801 $20.00 $40.00
40 Workhorse Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
41 2000 Utility Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
42 1995 Ford Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROPOSED 2011 HOURLY RENTAL RATES
Packet Page 68 of 143
Intergovernmental Contractor
UNIT #DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates
43 2002 Ford F-450 8805 $30.00 $60.00
45 2002 Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
46 1997 Isuzu Paint Stripper 8445 $70.00 $140.00 (2)
47 1973 Tack Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
48 2006 Ford Escape (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
50 2005 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
51 2005 Ford F-450 8805 $30.00 $60.00
55 2001 Elgin Street Sweeper 8157 $59.00 $118.00
57 2007 Cat Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y.8392 $28.75 $57.50
58 1999 Dodge Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
59 2005 Interstate Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50
61 1980 Gorman Rupp Pump 8474 $9.25 $18.50
62 $0.00
63 1993 CAT Backhoe 1 1/2 c.y./25 HP 8392 $28.75 $57.50
67 1993 Butler Asphalt Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
69 1994 Water Mower Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
70 1996 Ford Flatbed 8640 $20.00 $40.00
72 1998 Magnum Utility Trailer 8640 $1.70 $3.40
74 2007 Towmaster Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50
78 1996 Walton Trailer 8600 $10.25 $20.50
79 1992 GMC Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
80 2000 Grimmer Air Compressor 175 CFM 8013 $20.00 $40.00
81 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
82 1976 Huber Min. M-700 Grader 8330 $34.50 $69.00
83 1985 Hitchman Trailer & Generator 8312 $17.00 $34.00
85 1999 Whiteman Cement Mixer 8410 $3.25 $6.50
86 1999 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
88 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
89 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
90 1999 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
91 2002 Ford Mower 8381 $19.00 $38.00 (1,2)
92 1986 Multiquip Pump 8474 $9.25 $18.50
93 2008 Ford F-250 8801 $14.00 $28.00
94 2000 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
95 2007 Workhorse Step Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
96 1999 Chevrolet Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
97 2008 Ford F450 8805 $30.00 $60.00
98 2007 Sterling Jet Truck 8721, 8713 $66.50 $133.00 (2,3)
100 2010 Bucket Truck 8700, 8486 $37.75 $75.50 (2)
102 2004 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
104 2004 Ford Taurus (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
105 2008 Ford Escape (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
106 2007 International Vactor 8784, 8713 $66.50 $133.00 (2,3)
119 1999 Ford Taurus (charged per mile)8070 $0.50 $1.00
120 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
Packet Page 69 of 143
Intergovernmental Contractor
UNIT #DESCRIPTION Section Rates Rates
121 2001 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
122 2001 Cevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
123 2002 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
124 2002 Air Compressor 8013 $20.00 $40.00
125 2002 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
126 2002 Dodge Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
127 2002 Chevrolet Van 8801 $14.00 $28.00
128 2002 F-250 Ford 8802 $20.00 $40.00
129 2002 Ford Flatbed F-450 8700 $20.00 $40.00
130 2002 Crack Sealer $30.00 $60.00
131 2003 Chevrolet Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
132 2003 Ford Flatbed F-450 8802 $20.00 $40.00
133 2003 Isuzu Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
134 Ford Flatbed 8700 $20.00 $40.00
135 2004 Ford Taurus 8070 $0.50 $1.00
136 2004 Ford F-250 8020 $20.00 $40.00
137 2004 Air Compressor 8013 $20.00 $40.00
138 2007 Elgin (Sterling SC8000) Street Sweeper 8157 $59.00 $118.00
140 2007 Zipper Asphalt Grinder 8635 $24.75 $49.50
M-16 RESCUE BOAT 30 ft.8142 $65.00 $130.00
EPD Patrolling Car (charged per mile)8072 $0.60 $1.20
EPD Stationary Car With Engine Running 8073 $16.25 $32.50
495 1999 GMC Sonoma Pickup 8801 $14.00 $28.00
Packet Page 70 of 143
AM-3733 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Energy Star Award for City Hall.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Accept the award from the U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR program in recognition of the energy-efficient
operation of City Hall.
Previous Council Action
Not applicable
Narrative
Since the beginning of 2007, the energy consumption of the major City buildings overseen by Facilities
Maintenance has been monitored in Portfolio Manager, a tool available on-line at www.energystar.gov.
Buildings that operate within the top 25% of rated peer structures across the United States are eligible to
be awarded the ENERGY STAR label. City Hall is the only building owned by the City that is currently
able to be rated because of its primary function as an office building.
When the award application was made, City Hall was operating at an ENERGY STAR score of 81, which
means that it is more efficient than 80% of its category. The award includes of a letter signed by Jean
Lupinacci, Director, Commercial & Industrial Branch, ENERGY STAR, to Mayor Cooper commending
the efforts of the City in achieving this recognition. It also includes a bronze plaque suitable for affixing
to the building itself.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Kim Karas 02/10/2011 04:26 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 04:31 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 02/07/2011 11:35 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 71 of 143
AM-3734 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on reconsideration of an ordinance amending home occupations Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.20.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The Community Services/Development Services Council Committee met on May 11, 2010 to discuss the
issues involved with the current home occupation code as well as the way in which it is administered, and
referred the issue to the Planning Board for study. The Planning Board met on July 17, October 13, and
November 10 and recommended a draft code for the Council’s review.
During the January 4, 2011 Council Meeting the Council held a public hearing and then voted regarding
the proposed changes to the home occupation code recommended by the Planning Board. (See
Attachment 1.)
During the January 18, 2011 Council Meeting, Councilwoman Buckshnis made a motion to place the
following agenda item on the agenda: “Reconsideration of the Vote Regarding Proposed Code
Amendment to Home Occupations ECDC 20.20” The motion passed unanimously. The Council then
voted on the reconsideration. The motion passed 6 to 1. (See Attachment 2)
Narrative
This item has been placed on tonight's agenda for a public hearing on "Reconsideration of the Vote
Regarding Proposed Code Amendment to Home Occupations Edmonds Community Development Code
20.20."
Attachment 3: Citizen responses received in the Council Office to Home Occupation Code Change
Attachments
Attach 1 - Jan 4 2011 Approved Council Minutes
Attach 2 - Jan 18 2011 Approved Council Minutes
Attach 3 - Citizen Responses - Home Occ Code Change
Council Memo
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 72 of 143
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:00 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/11/2011 03:04 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 03:06 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/07/2011 11:38 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 73 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 4
Council President Peterson suggested since a great deal of Councilmember Buckshnis’ time is taken by
her leadership of the Citizen Levy Committee and both issues are on parallel tracks, another
Councilmember be appointed to the RFA planning committee.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1243, REPLACING COUNCILMEMBER
ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS WITH COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether more than three people could serve on the planning committee
such as citizens. Mayor Cooper answered the statute that created RFAs is very clear that the planning
committee consist of three elected officials from each jurisdiction. Their meetings are subject to the Open
Public Meetings Act. He remarked Fire District 1 has three Fire Commissioners on the planning
commission, Fire Chief Widdis and other staff routinely attend the meetings. Because three members of
the Fire District Board of Commissioners constitutes a quorum, the planning committee meetings are
noticed as a special meeting. Citizens cannot be voting members of the committee but it is beneficial to
have citizen input at the planning committee meetings.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (ECDC 20.20) - A PROPOSED CODE
AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES OF PERMIT TYPE, PROCESS AND COST,
INCLUDING THE DEGREE THAT CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES OR SIGNAGE SHOULD BE
PERMITTED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES (FILE NO.
AMD20100016).
Planner Gina Coccia explained ECDC was currently under review and amendments are proposed to meet
the following purposes: streamline the home occupation process, reduce fees to small business owners,
support home based work and preserve the residential character of neighborhoods.
On May 11, 2010 the Community Services/Development Services Committee directed staff to work with
the Planning Board on this issue. The Planning Board discussed this item at their July 14 and October 14
meetings and the Code Enforcement Officer provided his opinions at the October 14 meeting. Minutes of
the Planning Board meetings are contained in Exhibit 4. The Planning Board held a public hearing on
November 10 and forwarded a recommendation to the Council which is contained in Exhibit 1.
ECDC 21.40.040 defines home occupation as an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit or
buildings accessory to a dwelling unit incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit
including the use of a dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing
address. Currently when home occupation applications are submitted to the City Clerk’s office, they are
routed to various departments for consideration of compliance with applicable codes. Under the current
process, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is available for any business that does not meet all the home
occupation criteria in Title 20.20. A CUP requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and costs
$1,550. One of the proposed changes is an Administrative CUP, a Type II administrative staff decision
with a fee of $585.
Ms. Coccia reviewed existing criteria for permitting a home occupation contained in Exhibit 2:
1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit; and
2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any significant outside activity; and
3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence; and
4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail)
which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area
beyond that normally associated with residential use; and
Packet Page 74 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 5
6. Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the residence,
including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject property; and
7. All performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010
Ms. Coccia referred to a matrix in Exhibit 3 that compares other cities’ home occupations review
processes. For example, Shoreline allows one non-family employee, Lynnwood allows one customer per
hour between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. but no employees or vehicles on or near the site, and Mercer Island
does not have a land use process for home occupations, it is complaint driven.
The Planning Board also considered new definitions; a home occupation for urban farming is defined as
the display or sale of edible farm products or fresh produce grown onsite, an artist studio, defined as the
display or sale of handmade products, artwork that is produced on site. Items or artwork created offsite
are not included in the definition.
She proposed the following process change: staff would evaluate proposals to ensure adequate parking for
customers and employees, appropriate signage scale and design, protect the neighborhood from
degradation from vehicles parking offsite, indiscrete signage. The administrative CUP Type II
application process is currently used for accessory dwelling units and tree cutting permits.
When evaluating how the code could/should be changed she suggested the Council and citizens consider
more examples of home occupation such as a construction company, part-time music teacher, busy
massage therapist, part-time hair dresser, an accounting firm, or a martial arts instructor with a home
studio. The Planning Board asked themselves several questions – which types of businesses would a
neighbor or passerby notice? Which types of impacts are important to consider in a neighborhood setting?
How could the code be rewritten so that neighbors do notice an impact to the residential quality? How
should the City regulate home occupations? What is the difference between visits from employees and
customers? What impacts would urban farmers and artist studios have?
Home occupation is a permitted secondary use in all R zones; the primary use must still be residential.
The Planning Board and staff agree a $1,550 Type III-B CUP heard by the Hearing Examiner is not
necessarily appropriate. Staff can conduct the same review via a Type II permit to analyze proposals on a
case-by-case basis. Public notice, public comment periods and a sign are still required as part of the Type
II process.
Ms. Coccia explained the intent of residential zones was to protect residential uses from noise, odor, dust
and heavy truck traffic that may result from more intense uses. The proposed changes would outright
allow employees, customers and signage. The Planning Board considered whether that would fit with
residential zones.
She summarized the proposed changes in Exhibit 1 would allow some things to be permitted outright
such as customers and employees which would streamline the process. Under the current process, a home
occupation that included employees and/or customers would require a CUP. Another option would be to
retain the current code and only change the process.
Ms. Coccia reviewed the changes proposed in Exhibit 1:
1. Reference to the City’s Community Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan was
added to the Purpose section (20.20.000).
2. One employee would be permitted outright (20.20.010.A.6). Currently no employees are
permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the code.
3. Reference to the commercial vehicle standards from ECDC 17.50.100 was inserted, warning
folks that a separate review process is required if they would like to have a commercial vehicle
in excess of 10,000 pounds GVW.
Packet Page 75 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 6
4. The home occupation could have one visit by a vehicle per hour between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m. (20.20.010.A.9). This implies that the vehicle could contain more than one
customer. Currently no customers are permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the
code.
5. A section was deleted that explains how a business license can be revoked if it is found that a
customer visited the premises, because it is recommended that the code be amended to allow
customers.
6. If a business can not meet the permitted use criteria outright, then a conditional use permit is
required. The process was changed (ECDC 20.20.010.B) so that the conditional use permit
review is administrative and conducted by staff as a “Type II” permit ($585) instead of going to
the Hearing Examiner for review ($1,550). This is a major change to the code.
7. A section was deleted that describes how traffic from customers should not be generated from
outside the neighborhood (ECDC 20.10.010.B.5). This is impossible to document and enforce.
8. Regulations added that require not more than one employee to visit per day, not more than one
customer vehicle per hour, and prohibits customers from coming to visit at night between 9:00
p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Code Enforcement Office stated at the Planning Board meeting this is on
the honor system and impossible to enforce.
9. Regulations added that require the applicant to prove there is sufficient parking (for three
vehicles) if they would like to have customers or employees.
10. Two new definitions were created: “Urban Farming” and “Artist Studio” along with associated
regulations (20.10.010.C and 20.10.010.D).
11. A section on prohibited home occupations was deleted.
12. Commercial signage in residential zones was discussed. Currently, the sign code allows
residents to erect a 4 square foot sign in residential zones (e.g. “The Smith Family”) without a
building permit, but the home occupation code did not allow commercial signs outright (e.g.
“Smith’s Accounting Services”). A section was changed to clarify that commercial signage
would be allowed, so long as the total residential signage does not exceed the allowed 4 square
feet. Also, that a building permit is required so review can be conducted.
13. The current code allows for an applicant to ask the Hearing Examiner for anything that isn’t
outright permitted with their conditional use permit application. The Planning Board agreed that
the process should be changed to allow staff to conduct the conditional use permit review.
Ms. Coccia explained one detail may have been overlooked during the last draft revision. As written, the
recommended code does not allow the applicant to ask staff for anything that is not outright permitted;
Sections 20.20.010.B.4, 2020.010.B.5 and 20.20.010.B.6 place limitations on customers and employee
visits.
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing on this topic to discuss the pros and cons of
each potential change, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to implement the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was a standard for the number of customers per hour under
the existing CUP process. Ms. Coccia answered no; it was part of the review.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed change that would require the applicant to prove there
is sufficient parking. He asked how an applicant proved they had sufficient parking, what is the definition
of sufficient parking and was the parking required to be off-street. Ms. Coccia answered under the current
CUP process, the applicant submits a site plan and identifies where vehicles could be parked onsite. At
the public hearing additional on-street parking may be referenced. Under the proposed administrative
CUP, she anticipated an applicant could submit with their business license application a site plan that
shows available parking.
Packet Page 76 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 7
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether under the proposed staff review the parking could be onsite or
offsite. Ms. Coccia answered parking was required to be provided onsite. Councilmember Plunkett
clarified the requirement was parking for three vehicles onsite.
Councilmember Plunkett anticipated making three amendments and asked whether this item would need
to be referred back to the Planning Board. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered following the public
hearing, the Council could refer changes to the Planning Board or the Council could approve changes as
long as they were within the range of alternatives considered by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the proposed changes would affect all zones. Ms. Coccia answered
only R zones, single family and multi family residential. Councilmember Buckshnis observed
enforcement was complaint based or the honor system. Ms. Coccia stated that is the current process.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented other areas promote co-op artist studios and shared office space.
She asked how this issue arose, if it was an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions or promote home
businesses. Ms. Coccia stated the City frequently has to inform home occupation applicants that they are
unable to have customers unless they complete the $1,550 CUP process. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked how many people have objected. Ms. Coccia referred to testimony at the Planning Board public
hearing.
Student Representative Gibson inquired about the height limit for signage. Ms. Coccia advised the sign
code chapter, ECDC 20.60 contains sign regulations. Student Representative Gibson referred to the
proposed restriction on vehicles visiting the residence from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and asked if customers
could walk to the residence during those hours. Ms. Coccia answered the Planning Board discussed
customers and it was changed to vehicles. She agreed that was unclear.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jonathan Bannister, Edmonds, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Budo Association, expressed
his support for the changes proposed by staff to ECDC 20.20 with regard to home occupations. As stated
in his remarks to the Planning Board, he has been a martial arts and cultural arts instructor for many
years. Until two years ago, he operated a very successful school in Seattle which collapsed due to the
economic downturn. He now has a small number of students who would like to continue practicing in his
home studio. He described his practice of martial arts since the age of 8, traveling the world teaching tens
of thousands of people. He wanted to bring students to Edmonds because it is a remarkable place for
those interested in artistic endeavors and he would like to bring the refined arts he has studied to
Edmonds. The practices he engages in are very self-disciplined, quiet and would contribute to the quality
of life in Edmonds. He expressed his gratitude to the efforts of staff and the Council who brought this
issue forward. He also expressed his admiration and satisfaction with the Planning Board’s process.
Rick Spellman, Edmonds, expressed his vehement opposition and great concern with the proposed
changes to the home occupation section of the ECDC. The changes have the potential over time to
completely and permanently erode the single family residential zones which also devalue Edmonds
neighborhoods. He found it unfair to residents who purchased homes in single family zones for the
purpose of what the zones have to offer – single residential, family-friendly neighborhoods – to abruptly
change the zone to allow business-oriented traffic, noise and pollution. He disagreed that limiting the
number of trips to home occupation businesses will preserve the character of residentially zoned
neighborhoods, finding the proposal would disrupt the peace, quiet and clean air of single family, friendly
residential areas and not preserve its character. The proposed change would allow 13 vehicles to visit a
home occupation between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. plus one employee vehicle. If there were three allowed
businesses in a neighborhood that would equate to 84 trips per day. The proposal does not limit the
number of home occupation businesses allowed in a neighborhood; a single block, dead-end street or cul-
Packet Page 77 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 8
de-sac could be greatly impacted. He posed several questions such as 13 customers arriving in the first 4
hours, how a business would be closed to customers if the number of vehicles were exceeded for the day,
and whether most homes had driveway space for three vehicles. With only one Code Enforcement Officer
in the City he anticipated affected neighbors would be required to provide enforcement, pitting neighbors
against each other. He was dismayed that the Planning Board had allowed such a vague a proposal with
such questionable benefit to be approved. He summarized it may be called home occupation zoning but
he felt it was commercial zoning.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.)
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Spellman’s comments. He recalled concern in the past with
customers visiting a dentist who operated his practice in Talbot Park. He suggested Councilmembers
consider how they would react if a home occupation were located in their neighborhood. He suggested
this be the beginning of the discussion, publicizing the matter and holding a second public hearing,
anticipating more citizens would testify in the future. He questioned the size of vehicles that would be
allowed to visit the residence, the size of allowed signage, and groups visiting a business versus one
customer per hour. He suggested this topic needed further review.
Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment that this was an abrupt change, pointing out there were
permitted home occupations in neighborhoods today. Ms. Coccia explained the proposed changes would
allow customers and employees outright. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a home occupation
could currently have customers. Ms. Coccia explained they could not without an approved CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett commented a citizen such as Dr. Bannister could have a home occupation with
customers today as long as he obtained a CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett explained this topic began with a conversation he had with Dr. Bannister
regarding the $1,550 expense of a CUP. The original concept was to allow staff review of a CUP to
reduce the cost. He asked whether the existing code could be retained and simply change it to a staff-
equivalent CUP. He asked what constituted a staff-equivalent CUP. Ms. Coccia explained a Type II
administrative staff decision is a CUP and property owners within 300 feet of the property are notified, a
sign is placed on the property and notice is published the same as a public hearing. If a neighbor wanted
to appeal the staff decision, it would be heard by the Hearing Examiner at a public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the applicant would be required to pay an appeal fee to the
Hearing Examiner. Ms. Coccia answered the appellant would pay the appeal fee.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized a home occupant applicant would pay a $585 fee for the Type II
review and the neighbors would be notified. Ms. Coccia explained neighbors with concerns/comments
could contact staff before the close of the comment period. Staff would analyze their concerns in the staff
report and reach a decision. If any party of record disagrees with the decision, they have the right to
appeal. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council could theoretically retain the provisions in the
existing code and the Type II review would lower the cost from $1,550 to $585. Ms. Coccia agreed.
Councilmember Petso asked if a CUP could be revoked if “something went wrong” such as groups of
customers visiting a business. Ms. Coccia stated it would become a code enforcement issue at that point.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how revising the fee could be accomplished. Mr. Snyder advised fees
were established via resolution; if the Council instructed, staff could revise the fee and schedule it on a
future agenda.
Packet Page 78 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 9
Councilmember Bernheim commented in spite of comments regarding negative effects of home
occupations, he was supportive of expanding the availability of a home occupation to residents. He
remarked the agenda memo was one of the best he had seen and included a redline version of the code,
background materials, etc. If problems developed such as vehicles interfering with the neighborhood
character or too many businesses opening that changed the character, there were remedies available. He
commented the reason for increasing the availability of home occupations was due to the number of
people out of work who are unable to legally have a home occupation that has an employee. He
experienced that difficulty himself. He anticipated residential neighborhoods would have more
professional activities in the future.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Bernheim’s comments.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2, ITEM 6 TO DELETE THE AMENDED LANGUAGE SO THAT IT
READS, “DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEES…”
Councilmember Wilson recalled he originally started his business in his home. He did not have any
customers but hired an employee and an intern who worked in an extra room. When he learned he could
no longer operate a successful business with an employee and an intern working in a room, he rented an
office but he was able to grow his business by starting with one employee and an intern in his home. His
neighbors on both sides have home occupation businesses. He acknowledged the intent of the amendment
was good but in his experience, if a business was doing well enough to have 13 customer visits a day,
they would need an outside office to serve more customers. He did not want to prohibit people from
growing their business by prohibiting employees. The concerns are legitimate but in his experience were
more likely theoretical than practical.
Councilmember Petso did not perceive the amendment as prohibiting people from growing their business.
The code states a home occupation can be approved outright without employees; for a person to grow
their business and add an employee would require a Type II review process.
Councilmember Bernheim stated he would not support the amendment as one employee was a small
number and in these difficult economic times, home occupations were important. He doubted neighbors
would be asking staff to review the impact of one employee on their neighborhood’s character.
Mayor Cooper stated his wife has a home occupation but has no customers that visit their residence or any
employees.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas was not present for the vote.)
MAYOR COOPER VOTED NO, AND THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4).
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2, ITEM 9 TO READ,
“DOES NOT INCLUDE VISITS FROM CUSTOMERS IN EXCESS OF ONE VEHICLE EVERY
TWO HOURS PER HOUR…” MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 3, ITEM 7, TO READ, “IF VISITS TO THE SITE ARE TO BE
Packet Page 79 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 10
MADE BY EITHER AN OFF-SITE EMPLOYEE OR CUSTOMER, ON-SITE PARKING SHALL
BE PROVIDED FOR AT LEAST TWO (2) THREE (3) VEHICLES; AND”
Student Representative Gibson asked if the change assumed the homeowner had another parking space as
the proposal for three parking spaces provided parking for the homeowner, one employee and one
customer. Ms. Coccia explained any single family residential zone was required to provide two onsite
parking spaces which may be stacked. The intent of the proposal was to allow two stacked spaces in the
driveway and one additional space for a total of three. Councilmember Plunkett summarized the intent of
the proposed language was to accommodate a total of three vehicle regardless of who they belonged to.
Ms. Coccia agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Exhibit 1, page 5, Item B regarding signs and asked if signs remained
a CUP, could Item B be changed to a Type II review. Ms. Coccia agreed it could.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 5, ITEM, B TO READ, “A SIGN IS PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A TYPE II PERMIT.”
Councilmember Wilson asked if the proposed language allows a sign with a home occupation permit and
continues the existing authority under the CUP to allow a sign. Ms. Coccia explained a commercial sign
is currently not permitted outright; a sign can be allowed via a CUP. Councilmember Plunkett clarified
the proposed language would allow a sign outright. Ms. Coccia agreed, noting it also clarifies the
difference between a commercial sign in a residential zone. Councilmember Plunkett summarized his
amendment split the difference and would allow a sign via a Type II administrative staff decision.
Councilmember Wilson supported home occupations but did not support allowing signs. The current code
states a sign can be permitted via the CUP process which costs $1,550. The proposed language allows a 4
square foot sign and Councilmember Plunkett’s proposal is to split the difference. He preferred not to
allow any signs for a home based business without a CUP process.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his opposition to the amendment, commenting a 4 square foot sign
was very small.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he proposed the amendment assuming the main motion would pass. If
the Council was willing to give more scrutiny to signs as Councilmember Wilson suggested, he preferred
to be more stringent.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO RETAIN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 5, ITEM B, “A
SIGN IS PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.”
Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the existing language allows via a CUP a home occupation to
have an additional 3 square feet allocated to the home occupation sign. The proposed language states a
home occupation sign is permitted but it is counted as part of the total 4 square feet allowed on residential
property. The proposed language expanded the ability for a home occupation sign but restricted the total
to 4 square feet and would not allow a total of 7 square feet of signage. Councilmember Wilson observed
under the existing language a home occupation could have a total of 7 square feet of signage via a CUP.
Packet Page 80 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 11
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council vote on the intent of the amendment and staff revise the
ordinance accordingly, not allowing a total of 7 square feet and limiting signage to 4 square feet and
require a CUP process.
Council President Peterson clarified under the proposed language a home occupation could have a 4
square foot sign and could request a larger sign via a CUP. Under the existing language and the
amendment, no sign was allowed without a CUP process. He asked whether the intent was to limit all
residential home occupation signs. Councilmember Plunkett answered yes; his intent was to limit signs to
a total of 4 square feet.
Council President Peterson asked whether the amendment would also require an amendment to the sign
code to limit a home occupation sign to 4 square feet. Councilmember Plunkett agreed that was his intent.
Mr. Snyder relayed his understanding of the motion was to allow a home occupation sign via a CUP.
There was not a proposal to change the last sentence in that item nor was there a proposal to change the 4
foot maximum in the sign code. The 4 square foot maximum would continue to apply and a portion of the
sign could be used to reference a business if approval was granted via the CUP process. Councilmember
Plunkett agreed that was his intent. Mr. Snyder summarized there would still be a 4 square foot limit
regardless but the business could only be mentioned in the sign with a CUP.
Councilmember Bernheim commented a homeowner could have a 4 square foot sign now; the only
change was making it illegal to have the home occupation on that sign without a CUP. He was opposed to
the amendment, preferring that people be allowed to have small signs that state anything they want
including advertising their home business.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified a sign advertising a home business would not be illegal, it would be
conditional.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS,
PLUNKETT, WILSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not
present for the vote.)
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether neighbors were notified of a home occupation. Ms. Coccia
answered there would be notification via a Type II administrative staff decision. The change was from a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to a staff review; there would still be notification.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for
the vote.)
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wilson’s questions of the Public Works Director
Phil Williams following his comments at the last Council meeting regarding leakage from the City’s
water system. He referred to the 2009 Water Efficiency Reports available on the Washington State
Department of Health website that indicates Edmonds annual water leakage is 7.6%. He disputed Mr.
Williams’ contention that the water leakage rates of other water purveyors were similar; Olympic View
reported 4.4%, Alderwood Water reported 6.6% and Everett reported 2.3%. He asserted that in 2002 the
City Council asked staff to look for leaks; he has been unable to ascertain who the City hired to look for
the leaks. Next, he referred to the approval of an addendum to the Hearing Examiner service agreement
on the December 21 Consent Agenda. The agreement has a non-assignment clause; he disagreed with the
City Attorney’s determination that the new corporation was a successor entity, explaining if the old
corporation was being dissolved and had no property or liabilities the new corporation was not a
Packet Page 81 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 18, 2011
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiation strategy. 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. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive
session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis,
Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Human Resources Director
Debi Humann, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:59 p.m., Ms. Chase announced to the public present in
the Council Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The
executive session concluded at 7:21 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:26 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember,
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
At Councilmember Buckshnis’ request, “Reconsideration of the Vote Regarding Proposed Code
Amendment to Home Occupations ECDC 20.20” was added to the agenda as Item 8A. She also requested
another public hearing be held.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance and a public hearing
was held at the January 4 meeting. He asked if a public hearing was required when the final ordinance
was presented to the Council. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a procedural process; when a
member of the prevailing side makes a motion to reconsider and the motion passes, it is scheduled on a
later agenda to allow a new public hearing to be noticed. Councilmember Wilson clarified it would be
reconsideration of Council direction to prepare an ordinance. Regardless of whether the reconsideration is
approved, a final ordinance will be presented to the Council. He suggested waiting until the ordinance
was presented in final form and scheduling a public hearing then to allow the public to respond to the
final ordinance. Mr. Snyder commented because of the time required to notice a public hearing, that
would add time to the process.
Councilmember Wilson questioned if the public hearing would be the Council’s direction to staff to
prepare an ordinance or the ordinance itself. Mayor Cooper clarified Councilmember Buckshnis’ request
Packet Page 82 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2011
Page 2
was to add an agenda item to consider a reconsideration vote. This discussion would be appropriate
during that agenda item.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123172 THROUGH #123302 DATED JANUARY 6,
2011 FOR $468,011.40, AND #123303 THROUGH #123438 DATED JANUARY 13, 2011
FOR $390,291.57. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50136
THROUGH #50168 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER
31, 2010 FOR $675,925.03.
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE FOUNDATION.
E. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD TO FUND THE
RECYCLING COORDINATOR FOR 2011 AND 2012.
F. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LAKE
BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES ON THE 2011 WATERLINE PROJECT.
ITEM H: AMENDMENT TO HEARING EXAMINER CONTRACT.
Councilmember Petso referred to an email the Council received today detailing concerns regarding the
Hearing Examiner contract. She asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to address those concerns.
Mr. Snyder responded the email addressed two concerns; first, why the extension is being done via an
addendum/revision to the contract rather than a new contract, and references the City of Carnation’s
decision to adopt a new agreement. The City was interested in extending the Hearing Examiner agreement
for 2-4 weeks until a new Hearing Examiner is appointed. There were two ways to address the issue, 1) a
new contract, or 2) amend the provision that prohibits it from being assigned to allow it to be assigned
from the three-member Hearing Examiner group to one of its members. In an effort to keep it simple he
chose the latter. With regard to the second question in the email, whether all members of the Professional
Limited Liability Corporation (PLLC) needed to sign, he explained the signature of any member of the
PLLC can bind the organization.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification that by approving the amendment to the Hearing Examiner
contract, the Council successfully authorized the Hearing Examiner to hold hearings and make decisions.
Packet Page 83 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2011
Page 17
wonderful as it would be to have a demonstration project, she did not want to do it at the cost of an
enormous amount of Mr. Snyder’s time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how much time Mr. Snyder would spend on the negotiations. Mr. Snyder
estimated he has spent 5-6 hours to date and estimated another 4-5 hours would be required,
approximately $1100.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND PLUNKETT
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
8. AUTHORIZATION TO EVALUATE SITE FOR PURCHASE FOR STORM WATER OR PARK
USE.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council has discussed this matter in executive session several
times. There is an agreement until the end of February to consider an offer. This is a difficult valuation
because the property was about to be placed on the market when the flooding event occurred at the height
of the market. The Karlstens have offered to sell the site to the Stormwater Utility at a significant discount
from what they planned to ask plus the damage sustained. He distributed assessed valuation information.
He suggested a desktop appraisal from a local appraiser who could provide an assessment would be more
valuable than a $10,000 MAI appraisal. He sought Council direction on the type and cost of the valuation
that the Council needs for its deliberation on the settlement offer.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PURSUE THE LOW COST ALTERNATIVE, AN INFORMAL
EVALUATION OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BASED ON 2006 VALUE PRIOR TO
FLOODING EVENT AND AUTHORIZE COSTS UP TO $1500. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8A. VOTE REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO HOME OCCUPATIONS ECDC
20.20.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had received a number of emails and telephone calls
regarding the Council’s decision on amendments to the home occupation provisions.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING HOME
OCCUPATIONS ECDC 20.20.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained if the motion is approved, the matter will be re-advertised to inform
the public that the Council has changed its decision. The earliest an advertised public hearing can be
scheduled is February 15. Mayor Cooper clarified this is a motion to reconsider and the actual
reconsideration happens at a different meeting.
Councilmember Wilson suggested a final ordinance be provided at the next public hearing for the public
and Council to consider. He asked whether the intent was to reconsider the direction the Council provided
or to give the public an opportunity to comment and then consider those comments during the Council’s
review of the final ordinance. Mr. Snyder advised there was a placeholder for this item on next week’s
agenda. He recalled during the last public hearing Planner Gina Coccia mentioned a portion of the
ordinance needed to be reworked. Currently all home occupations must occur within an enclosed
Packet Page 84 of 143
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2011
Page 18
building; however, the amendments allow urban farms. A final ordinance has been prepared that
addresses that issue.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 10:07 p.m.)
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 11, 2011
Finance Committee
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Finance Committee reviewed proposed amendments and updates
to ECC Section 2.05.010, Legal Counsel, Professional Services Contract. An important part of the
selection process code was repealed 10-15 years ago and the remaining provisions had not revised. The
Committee forwarded a proposed revision to the Council. The City Attorney selection process will
proceed without the change to the process. The Committee was also provided the General Fund update for
December 2010 and a quarterly report on fiber optics.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was selected as Chair. He reported the
Committee reviewed the following:
• Proposed ordinance amending ECC 8.48.190 to update parking provisions in designated bike
lanes. If there are no significant changes, it will be placed on the Consent Agenda for Council
approval.
• Amendment to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum. Approved on the Consent
Agenda.
• Scope of work for engineering services on the 2011 water main replacement project. Approved
on the Consent Agenda.
• An Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to fund the Recycling Coordinator for 2011
and 2012. Approved on the Consent Agenda.
• Report on final construction costs for Talbot Road emergency culvert repair project. Will be
scheduled on a future Consent Agenda.
• Report on final construction costs for the 2009 asphalt overlay project. Will be scheduled on a
future Consent Agenda.
• Community Solar Agreement
• Addendum to professional services agreement for the Shell Valley Emergency Access project.
Staff will schedule a public meeting to receive comments from Shell Valley residents.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper welcomed Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite who started work last week.
Mayor Cooper invited the Council to attend an informational meeting regarding a Regional Fire Authority
on January 31 in the Bracket Room. Fire Commissioners and City Councilmembers from all South
Snohomish County cities have been invited to attend the informational meeting. Representatives from
Kent will describe their experience. If a quorum of Councilmembers plans to attend, it will need to be
noticed as a special meeting.
Mayor Cooper reported a portion of the Haines Wharf building collapsed onto the pier over the weekend.
Staff is exploring next steps to address the issue including whether the State Department of Ecology,
Department of Natural Resources and Department of Fish and Wildlife need to be involved. The owners
Packet Page 85 of 143
City of Edmonds
Edmonds City Council
Date: February 10, 2011
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Jana Spellman, Sr. Ex. Assistant
Subject:
Feb. 15, 2011 Public Hearing on Home Occupation Code Change
Below are the responses from citizens regarding the proposed home occupation code change.
Date Name For Opposed Need More
Info
1/1/11 1. Spellman, R. X
1/13/11 2. Erdmann, David and Julie X
1/14/11 3. Kiriluk, Lawrence B. X
1/14/11 4. Sellers, Karen X
1/15/11 5. Warnock, Danene X
1/15/11 6. Richmann, Penné X
1/16/11 7. Murdock, Mike X
1/16/11 8. Yampol, Gail X
1/16/11 9. Hawkins, Tom and Roberta X
1/17/11 10. Christensen, John X
1/17/11 11. Bender, Bill and Pat X
1/17/11 12. Howell, Judy X
1/17/11 13. Noel, Don & Lou X
1/17/11 14. Mason, Laura X
1/18/11 15. Mueller, Betty X
1/21/11 16. Bardsley, Jennifer X
1/29/11 17. Fitzgerald, Maurice, Capt. US Navy (Ret.) X
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 86 of 143
City of Edmonds Planning Division
Date: February 11, 2011
To: City Council
From: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject: Reconsideration hearing on home occupation code amendments
Greetings:
I understand that the Council has set a hearing date for February 15, 2011, on reconsideration of
its January action on amending the home occupation chapter of the development code. In support
of this agenda item, I would like to help the Council and public better understand where we are in
the process, and what staff has been working on to bring back something for further Council
consideration.
Since the Council hearing in January, we have developed a code amendment (ordinance) that we
think responds to the Council’s consensus desires. As it currently stands, the draft amendments
would:
(1) Make no changes in the existing process for simple home occupations (i.e. the majority that
don’t involve any employees or comings and goings). These are approved as part of a business
license application.
(2) Retain public notice, public comment, and appeal rights for other home occupations. The
change here would be to shift the process from going straight to the Hearing Examiner (at high
cost) to being a two-step process, with the basic review and notice being done at the staff level
through a Type 2 (staff) decision. A Type 2 decision requires public notice and a comment
period, the permit can be conditioned (or denied), and the staff decision can be appealed to the
Hearing Examiner. All of this can be accomplished at a lower cost (the current Hearing Examiner
cost is $1,550 while the cost of a Type 2 decision is about $585) than the current process.
(3) The current home occupation system requiring Hearing Examiner review is not only
expensive, it is also open-ended without, in many respects, specific limitations on what can be
approved. The proposed code would install new limits – the one employee and one visit per hour
– which aren’t in the code right now. In this way, the home occupation amendments propose
more strict limitations than what the current code allows.
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 87 of 143
(4) The proposed amendments also address artist studios and urban farming, which aren’t in the
home occupation code at the present time. Without these changes, someone can have an art studio
on their property, but they cannot sell any of their art work to anyone visiting the studio. For
example, if there were an art studio tour in town, under the existing code no one taking the tour
could actually purchase any art while visiting any of the studios. Similarly, under existing code if
someone has a small garden or urban farm plot on their property, they cannot sell any of their
produce to anyone visiting the property. The proposed amendments aim at remedying this
situation.
We believe the amendments itemized above are in keeping with the Council’s discussion during
the hearing in January. However, what staff has come up with in response to the Council’s
January hearing is likely not what the people testifying at the hearing on February 15th
understand the amendments to be about. Rather than being a simple loosening and broadening of
the code, the amendments at this point are aimed at making the process simpler and less costly for
some home occupations (retaining notice and appeal rights) while making it more restrictive in
how much you can potentially do as part of a home occupation.
We’re hoping that providing some additional background information will help people better
understand what the potential home occupation amendments are trying to accomplish. It’s also
very important to understand that at this point, the process is not complete. The Council has not
yet been presented with the amendments that staff has drafted in response to the Council’s
direction at the January hearing, and we expect that irrespective of the Council’s reconsideration
hearing and vote on February 15th, that the process has not yet reached its conclusion and more
Council consideration will occur.
I think the outline above would be helpful to include in the Council packet as background
information. The Council is not being asked to take any action on the code amendments at this
point; the only subject of the hearing on February 15th is the reconsideration.
Packet Page 88 of 143
AM-3748 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinances regarding bond refunding.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve refunding the City’s:
1) 1998 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
2) 1998 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
3) 2001 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
4) 2001B Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds.
Previous Council Action
The issue or aspects thereof were discussed on 12-14-2010, 01-04-2011, 01-25-2011, 02-01-2011, and
02-08-2011.
Narrative
The attached ordinance authorizes the refunding of the aforementioned bonds.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
We anticipate that this action will result in approximately $46,634 in annual debt service savings. The
present value of these savings over the remaining life of the bonds is $288,968.
Attachments
Refunding Update from Dashen & Associates
Refunding Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:00 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/11/2011 01:04 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 01:08 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 02/10/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 89 of 143
Packet Page 90 of 143
Refunding Update
Alan Dashen
Scott Bauer
February 15, 2011
City of Edmonds, Washington
Packet Page 91 of 143
Bond Market Update - Market Indices
1Packet Page 92 of 143
Outstanding Bonds –Limited Tax General Obligation
2
Refunding LTGO
Candidate?$5,230,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007
Par Amount Outstanding $4,510,000
Dated Date March 15, 2007
Final Maturity December 1, 2026
Interest Rates 3.65%-3.95%
Call Date December 1, 2016
Insured by CIFG
Purpose Repay and redeem the W&S BAN and LTGO BAN, HVAC
improvements, and the Anderson Center seismic project.
$7,015,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002
Par Amount Outstanding $6,155,000
Dated Date November 1, 2002
Final Maturity December 1, 2026
Interest Rates 3.75%-4.90%
Call Date December 1, 2012
Insured by Ambac
Purpose Repay the City's outstanding LTGO BAN and to acquire and
renovate a performing arts theater and gymnasium.
$3,045,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2001
Par Amount Outstanding $1,980,000
Dated Date September 1, 2001
Final Maturity December 1, 2021
Interest Rates 4.25%-4.90%
Call Date December 1, 2011
Insured by FSA
Purpose Improvements to Frances Anderson recreation center, replace
library roof, fund a sewer meter rehab. project, and make street
$2,260,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2001 Series B
Par Amount Outstanding $1,495,000
Dated Date December 15, 2001
Final Maturity December 1, 2021
Interest Rates 4.80%-5.45%
Call Date December 1, 2011
Insured by FSA
Purpose Acquire 4.9 acres of park land
$4,480,000 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1998
Par Amount Outstanding $1,795,000
Dated Date December 1, 1998
Final Maturity December 1, 2014
Interest Rates 4.25%-4.40%
Call Date December 1, 2008
Insured by MBIA
Purpose Advance refund $1,075,000 of LTGO 1993 and to advance refund
$2,985,000 of LTGO 1995
Packet Page 93 of 143
Outstanding Bonds –Water & Sewer Revenue
3
Refunding Revenue Bonds Bonds
Candidate?$7,875,000 Water & Sewer Revenue Improvement and Refunding Bonds, 2003
Par Amount Outstanding $2,045,000
Dated Date April 1, 2003
Final Maturity December 1, 2022
Interest Rates 3.25-4.45%
Call Date December 1, 2012
Insured by FSA
Purpose Water main replacement, repairs and renovations to sewer
lift stations, storm drainage improvements, and other utility
related projects. Current refund the W&S Rev. Ref. Bonds,
$2,420,000 Water & Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1998
Par Amount Outstanding $825,000
Dated Date March 1, 1998
Final Maturity December 1, 2013
Interest Rates 4.5-4.85%
Call Date December 1, 2007
Insured by FSA
Purpose Advance refund $2,180,000 of the City's W&S Bonds, 1993
(maturities 2003-2013)
Packet Page 94 of 143
Refunding Savings Summary
4
Savings %
3.48%
7.66%
4.91%
3.62%
Packet Page 95 of 143
Schedule
•February 15 Adoption of Bond Ordinance
•Week of March 7 Moody’s Rating Call
•March 23 Post Preliminary Official Statement
•April 5 Bond Sale
Adoption of Bond Sale Resolution
•April 19 Bond Closing
5Packet Page 96 of 143
51120514.4
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ___________________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of
limited tax general obligation bonds and revenue bonds to provide
the funds necessary to carry out a refunding of all or a portion of
certain outstanding general obligation bonds and revenue bonds of
the City and to pay the administrative costs of such refundings and
the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing certain terms and
covenants of the bonds; and providing for the public sale of the
bonds.
Passed February __, 2011
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
Packet Page 97 of 143
-i-
51120514.4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 . Findings and Determinations .................................................................................. 1
Section 2 . Definitions............................................................................................................... 2
Section 3 . Authorization of the Bonds ..................................................................................... 4
Section 4 . Description of the Bonds ........................................................................................ 4
Section 5 . Duties of Bond Registrar ........................................................................................ 4
Section 6 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds ........................................................................ 5
Section 7 . Payment of Bonds ................................................................................................... 6
Section 8 . Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds ............................... 6
Section 9 . Notice of Redemption ............................................................................................. 6
Section 10 . Failure To Redeem Bonds ...................................................................................... 7
Section 11 . Security for the Bonds ............................................................................................ 7
Section 12 . Form and Execution of Bonds ................................................................................ 8
Section 13 . Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds............................................ 9
Section 14 . Designation of Bonds as “Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations.” ............................ 9
Section 15 . Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds .................................................................. 9
Section 16 . Bond Fund; Deposit of Bond Proceeds ................................................................. 10
Section 17 . Refunding of the Refunded Bonds ........................................................................ 10
Section 18 . Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final ...................................................... 12
Section 19 . Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure .................................................... 12
Section 20 . Sale of the Bonds; Bond Sale Resolution; Form and Execution of
Documents ............................................................................................................ 12
Section 21 . General Authorization ........................................................................................... 13
Section 22 . Severability ........................................................................................................... 14
Section 23 . Effective Date of Ordinance ................................................................................. 14
Packet Page 98 of 143
-1-
51120514.4
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. _________________________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of
limited tax general obligation bonds and revenue bonds to provide
the funds necessary to carry out a refunding of all or a portion of
certain outstanding general obligation bonds and revenue bonds of
the City and to pay the administrative costs of such refundings and
the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing certain terms and
covenants of the bonds; and providing for the public sale of the
bonds.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings and Determinations. In order to provide a cost savings for the
City, the City Council finds and determines it to be in the best interest of the City to authorize the
issuance and sale of bonds for the purposes of carrying out the refunding of all or a portion of the
following bonds (the “Refunded Bonds”) and to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds:
Bond Issue Call Date
Callable
Maturities Interest Rates
Par
Amount
1998 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 12/1/08 2011 – 2014 4.25 – 4.4% $1,795,000
1998 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds 12/1/07 2011 – 2013 4.7 – 4.85% 825,000
2001A Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 12/1/11 2012, 2013, 2016,
2018, 2021
4.35 – 4.90% 1,835,000
2001B Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 12/1/11 2012, 2017, 2021 4.90 – 5.45% 1,390,000
The issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds is authorized only if the City Council
determines in the Bond Sale Resolution that such issuance and sale will realize a minimum
savings to the City that is acceptable to the City Finance Director, consistent with the City’s
general debt policies. In making a determination, the Finance Director shall consider the fixed
maturities of the Refunding Bonds and the Refunded Bonds, the costs of issuance and sale of the
Refunding Bonds, and the known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the
issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds and other money of the City used in the Refunding
Plan pending payment and redemption of the Refunded Bonds.
In the Bond Sale Resolution, the City Council must find and determine that: (i) the
savings is acceptable; (ii) the money to be deposited with the Refunding Trustee will discharge
and satisfy the obligations of the City with respect to the Refunded Bonds under the Refunded
Bond Ordinances; (iii) that the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants, and agreements of the City
made or provided for in the Refunded Bond Ordinances shall be discharged; and (iv) that,
immediately upon the irrevocable deposit of such money with the Refunding Trustee, the
Refunded Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding under the ordinance that authorized
the Refunded Bonds.
Packet Page 99 of 143
-2-
51120514.4
Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the
following meanings:
(a) “1998 LTGO Bonds” means the City’s $4,480,000 Limited Tax General
Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1998, authorized by Ordinance No. 3235, passed on December 15,
1998.
(b) “1998 Revenue Bonds” means the City’s $2,420,000 par value Water and Sewer
Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1998, authorized by Ordinance No. 3191, passed on February 17,
1998.
(c) “2001A Bonds” means the City’s $3,045,000 Limited Tax General Obligation
Bonds, 2001, authorized by Ordinance No. 3372, passed on August 21, 2001.
(d) “2001B Bonds” means the City’s $2,260,000 Limited Tax General Obligation
Bonds, 2001 Series B, authorized by Ordinance No. 3388, passed on December 11, 2001.
(e) “Acquired Obligations” means those United States Treasury Certificates of
Indebtedness, Notes, and Bonds--State and Local Government Series and other direct,
noncallable obligations of the United States of America purchased to accomplish the refunding
of the Refunded Bonds.
(f) “Bond Fund” means a special fund for the payment of the principal of and interest
on any series of Bonds, as designated in the relevant Bond Sale Resolution.
(g) “Bond Legislation” means, for each series of Bonds, this ordinance and the
relevant Bond Sale Resolution.
(h) “Bond Register” means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar
containing the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount
and number of Bonds held by each owner.
(i) “Bond Registrar” means the Fiscal Agent.
(j) “Bond Sale Resolution” means a resolution adopted by the City Council, fixing
the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the each series of the Bonds and
approving their sale consistent with this ordinance.
(k) “Bonds” means the Bonds authorized by this ordinance.
(l) “City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington.
(m) “Code” means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
(n) “DTC” means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York.
(o) “Government Obligations” has the meaning given in chapter 39.54 RCW, as it
now exists or may hereafter be amended.
(p) “Finance Director” means the Finance Director of the City.
(q) “Fiscal Agent” means the fiscal agent of the State, as the same may be designated
by the State from time to time.
(r) “Letter of Representations” means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations
dated August 6, 1996, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time.
Packet Page 100 of 143
-3-
51120514.4
(s) “MSRB” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
(t) “Permitted Investments” means any investment that is a legal investment for
cities in the State.
(u) “Rating Agency” means the nationally recognized rating agency or agencies, if
any, providing a rating on the Bonds at the request of the City.
(v) “Refunded Bonds” means all or a portion of the callable maturities of the 1998
LTGO Bonds, 1998 Revenue Bonds, 2001A Bonds or 2001B Bonds identified in Section 1 of
this ordinance, as further identified in a Bond Sale Resolution.
(w) “Refunded Bond Ordinance(s)” means the following City ordinances, as
applicable:
Bond Issue Ordinance No.
1998 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 3235
1998 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds 3191
2001A Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 3372
2001B Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 3388
(x) “Refunding Bonds” means the Bonds issued pursuant to this ordinance and a Bond
Sale Resolution, for the purpose of refunding all or a portion of any of the Refunded Bonds.
(y) “Refunding Plan” means the refunding of all or a portion of the Refunded Bonds
through the issuance of one or more series of Bonds, all as more particularly described in a Bond
Sale Resolution.
(z) “Refunding Trust Agreement” means a refunding trust or escrow agreement
between the City and a Refunding Trustee, dated as of the closing date of such series, providing
for the safekeeping of certain Bond proceeds and the refunding of all or a portion of the
Refunded Bonds, substantially in the form attached to the Bond Sale Resolution for the
applicable series of Bonds.
(aa) “Refunding Trustee” means for each series of Bonds issued for the purpose of
carrying out a refunding, the Finance Director, or the trustee or escrow agent, or any successor
trustee or escrow agent, designated by the Finance Director and approved in the applicable Bond
Sale Resolution.
(bb) “Revenue Obligation” means any series of Bonds issued for the purpose of
providing funds to refund the 1998 Refunded Revenue Bonds and secured by a pledge of
Revenues of the System pursuant to Section 11 of this ordinance.
(cc) “SEC” means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
(dd) “State” means the State of Washington.
(ee) “Term Bond” means those a Bond designated as such in a Bond Sale Resolution.
(ff) “ULID” means utility local improvement district.
(gg) “ULID Assessments” means the assessments levied in such ULID of the City
which may hereafter be created pursuant to state law and shall include installments thereof and
interest and any penalties thereon.
Packet Page 101 of 143
-4-
51120514.4
Section 3. Authorization of the Bonds. The City shall borrow money on the credit of
the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation bonds evidencing indebtedness to
provide the funds for the purposes described in Section 1. The Bonds may be issued in any
combination or as multiple separate series. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to
prepare for and conduct a sale of the Bonds authorized by this ordinance, the terms of which sale
shall be subject to approval by the City Council in one or more Bond Sale Resolutions. No
Bonds may be issued and sold except pursuant to a Bond Sale Resolution approving the terms of
such sale.
Except as provided below, the Bonds shall be issued as general obligation bonds and the
general indebtedness so incurred shall be within the limit of up to 1½% of the value of the
taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the
qualified voters therein. One or more series of Bonds issued to refund 1998 Revenue Bonds,
may be issued as Revenue Obligations and may be secured by a pledge of the Revenue of the
System as set forth under Section 11 of this ordinance. The Bond Sale Resolution may set forth
additional terms, conditions, and covenants relating to Revenue Obligations that the City Council
deems necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.
The Mayor, Finance Director, and other proper City officials are authorized and directed
to do everything necessary for the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds (subject to approval
of the terms of such Bonds in a Bond Sale Resolution), and for the proper application and use of
the proceeds of the sale thereof. The actions heretofore taken in furtherance of and not
inconsistent with the purposes of this ordinance are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. Description of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of their
delivery to the initial purchaser. They shall be issued in denominations of $5,000 or any integral
multiple thereof within a single maturity and numbered separately in the manner and with any
additional designation as the Bond Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification. The
Bonds shall mature on the dates and in the amounts, bear interest payable on the dates and at the
rates, and shall contain such additional terms as specified in the Bond Sale Resolution. The
Bonds shall be subject to optional or mandatory redemption, purchase or defeasance on the terms
and at the time specified in the Bond Sale Resolution. All or some of the Bonds may be
designated as Term Bonds, the principal of which is payable in mandatory redemption amounts
prior to their stated maturity, all as specified by the Bond Sale Resolution. The final maturity of
any series of Bonds shall not extend beyond the calendar year of the final maturity of the bonds
to be refunded by that series.
Section 5. Duties of Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be
kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to
inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to
authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the
Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City’s paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of
the Bond Registrar’s powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2451
establishing a system of registration for the City’s bonds and obligations.
The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond
Registrar’s Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the
owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the
Packet Page 102 of 143
-5-
51120514.4
extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to
act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the
rights of Bond owners.
Section 6. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in
registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on the Bond Register. The
Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the
principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. Bonds surrendered to
the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal
aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity. Bonds may be transferred
only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any
exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall
not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal
payment or redemption date.
The Bonds initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of
DTC. The Bonds so registered shall be held in fully immobilized form by DTC as depository in
accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations. Neither the City nor the Bond
Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to DTC participants or the persons for whom
they act as nominees with respect to the Bonds regarding accuracy of any records maintained by
DTC or DTC participants of any amount in respect of principal of or interest on the Bonds, or
any notice which is permitted or required to be given to registered owners hereunder (except
such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to DTC).
For as long as any Bonds are held in fully immobilized form, DTC, its nominee or its
successor depository shall be deemed to be the registered owner for all purposes hereunder and
all references to registered owners, bondowners, bondholders or the like shall mean DTC or its
nominee and, except for the purpose of the City’s undertaking herein to provide continuing
disclosure, shall not mean the owners of any beneficial interests in the Bonds. Registered
ownership of such Bonds, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred except: (i) to
any successor of DTC or its nominee, if that successor shall be qualified under any applicable
laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it; (ii) to any substitute depository
appointed by the City or such substitute depository’s successor; or (iii) to any person if the
Bonds are no longer held in immobilized form.
Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its
successor) from its functions as depository, or a determination by the City that it no longer
wishes to continue the system of book entry transfers through DTC or its successor (or any
substitute depository or its successor), the City may appoint a substitute depository. Any such
substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services
proposed to be provided by it.
If (i) DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its successor) resigns from its
functions as depository, and no substitute depository can be obtained, or (ii) the City determines
that the Bonds are to be in certificated form, the ownership of Bonds may be transferred to any
person as provided herein and the Bonds no longer shall be held in fully immobilized form.
Packet Page 103 of 143
-6-
51120514.4
Section 7. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be
payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by
checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the registered
owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding
the interest payment date or, if requested in writing by a registered owner of $1,000,000 or more
in principal amount of Bonds prior to the applicable record date, by wire transfer on the interest
payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the
Bonds by the registered owners to the Bond Registrar. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as
long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, payment of principal of and
interest on the Bonds shall be made in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations.
Section 8. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds.
(a) Optional Redemption. The Bond Sale Resolution may reserve to the City the
right and option to redeem any or all of the Bonds, as a whole or in part (within one or more
maturities selected by the City and randomly within a maturity in such manner as the Bond
Registrar shall determine), at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, or at such
other price(s) as may be set forth in the Bond Sale Resolution.
(b) Term Bonds. The Bond Sale Resolution may provide that all or some of the
Bonds are designated as Terms Bonds. If Term Bonds are redeemed under the optional
redemption provisions, purchased by the City in the open market, or defeased, the par amount of
Term Bonds so redeemed, purchased, or defeased (irrespective of their actual redemption or
purchase price), shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption amounts
for those Term Bonds. The City shall determine the manner in which the credit is to be allocated
and shall notify the Bond Registrar in writing of its allocation at least 60 days prior to the earliest
mandatory redemption date for that maturity of Term Bonds for which notice of redemption has
not already been given. Portions of the principal amount of any Bond, in installments of $5,000
or any integral multiple thereof, may be redeemed. If less than all of the principal amount of any
Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the
registered owner, without charge therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the registered
owner) of the same maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations authorized by this
ordinance in the aggregate principal amount remaining unredeemed.
(c) Open Market Purchase. The City reserves the right and option to purchase any or
all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued
interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds purchased or redeemed under this section shall be
canceled.
(d) Selection of Bonds for Redemption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as
the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, selection of Bonds for redemption
shall be in accordance with the Letter of Representations.
Section 9. Notice of Redemption. While the Bonds are held by DTC in book-entry
only form, any notice of redemption shall be given at the time, to the entity and in the manner
required by DTC in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and the Bond Registrar shall
not be required to give any other notice of redemption. If the Bonds cease to be in book-entry
only form, the City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given by the
Bond Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by
Packet Page 104 of 143
-7-
51120514.4
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the
address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and
the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been
mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond.
In the case of an optional redemption, the notice may state that the City retains the right
to rescind the redemption notice and the related optional redemption of Bonds by giving a notice
of rescission to the affected registered owners at any time prior to the scheduled optional
redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption that is so rescinded shall be of no effect,
and the Bonds for which the notice of optional redemption has been rescinded shall remain
outstanding.
Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for
redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the
call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid,
to the MSRB, to a Rating Agency, and to such other persons and with such additional
information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a
condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds.
Section 10. Failure To Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not redeemed when properly
presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond from
the sources identified in the Bond Sale Resolution at the same rate provided in the Bond from
and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or
until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has
been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner thereof.
Section 11. Security for the Bonds.
(a) General Obligation Bonds. For as long as any of the Bonds issued as limited tax
general obligation bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to include in its budget
and levy taxes annually within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by law
without a vote of the electors of the City on all of the taxable property within the City in an
amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay
when due the principal of and interest on those general obligation Bonds, and the full faith, credit
and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those
taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest.
(b) Revenue Obligations. The Bond Sale Resolution may provide that, for as long as
any Bonds issued as Revenue Obligations are outstanding, the City pledges all Revenue of the
System to the payments required to be made into the Bond Fund under the Bond Sale Resolution.
Such Revenue Obligations shall constitute a charge and lien upon that Revenue of the System
prior and superior to all other charges and liens whatsoever, excluding Operating and
Maintenance Expenses, except that the charge and lien upon that Revenue of the System shall be
on a parity with the charge and lien upon that Revenue of the System and upon any ULID
Assessments thereafter pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund for the Outstanding Parity Bonds
and any Future Parity Bonds.
Packet Page 105 of 143
-8-
51120514.4
For purposes of any Bonds issued as Revenue Obligations, the following definitions shall
apply:
(i) “Future Parity Bonds” means all revenue bonds of the City issued after the date
of the issuance of the Bonds and having a lien upon the Revenue of the System
for the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon equal to the lien upon
such Revenue of the System for the payment of the principal of and interest on the
Outstanding Parity Bonds and the Bonds issued as Revenue Obligations.
(ii) “Operating and Maintenance Expenses” means all reasonable expenses incurred
by the City in causing the System to be operated and maintained in good repair,
working order and condition, but shall not include any depreciation or taxes or
charges in lieu of taxes levied or imposed by the City.
(iii) “Outstanding Parity Bonds” means the outstanding 1998 Revenue Bonds and the
City’s $7,875,000 par value Water and Sewer Revenue Improvement and
Refunding Bonds, 2003, authorized by Ordinance No. 3446, passed on March 25,
2003.
(iv) “Parity Bonds” means the Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds issued as
Revenue Obligations, and any Future Parity Bonds.
(v) “Revenue of the System” means all the earnings and revenue received by the
System from any source whatsoever, except general ad valorem taxes, ULID
Assessments, proceeds from the sale of City property, bond proceeds, and
earnings on funds held for payment to the United States of America under Section
148 of the Code.
(vi) “System” means the combined water supply and distribution system and sanitary
sewage disposal system of the City as the same may be added to, improved and
extended for as long as any of the Parity Bonds are outstanding.
Section 12. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be prepared in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law and shall be signed by the Mayor
and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of
the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon.
Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication, manually signed by the Bond
Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance,
stating: “This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, [NAME OF
SERIES OF BONDS], described in the Bond Legislation.” The authorized signing of a
Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has
been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance.
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are
authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless
may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall
be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City
authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person
Packet Page 106 of 143
-9-
51120514.4
who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds,
although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds.
Section 13. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants
that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in
gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or
permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the
Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be
included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to
the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Code is applicable to the Bonds,
take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement
in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the
City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of
any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds
from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Section 14. Designation of Bonds as “Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations.” The City
has determined and certifies that (a) the Bonds are not “private activity bonds” within the
meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (b) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt
obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in
such calculation) which the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that
the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that
issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which
the Bonds are issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (c) the amount of tax-exempt obligations,
including the Bonds, designated by the City as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for the
purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Bonds are
issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The City designates the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt
obligations” for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
Section 15. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding
bonds pursuant to the laws of the State or use money available from any other lawful source to
pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or any portion thereof included in a
refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such then-
outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the “defeased Bonds”) and to pay the costs of
the refunding or defeasance. If money and/or “government obligations” (as defined in chapter
39.53 RCW, as now or hereafter amended) maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in
amounts (together with money, if necessary) sufficient to redeem and retire, refund or defease
the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms are set aside in a special trust fund or escrow
account irrevocably pledged to that redemption, retirement or defeasance of defeased Bonds
(hereinafter called the “trust account”), then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased
Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment
of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. The owners of defeased Bonds shall have
the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust
account. The City shall include in the refunding or defeasance plan such provisions as the City
deems necessary for the random selection of any defeased Bonds that constitute less than all of a
particular maturity of the Bonds, for notice of the defeasance to be given to the owners of the
Packet Page 107 of 143
-10-
51120514.4
defeased Bonds and to such other persons as the City shall determine, and for any required
replacement of Bond certificates for defeased Bonds.
After the establishing and full funding of such a trust account, the defeased Bonds shall
be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may apply any money in any other fund or
account established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes
as it shall determine, subject only to the rights of the owners of any other Parity Bonds then
outstanding if the defeased Bonds are Revenue Obligations.
If the refunding plan provides that the defeased Bonds or the refunding bonds to be issued
be secured by money and/or Government Obligations or other Permitted Investments pending the
prior redemption of the defeased Bonds and if such refunding plan also provides that certain money
and/or Government Obligations or other Permitted Investments are pledged irrevocably for the prior
redemption of the defeased Bonds included in that refunding plan, then only the debt service on the
Bonds which are not defeased Bonds and the refunding bonds, the payment of which is not so
secured by the refunding plan, shall be included in the computation of coverage ratios for purposes
of meeting the Coverage Requirement for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds and the annual
computation of coverage for determining compliance with the rate covenants.
If the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, notice of any defeasance
of Bonds shall be given to DTC in the manner prescribed in the Letter of Representations for
notices of redemption of Bonds.
Section 16. Bond Fund; Deposit of Bond Proceeds.
(a) Bond Fund. Each Bond Sale Resolution shall provide for the creation or
designation of a Bond Fund for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the relevant
series of Bonds. All taxes collected for (and, as to any Bonds issued as Revenue Obligations, the
revenues collected and allocated to) the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds
shall be deposited in the Bond Fund.
(b) Deposit of Bond Proceeds. The principal proceeds and premium, if any, received
from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be deposited, invested and used in accordance with
the applicable Refunding Plan set forth in the Bond Sale Resolution and in accordance with
Section 17 of this ordinance.
Section 17. Refunding of the Refunded Bonds.
(a) Appointment of Refunding Trustee; Authorization for Refunding Trust
Agreement. The Bond Sale Resolution shall describe the Refunding Plan and provide for the
appointment of a Refunding Trustee, which may be the Finance Director or an independent
trustee, to carry out the Refunding Plan. In connection with the issuance of the Refunding
Bonds, the Mayor and Finance Director are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the
Refunding Trustee a Refunding Trust Agreement, substantially in the form approved in the Bond
Sale Resolution, which sets forth the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Refunding
Trustee in connection with the payment, redemption and retirement of the Refunded Bonds as
provided in this ordinance and in the Bond Sale Resolution, and stating that the provisions for
payment of the fees, compensation and expenses of such Refunding Trustee set forth therein are
satisfactory to it. Prior to executing the Refunding Trust Agreement, the Finance Director is
authorized to make such changes therein which do not change the substance and purpose thereof
Packet Page 108 of 143
-11-
51120514.4
or which assure that the escrow provided therein and the Refunding Bonds are in compliance
with the requirements of federal law governing the exclusion of interest on the Refunding Bonds
from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
(b) Call for Redemption of Refunded Bonds. As a part of the Refunding Plan, the
City shall in the Bond Sale Resolution call the Refunded Bonds for redemption. Such call for
redemption shall specify the name of the bonds, the maturity dates, call dates and redemption
prices (expressed as a percentage of par, plus accrued interest), and shall be irrevocable after the
delivery to the purchaser of the Refunding Bonds. The dates on which the Refunded Bonds are
called for redemption shall be, in the judgment of the Finance Director, the earliest practical
dates on which those bonds may be called for redemption. The Finance Director, Mayor and
other proper City officials are authorized and directed to give or cause to be given such notices
as required, at the times and in the manner required pursuant to the Refunded Bond Ordinances,
in order to effect the defeasance and redemption prior to maturity of the Refunded Bonds.
(c) The Refunding Plan; Use of Refunding Bond Proceeds. The Bond Sale
Resolution shall provide that the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds (together with other money of
the City, if necessary) in an amount sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan shall, immediately
upon receipt, be deposited with the Refunding Trustee. The Refunding Trustee shall use the
money so deposited to discharge the obligations of the City relating to the Refunded Bonds
under the Refunded Bond Ordinances by providing for the payment of the amounts required to
be paid by the Refunding Plan. The Refunding Plan shall be carried out, and proceeds of the
Bonds shall be applied, in accordance with the Bond Legislation and the laws of the State.
(d) Acquisition and Substitution of Acquired Obligations. The adoption of the Bond
Sale Resolution shall be authorization and direction to the Refunding Trustee to purchase the
Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and to make the payments required to be made
by the Refunding Plan from the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and money
deposited with the Refunding Trustee pursuant to this ordinance and the Bond Sale Resolution.
All Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and the money deposited with the Refunding
Trustee and any income earned on the amounts so deposited shall be held irrevocably, invested
and applied in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance that authorized the Refunded
Bonds, this ordinance, the Bond Sale Resolution, chapter 39.53 RCW and other applicable
statutes of the State, and the Refunding Trust Agreement. All necessary and proper fees,
compensation and expenses of the Refunding Trustee and all other costs incidental to the setting
up of the escrow to accomplish the refunding of the Refunded Bonds and costs related to the
issuance and delivery of the Refunding Bonds, including bond printing, verification fees, bond
counsel’s fees and other related expenses, may be paid out of the proceeds of the Refunding
Bonds. To the extent practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully by the Refunding
Trustee’s simultaneous purchase of the Acquired Obligations, bearing such interest and maturing
as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide, together with a
beginning cash balance, if necessary, for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the
Refunding Plan. The Acquired Obligations shall be listed and more particularly described in a
schedule attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement, but are subject to substitution as set forth
below. Prior to the purchase of any such Acquired Obligations, the City reserves the right to
substitute other Government Obligations for any of the Acquired Obligations and to use any
savings created thereby for any lawful City purpose if (i) in the opinion of Bond Counsel, the
interest on the Bonds and the Refunded Bonds issued as tax-exempt obligations will remain
Packet Page 109 of 143
-12-
51120514.4
excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Sections 103, 148 and 149(d)
of the Code, and (ii) such substitution shall not impair the timely payment of the amounts
required to be paid by the Refunding Plan, as verified by a nationally recognized firm of
independent certified public accountants. After the purchase of the Acquired Obligations by the
Refunding Trustee, the City reserves the right to substitute therefor cash or Government
Obligations subject to the conditions that such money or securities held by the Refunding Trustee
shall be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan, that such substitution will not cause the
Bonds or the Refunded Bonds to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148 of the
Code and regulations under such section of the Code in effect on the date of such substitution
and applicable to obligations issued on the issue date of the Bonds, and that the City obtain: (i)
verification by a nationally recognized independent certified public accounting firm reasonably
acceptable to the Refunding Trustee confirming that the payments of principal of and interest on
the Government Obligations, if paid when due, and any other money held by the Refunding
Trustee will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan; and (ii) an opinion from Bond Counsel
to the effect that the disposition and substitution or purchase of such securities, under the
statutes, rules and regulations then in force and applicable to the Bonds, will not cause the
interest on the Bonds or the Refunded Bonds issued as tax-exempt obligations to be included in
gross income for federal income tax purposes and that such disposition and substitution or
purchase is in compliance with the statutes and regulations applicable to the Bonds. Any surplus
money resulting from the sale, transfer, other disposition or redemption of the Acquired
Obligations and the substitutions therefor shall be released from the trust estate and may be used
for any lawful City purpose.
Section 18. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Council will be
provided with copies of a preliminary official statement prepared in connection with the sale of
each series of Bonds. Prior to its distribution and for the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser’s
compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), the City Finance Director is authorized to “deem
final” any such preliminary official statement as of its date, except for the omission of
information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal
amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates,
ratings and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters.
Section 19. Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. The City shall undertake
to provide for the benefit of holders of the Bonds certain annual financial information and
operating data of the type included in the final official statement for those Bonds, as well as
disclosure of certain material events respecting the Bonds, in the manner and to the extent
required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). The particular terms of such undertaking shall be set forth
in the Bond Sale Resolution.
Section 20. Sale of the Bonds; Bond Sale Resolution; Form and Execution of
Documents.
(a) Manner of Sale of the Bonds. The Finance Director shall determine whether,
based on market conditions and advice from the City’s financial advisor, to offer the Bonds for
sale at competitive bid or through a negotiated sale. If the Bonds are to be sold by competitive
bid, the Finance Director is authorized to specify a date and time of sale of the Bonds, to give
notice of that sale, to determine any bid requirements and criteria for determining the award of
Packet Page 110 of 143
-13-
51120514.4
the bid, to provide for the use of an electronic bidding mechanism, and to specify other matters
in his or her determination necessary, appropriate or desirable to carry out the sale of the Bonds.
The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any bid or in the bidding process. The
terms of that sale shall be consistent with this ordinance and shall be confirmed by the Bond Sale
Resolution. CUSIP numbers will be printed on the Bonds if requested by the purchasers, but
neither failure to print CUSIP numbers on any Bond nor error with respect thereto shall
constitute cause for a failure or refusal by the purchasers to accept delivery of and pay for the
Bonds in accordance with the purchase offer. All expenses in relation to the printing of CUSIP
numbers on the Bonds shall be paid by the City, but the fee of the CUSIP Service Bureau for the
assignment of those numbers shall be the responsibility of and shall be paid by the purchasers.
(b) Bond Sale Resolution. The Bonds may be issued only upon adoption by the City
Council of a Bond Sale Resolution providing for the matters described in this ordinance,
including the manner of sale and delivery of and payment for the Bonds, the maturity dates of
and interest rates on the Bonds, and such other matters that the City Council deems necessary
and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this ordinance. Once adopted, the Bond Sale
Resolution shall be deemed a part of this ordinance as if set forth herein. The Bond Sale
Resolution may provide for bond insurance, and may provide conditions or covenants relating
thereto, including additional terms, conditions, and covenants relating to the Bonds that are
required by the bond insurer, and are consistent with the provisions of this ordinance, including
but not limited to restrictions on investments and requirements of notice to and consent of the
bond insurer.
(c) Form and Execution of Documents. The City will cause the Bonds to be prepared,
sealed and executed in a form and manner consistent with the provisions of the Bond Legislation
and State law, and will obtain the approving legal opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel.
The Mayor and the Finance Director are each separately authorized to execute and deliver, on
behalf of the City, any contracts and other documents consistent with the provisions of this
ordinance for which the City’s approval is necessary or to which the City is a party and that are
related or incidental to the issuance and sale of the Bonds.
Section 21. General Authorization. The Mayor and the Finance Director and other
appropriate officers of the City are each authorized and directed to do everything as in their
judgment may be necessary, appropriate or desirable in order to carry out the terms and
provisions of, and complete the transactions contemplated by, this ordinance.
Packet Page 111 of 143
-14-
51120514.4
Section 22. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state
or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 23. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds,
Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this __________ day of
_________________________, 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
Bond Counsel
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Packet Page 112 of 143
51120514.4
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”), hereby
certify as follows:
1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. ____ (the “Ordinance”) is a full, true and
correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
held at the regular meeting place thereof on _________________, 2011, as that ordinance
appears on the minute book of the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and effect five
days after publication in the City’s official newspaper; and
2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the
meeting and a majority of its members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the
Ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of ____________,
2011.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
_____________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Page 113 of 143
AM-3743 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Debi Humann Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of Mayor's Appointment and approval of Professional Services Agreement
for Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Confirm the Mayor's appointment of Olbrechts & Associates PLLC as the City's Hearing Examiner and
approve the proposed professional services contract (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
The previous Land Use Hearing Examiner, Toweill-Rice-Taylor, elected to not renew their contract with
the City of Edmonds at the end of the year (2010), thereby creating a critical vacancy.
On 02/08/2011 the Finance committee voted to forward this issue to Council for discussion without a
recommendation.
Narrative
As stated above, our former Land Use Hearing Examiner elected to not renew their contract with the City
of Edmonds. As a result of that decision, the City of Edmonds created an RFQ/RFP and advertised for a
new Hearing Examiner. Four applicants applied for the position; Olbrechts & Associates PLLC, Sound
Law Center, Wick Dufford, and Margaret L. Sanders, Esq. After review of all applicants, Olbrechts &
Associates and Sound Law Center moved forward to the interview process which was held on November
29, 2010.
Following the recommendation of the interview panel, the Mayor has made his selection of Olbrechts &
Associates as the City's new Land Use Hearing Examiner pending contract approval.
Attached in Exhibit 1 is the proposed Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing Examiner
Services with Olbrechts & Associates. The contract has been reviewed by Legal and by the Planning
Division. The main change from the previous contract is that the fee structure has changed from a fixed,
flat monthly fee to an hourly rate with an annual cap as per Council's preference to attempt to lower
contract costs.
Also attached is a copy of the RFQ that was issued for the position, Olbrechts & Associates proposal for
services, and the relevant portion of the City Code addressing the position. (Note that the interview
process clarified that Scott Snyder is no longer a backup hearing examiner associated with Olbrechts &
Associates.)
Attachments
Packet Page 114 of 143
Draft Hearing Examiner Agrmt.
City Code Chapter 10.35
Olbrechts Proposal
Hearing Examiner RFQ
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/10/2011 12:25 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/11/2011 01:04 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 01:08 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 02/10/2011
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 115 of 143
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 1 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
Professional Services Agreement
For Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein and the mutual benefits to be derived,
the City of Edmonds (the City) and Olbrechts and Associates, P.L.L.C. (or the Hearing
Examiner) agree as follows:
1. Duties of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall provide those services
and fulfill those duties identified in the City of Edmonds ordinances relating to the Office
of the Hearing Examiner and carry out such other responsibilities as agreed to herein
between the City and the Hearing Examiner. Those services, duties, and responsibilities
include reviewing information provided by City staff and applicable laws in preparation
for the hearing; holding pre-hearing conferences and issuing pre-hearing orders on
individual cases as necessary for the clarification of issues to be addressed at the hearing;
conducting hearings on all matters to which the City’s ordinances grant Hearing
Examiner jurisdiction; receiving testimony and documentary evidence; preparing final
written decisions including findings of fact and conclusions of law for each case heard;
and issuing decisions on post-hearing motions. The Hearing Examiner shall be
responsible for providing a final written decision in each matter to the City and to parties
of record via notice from the City of Edmonds Office of Hearing Examiner. The date by
which the final decision shall be issued will be the date set forth in City’s code.
2. Duties of the City. The City shall be responsible for providing the support necessary to
execute the duties established in this Agreement, including but not limited to: a complete
copy of all appropriate current city codes and resolutions; a public hearing room
sufficient to accommodate the Hearing Examiner, City Staff, applicants/respondents,
attorneys, and members of the public wishing to attend; recording equipment adequate to
establish a verbatim recording of each public hearing; a staff person to accept exhibits,
operate recording equipment during hearings, and maintain custody of the official record
in each matter; and telephone conferencing for pre-hearing conferences as needed. The
City shall be responsible for publishing legal notice of hearings pursuant to the provisions
set forth in the City’s code; for recording hearings; preserving the audio and documentary
record on each matter; and providing the Hearing Examiner with a complete mailing list
for all parties of record known in advance of the public hearing. The City shall be the
keeper of the official record in each matter and shall provide the Hearing Examiner with
a working copy of said record. The City shall provide to the Hearing Examiner copies of
recordings of the public hearing. The City shall provide the Hearing Examiner with
Office of Hearing Examiner stationery and shall reimburse the Hearing Examiner for the
cost of copies and postage incurred in mailing final decisions to parties of record.
3. Term of Agreement. The services of the Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Agreement
are to commence on January 1, 2011 and will expire on December 31, 2014. The first
partial calendar year of the term (2011) shall be probationary (probationary year) during
which the Hearing Examiner will serve subject to the approval of the Mayor. During the
probationary year, the Mayor at his sole discretion may terminate this contract or in his
Packet Page 116 of 143
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 2 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
sole discretion, terminate the provision of services by the Hearing Examiner or any
individual approved service-providing member of the Hearing Examiner’s firm. During
the balance of the term, the Hearing Examiner shall be removed from the Hearing
Examiner Office only for good cause, provided, however, that good cause termination
may be applied to either the Hearing Examiner or any individual approved service-
providing member at the sole discretion of the City. In the event of termination, the
Hearing Examiner will complete any matter then pending at the rates set forth in this
Agreement, invoice the City accordingly, and the City shall compensate the Hearing
Examiner within thirty (30) days of invoicing.
4. Nonassignment; Approval of Service Providers. The City has interviewed Phil A.
Olbrechts and approves the provision of services under this Agreement by this individual.
The City reserves the right to approve the provision of service as Hearing Examiner by
any person other than the approved service-providing members of Olbrechts &
Associates, P.L.L.C. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the Hearing
Examiner from utilizing clerical assistance through its employees in the provision of
services under this Agreement. The term “clerical assistance” includes law students or
other qualified individuals employed by the Hearing Examiner to provide summaries of
testimony for preliminary drafts and to perform other similar paralegal type functions.
The provisions of this Agreement may not be assigned, whether to another entity or to
another or future member of Olbrechts & Associates, P.L.L.C.
5. Hearing dates. The City’s land use hearings shall be conducted, if any, on a Thursday of
each month, with the schedule set by mutual agreement. If additional hearing time is
required, a second docket shall be scheduled on an additional Thursday of each month.
In the event of specially set hearings required to be held on other dates, the City shall
provide the Hearing Examiner with notice of the special hearing date no less than twenty-
one (21) days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City shall provide the Hearing
Examiner with the working copies of the record in each matter, including the staff report
and all available exhibits, no less than seven (7) days prior to the scheduled hearing date.
6. Compensation. Phil Olbrechts shall be paid by the City at the rate of $145.00 per hour ;
associates at the rate of $135 per hour; and alternate examiners at the rate of $100 per
hour. Clerical assistants may be billed at actual cost plus ten percent (10%) not to exceed
$55 per hour. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services
rendered to complete the work and shall not exceed $42,000 on an annual basis.
7. Payment. The Hearing Examiner shall maintain time and expense (if any) records and
provide them to the City monthly, along with monthly invoices in a format acceptable to
the City for work performed to the date of the invoice. All invoices shall be paid by the
City within thirty (30) days of receipt of a proper invoice.
8. Discrimination and Compliance with Laws. The Hearing Examiner agrees not to
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment or any other person in
the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital
status, sex, age, disability, or other circumstance prohibited by federal, state, or local law
Packet Page 117 of 143
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 3 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
or ordinance, except for a bona fide occupational qualification. The Hearing Examiner
shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work
to be done under this Agreement. The Hearing Examiner shall also comply with the
Washington State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.
9. Standard of Care. The Hearing Examiner represents and warrants that it has the
requisite training, skill and experience necessary to provide the services under this
agreement and is appropriately accredited and licensed by all applicable agencies and
governmental entities. Services provided by the Hearing Examiner under this agreement
will be performed in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing in similar
circumstances.
10. Ownership of Work Product. All final decisions, orders, and other documents issued
by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to this Agreement, all exhibits submitted into the
record, and all official recordings shall be the property of the City. All such documents,
exhibits, and recordings shall be forwarded to the City upon request and may be used by
the City as it sees fit. The City agrees that if the documents, exhibits, and recordings are
used for purposes other than those intended in this Agreement, the City does so at its sole
risk and agrees to hold the Hearing Examiner harmless for such use. All services
performed under this Agreement shall be conducted solely for the benefit of the City and
shall not be used for any other purpose without express written consent of the City.
11. Correspondence and Notices.
(a) Correspondence and Notices to the City shall be sent to the following address:
Edmonds Planning Division
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(b) Correspondence and Notices to the Hearing Examiner shall be sent to the
following address:
Olbrechts & Associates, PLLC
ATTN: Phil Olbrechts
18833 74th Street NE
Granite Falls, WA 98252
206.650.7268
olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
12. Independent Contractor Relationship. Both parties recognize the quasi-judicial nature
of the Office of Hearing Examiner. It is agreed by and between the parties that this
Agreement shall not constitute nor create an employer-employee relationship. The
Hearing Examiner is an independent contractor and shall be responsible for all
obligations relating to federal income tax, self-employment, and other typically
Packet Page 118 of 143
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 4 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
employer-paid taxes and contributions. Any employee of the Hearing Examiner, while
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Hearing Examiner
under this Agreement, shall be considered an employee of the Hearing Examiner only
and not of the City.
13. Freedom from Influence. The Hearing Examiner shall be free of any supervision or
other influence from City officials and employees with respect to any decision or
recommendation made by the Hearing Examiner on a specific case, issue, or permit.
14. Dispute Resolution. This section applies only to billing and for disputes under Sections
6 and 7, and not to any other provision of this Contract.
(a) Mediation. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement will be submitted to
mediation before a neutral third party. If the parties cannot mutually agree upon a
mediator, they will ask the presiding judge of Snohomish County Superior Court
to appoint one. The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve their dispute
through mediation. The parties will participate in mediation no more than 15 days
later than one party provides written notice to the other of the nature of the
dispute and the desire for mediation. All costs of mediation, if any, will be split
equally between the parties and each party will bear its own attorney fees.
(b) Arbitration. If mediation is not successful, the parties will submit the dispute to
binding arbitration under rules and procedures set forth by the American
Arbitration Association. If the parties cannot mutually agree upon an arbitrator,
they will ask the presiding judge of Snohomish County Superior Court to appoint
one. The substantially prevailing party at arbitration will be entitled to recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees from the other party.
(c) Injunctive and Equitable Relief. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the
foregoing, in the event a good faith attempt at mediation is not successful and in
lieu of arbitration, any party may apply to Snohomish County Superior Court for
equitable or injunctive relief. The parties agree that in any such action neither
party will submit nor will the Court have authority to consider any claims for
money damages, it being the intent of the parties that all such claims be resolved
through mediation or arbitration. The substantially prevailing party in any Court
action for equitable or injunctive relief will be entitled to recover its reasonable
costs and attorney’s fees from the other party.
15. Indemnification.
(a) The Hearing Examiner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
agents, and employees from and against any and all liability arising under this
contract or from claims resulting in whole or in part from negligent or unlawful
acts or omissions of the Hearing Examiner, its agents, servants, officers, or
employees.
Packet Page 119 of 143
Professional Services Agreement for
Land Use Hearing Examiner Services
2/1/2011 11:28a page 5 of 5
{WSS651385.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
(b) The City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Hearing Examiner, its
agents and employees, from and against any and all liability arising under, from,
or out of the negligent or unlawful acts or omissions of the City, its’ officers,
agents, and employees during the performance of this contract by the Hearing
Examiner.
16. Insurance. The Hearing Examiner shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
Automobile Liability. The Hearing Examiner shall maintain auto insurance covering all
owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles with a minimum combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the complete and integrated understanding
and agreement between the parties and supersedes any understanding and/or agreement
of negotiation, whether oral or written, not set forth herein. Any waiver of breach, by
Olbrechts & Associates, P.L.L.C. or the City, of any provision of this Agreement by the
other party will not operate, or be construed, as a waiver of any subsequent breach by
either party or prevent either party from thereafter enforcing any such provisions. If any
part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be
inoperative, null, and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, and the remainder of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
AGREED TO this __________ day of _______________________ 2011.
___________________________
Mayor Mike Cooper, City of Edmonds
(i)
(ii)
(iii) Olbrechts & Associates, PLLC
____________________________
Phil A. Olbrechts
Packet Page 120 of 143
Packet Page 121 of 143
Packet Page 122 of 143
Packet Page 123 of 143
Packet Page 124 of 143
Packet Page 125 of 143
Packet Page 126 of 143
Packet Page 127 of 143
Packet Page 128 of 143
Packet Page 129 of 143
Packet Page 130 of 143
Packet Page 131 of 143
Packet Page 132 of 143
Packet Page 133 of 143
Packet Page 134 of 143
Packet Page 135 of 143
PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT POSITION
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL
Hearing Examiner
The City of Edmonds seeks proposals from qualified individuals to be appointed as the
City’s Hearing Examiner.
DUTIES:
The Hearing Examiner conducts and records public quasi-judicial hearings on official
street map changes, hearings regarding the final assessment roll of any local
improvement district or utility local improvement district in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 35.44 RCW, land use applications and appeals, including
conditional use and shoreline permits, variances, draft environmental impact statements,
preliminary plats for formal subdivisions, staff decisions, and related matters as specified
by law and referred by the city code.
The Hearing Examiner shall review all information in the record of the proceeding
including project files kept by the Development Services and or Public Works
Departments, including applications, staff reports, environmental impact statements, and
other materials. The Hearing Examiner may visit project sites under appropriate
procedural safeguards.
No person shall interfere with the hearing examiner in the performance of his/her
designated duties. The Hearing Examiner shall avoid pre-hearing contact with persons
interested in a particular land use proposal, including the staff persons working on the
same matter. If there is any pre-hearing contact, the Hearing Examiner shall disclose it
on the record at the start of the hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall disqualify himself
or herself if the pre-hearing contact would result in an unfair hearing, or an appearance of
unfairness, and arrange for a temporary Hearing Examiner to hold the hearing.
The Hearing Examiner shall hold public hearings on each project reviewed in the manner
provided in Chapter 20.91 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The
Hearing Examiner shall review land use applications and issues as specified in Chapter
20.100 ECDC and related matters. The Hearing Examiner will review the comprehensive
plan and report on the same prior to any street vacation or dedication as provided in
ECDC 15.05.020. The Development Services Department and/or the Public Works
Department shall give notice as required.
Upon conclusion of hearings, the Examiner will issue written reports making findings of
fact, conclusions, and decisions consistent with law and ordinances. The findings and
conclusions shall explain how the decision or recommendation will carry out and
implement the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and other relevant provisions of the ECDC.
The Examiner shall send a copy of the findings and conclusions to the applicant, the
Development Services Department, to any person(s) who requests a copy, and the City
Council. The findings and conclusions shall contain any conditions placed on an
approval or permit.
Packet Page 136 of 143
Page 2
Certain decisions made by the Hearing Examiner are subject to appeal to the City
Council. The scopes of the Hearing Examiner’s duties are specified in Chapters 20.100
and 20.105 of the ECDC.
The Hearing Examiner may be required to reconsider his/her decision or recommendation
on any matter before him/her in accordance with the provisions of City ordinance.
The Hearing Examiner may hold no other position in the city government of Edmonds or,
be an employee of or contractor for, any person under contract to the city of Edmonds.
The Hearing Examiner shall be knowledgeable regarding statutory and case law
governing the hearing process such as the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and
applicable prohibitions regarding conflict of interest. The Hearing Examiner shall
comply with the requirements of Chapter 1.14 ECC, Public Official Disclosure.
The Hearing Examiner will subcontract for and supervise the provision of clerical and
other support services as needed to provide the required services under this Contract at no
additional charge to the City of Edmonds.
Every year in September, the Hearing Examiner shall prepare and present an oral and
written report to the City Council outlining the actions of the Hearing Examiner during
the preceding 12 month period. The purpose of such review is to enable the City Council
and the Hearing Examiner to coordinate city land use policy and philosophy.
QUALIFICATIONS:
The best qualified applicant will have:
• A Masters Degree in Planning or Law Degree or equivalent
• Demonstrated knowledge and experience of Washington State land use,
environmental law, and the Growth Management Act
• Demonstrated knowledge and experience of land use decisions based on plans,
policies, codes and legal standards
• Demonstrated knowledge and experience in conducting public hearings including
“Robert’s Rules of Order” and The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
• Demonstrated knowledge and experience with writing findings and conclusions
• A minimum of five years experience as a municipal Hearing Examiner
APPOINTMENT:
The Hearing Examiner position shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the
City Council for a term of four years. The first year of the term will be probationary
during which he/she will serve subject to the approval of the Mayor. During the balance
of the four year term, the Hearing Examiner may be removed only for good cause.
COMPENSATION/HOURS OF WORK:
The required hours of work for the Hearing Examiner position include, but are not
limited to, the necessary time needed to fulfill the requirements of the position including
reviewing all information on a pre-hearing basis, visiting project sites, preparing
Packet Page 137 of 143
Page 3
recommendations and conclusions, as well as administering the public hearing process.
Public hearings are scheduled on the first and third Thursday of each month but will be
held on-demand as needed. The City and Hearing Examiner will enter into a professional
services agreement which will provide for a compensation formula.
SELECTION PROCEDURE:
All proposals will be reviewed and screened based upon the qualifications and
requirements outlined in this request. Those individuals deemed most qualified will be
screened further based upon reference checks. Finalists will be invited for interviews.
The appointment will be made by the Mayor subject to the approval of the professional
services contract by City Council.
REQUIREMENTS:
The person selected will be required to undergo a comprehensive background
investigation prior to appointment and provide proof of professional liability insurance to
the City.
TO REPLY TO THIS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL:
Please submit a cover letter, resume, and statement of qualifications by Friday,
October 29, 2010. The application packet must include three (3) professional and three
(3) personal references with addresses and phone numbers. In addition, the application
packet should also include answers to the following questions:
Application Questions:
The following questions should be fully answered in order to be considered for this
position. Please place your name on the top of each sheet of paper used.
1. Detail your expected compensation requirements for this position.
2. Describe your knowledge and experience with land use, environmental law and
the Growth Management Act, Regulatory Reforms and the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine
3. Describe your knowledge and experience with making land use decisions
4. Describe your experience in conducting public hearings
5. Describe your ability to write findings and conclusions
6. Describe any previous experience in a Hearing Examiner position
Direct all questions and all application materials to:
Via Mail: Debi Humann
HR Director
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Via e-mail: humann@ci.edmonds.wa.us
The City of Edmonds is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Packet Page 138 of 143
AM-3745 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 02/15/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of February 8, 2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The following City Council Committees met on 2-8-2011:
Community Services/Development Services Committee and the Finance Committee.
The Community Services/Development Services Committee and Finance Committee Minutes are
attached.
The Public Safety Committee Meeting was cancelled.
Attachments
Finance Comm. Minutes
CS/DS Comm. Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 02/10/2011 04:39 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/11/2011 08:02 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 02/10/2011 11:28 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/11/2011
Packet Page 139 of 143
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
February 8, 2011
7:47 PM
Present: Councilmember Petso
Councilmember Bernheim
Staff: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director, Finance and Information Services
Debi Humann, Director, Human Resources
Rob Chave, Manager, Planning Department
Public: Finis Tupper Ron Wambolt
Al Rutledge Roger Hertrich
Councilmember Petso called the meeting to order at 7:47 PM.
A. General Fund update for December 2010
Mr. Hines, presented revenue and expenditure trends for the General Fund and current
forecasts for the City’s major revenue sources. Both committee members asked
questions regarding the report. Mr. Hines answered questions or requested additional
time for research questions that were raised. Mr. Hines stated that he would return to the
committee with responses to any outstanding questions. For information only, no further
action required.
B. Review and approval of Professional Services Agreement for Land Use Hearing
Examiner Services
Ms. Humann and Mr. Chave presented the results of the procurement for the city Hearing
Examiner. After completing the RFQ process and interviews with the finalists, the
Mayor has selected the firm of Olbrechts & Associates PLLC to serve as the City’s
Hearing Examiner. The appointment requires Council confirmation.
Councilmember Petso voiced concerns she had after reading internet articles on issues in
Monroe, where Mr. Olbrechts had served as City Attorney. Councilmember Bernheim
expressed concern that so few firms had applied, and staff responded that the RFQ had
been widely distributed but there appeared to be a limited number of qualified firms and
that it can be difficult to recruit firms for a variety of reasons. The Committee
recommended forwarding the Mayor’s appointment to the full council for consideration
with no recommendation.
C. Proposed 2011 equipment rental hourly rates for external agencies and the
Transportation Benefit District
Mr. Hines presented the issue and answered questions on same. The committee voted to
move the item to the council consent calendar.
D. Cash Flow/Working Capital
Mr. Hines discussed the city’s current and historical use of the working capital approach
in its financial statements. He also answered questions from both committee members
regarding this issue. For information only, no further action required.
Packet Page 140 of 143
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
E. Re-formatting City Financial Reports
Councilmember Bernheim and Mr. Hines discussed reformatting the monthly reports to
include more information. Mr. Hines indicated that the Mayor’s committee on reviewing
the format of the city’s interim financials is the forum for such a discussion. Mr. Hines
also mentioned that Councilmember Bernheim is a member of the Mayor’s committee
and the first meeting is Wednesday, February 9, 2011. For information only, no further
action required.
F. Revisions to Financial Reporting Ordinance
Councilmember Bernheim and Mr. Hines briefly discussed the issue. For information
only, no further action required.
G. Timeliness of Financial Reporting and Compliance with City Code
Councilmember Bernheim and Mr. Hines discussed the issue. Councilmember Bernheim
asked Mr. Hines about the current 30-day timeline for submitting reports to Council. Mr.
Hines indicated that given the limited staffing in the city’s Finance office, 45 days would
be more reasonable, however he would work within the current timeline as requested.
For information only, no further action required.
H. 2010 Fourth Quarter Budget Update
Mr. Hines presented the report. He explained that this report is preliminary, due to the
fact that the Finance office is still closing the 2010 fiscal year and unformatted due to the
timeframe given to produce the report. He further explained that the information
provided consists of system reports which provide the basis for the formatted reports.
Mr. Hines also indicated that a final and formatted report would be developed when the
2010 fiscal year is closed, as time permits. For information only, no further action
required.
I. Public Comments (3-minute limit per person)
• Roger Hertrich asked about the city’s cash accounting and investment policies. Mr.
Hines responded to his questions.
• Ron Wambolt commented that the city’s reporting systems are not meeting
expectations. Mr. Hines responded to his comments.
• Al Rutledge asked about the Hearing Examiner.
Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:15 PM.
Packet Page 141 of 143
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
February 8, 2011
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present
Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
:
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks & Rec Director
The committee convened at 8:00 p.m.
A. Ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 10.50 ECC, Public Library Board, to reflect
2001 changes to the agreement between Sno-Isle and the City and the 2006 closing of
Special Library Fund 621.
ACTION: Place item on next Council calendar for consent.
B. Potential addition of HB1265 to legislative agenda as a priority item.
There was no discussion on this item.
ACTION: The Committee did not have a recommendation. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas
will discuss scheduling the item on an upcoming meeting with Council President Peterson.
C. Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement
with Perteet, Inc. for the Shell Valley Emergency Access Project and report on the January
27, 2011 public meeting.
Mr. Rob English, City Engineer, reviewed this item and explained that it had been presented to
the committee in January. The committee’s recommendation in January was to have staff
conduct a public meeting with the Shell Valley residents. The meeting would provide an
opportunity for residents to comment on the 22 ft. wide option and the future operation of the
access road.
A public meeting was held on January 27, 2011 and approximately 25-30 residents attended the
meeting. A summary of the meeting and the questions raised were included with the agenda
memo. Mr. Phil Williams, Public Works Director, discussed the concerns that were raised by the
citizens with opening the access road for a three or four month period. He also explained how
some of the residents thought that a gate at the entrance would prevent motorcycles from using
the road. Mr. English also reminded the committee that the City has until June 1st
to receive
approval of the construction funding from WSDOT.
Packet Page 142 of 143
CS/DS Committee Minutes
February 8, 2011
Page 2
2
Mr. Williams also explained how the 22 ft. wide option would be a bid alternate and the decision
to build the wider road would depend on the construction bids and the available budget. If the
bids were not favorable for a 22 ft. wide road, then the original 15 ft. option would be constructed.
Based on the feedback from the public meeting, the committee suggested that this item be
scheduled on the next available council meeting with an opportunity for public comment from the
Shell Valley residents.
ACTION: Place item on the next available Council meeting for approval and allow public
comment.
D. Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications for professional design and right of way
services on the Five Corners Roundabout project.
Mr. English, City Engineer, outlined the scope of design and right of way services that would be
covered under the proposed request for qualifications on the Five Corners Project. The costs
related to these services would be paid from a $463,000 federal transportation grant and 13.5%
local match. The local match would be funded by the motor vehicle fuel tax in the 112 Street
Construction Fund.
Mr. Phil Williams, Public Works Director, expressed his opinion on how this project would improve
the efficiency of the intersection since it is currently controlled by stop signs. He also mentioned
that some people may not be familiar with a traffic roundabout and may express opposition to the
project because they are not aware of the benefits the project will provide.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this project is in the CIP. Mr. English said it is, however, it will
require a separate appropriation in 2011 because the 2011 budget was prepared after the City
was awarded the grant.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
E. Edmonds Senior Center Roof Project
Mr. Phil Williams, Public Works Director, reviewed the bids that were received for the Senior
Center Roof project. Mr. Williams explained that the low bid from Wright Roofing was
considerably lower than the three other bidders. He discussed the bid review process completed
by staff and the positive references that were received for Wright Roofing. Based on this
information, staff is recommending Council award the project to Wright Roofing.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Packet Page 143 of 143