Loading...
2011.08.02 CC Agenda Packet           AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds AUGUST 2, 2011 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-4116 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 26, 2011.   C.AM-4117 Approval of claim checks #126843 through #126968 dated July 28, 2011 for $494,038.74.   D.AM-4083 Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project.   3.(30 Minutes) AM-4115 Sound Transit Update   4.Audience Comments  (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.   5.(30 Minutes) AM-4114 Discussion and potential action regarding three ordinances placing propositions on the November 8, 2011 General Election. A. An Ordinance relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at the November 8, 2011 General Election of a proposition authorizing an increase in the regular property tax levy in excess of the increase otherwise allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW to help maintain current levels of service in Public Safety, Parks, and other City services; setting forth the ballot title therefore; requesting that the Snohomish County Auditor place the proposition on the November 8, 2011 ballot; and fixing the time when the same shall become effective. B. An Ordinance relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at the November 8, 2011 General Election of a proposition authorizing an increase in the regular property tax levy in excess of the increase otherwise allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW to fund street pavement overlays; setting forth the ballot title therefore; requesting that the Snohomish County Auditor place the proposition on the November 8, 2011 ballot; and fixing the time when the same shall become effective. C. An Ordinance relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at the November 8, 2011 General Election of a proposition authorizing an increase in the regular property tax levy in excess of the increase otherwise allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW to fund building maintenance and park improvements; setting forth the ballot title therefore; requesting that the Snohomish County Auditor place the proposition on the November 8, 2011 ballot; and fixing the time when the same shall become effective.   6.(30 Minutes) AM-4118 Discussion regarding a Diversity Commission   7.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   8.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   ADJOURN   AM-4116   Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 08/02/2011 Time:  Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action   Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 26, 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 7-26-11 Draft Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 07/29/2011 09:27 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/29/2011 12:23 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/27/2011 01:32 PM Final Approval Date: 07/29/2011  Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 26, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 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 ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bernheim requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126709 THROUGH #126842 DATED JULY 21, 2011 FOR $625,928.49. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50599 THROUGH #50651 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JULY 15, 2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $666,623.49 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY MARGARET SQUIRE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) E. COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY, 2011 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 2 F. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE RFQ FOR ARTISTS TO CREATE INTERPRETIVE ELEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS CULTURAL HERITAGE TOUR PROJECT G. APPOINTMENT OF MARLA MILLER TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2011 Councilmember Bernheim requested the following changes to the minutes: • Page 17, last paragraph, delete the sentence, “He suggested including bike racks and an electric car plug.” • Page 23, second paragraph from the bottom, change “admirably” to “adequately.” COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED. Council President Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he was absent from the meeting. Councilmember Wilson observed it was the Council’s normal process to refer the minutes to the Clerk for verification. Councilmember Bernheim responded he was trying to save the Clerk time. Councilmember Wilson recalled Councilmember Bernheim did say he wanted bike racks in the park but would not hold up his vote to get them. Councilmember Bernheim read the comments he made at the July 19 meeting from a transcript. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINING. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. THE AMENDMENTS FOCUS ON USES PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED STREET FRONTS IN BD ZONES, COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, REDUCING MANDATORY STEP-BACKS, AND PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED CITY GOALS Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendations: 1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. The current commercial depth requirement is 30 feet in the BD1 downtown retail core and 60 feet elsewhere in the downtown zones. The Planning Board felt the existing commercial depth requirements were contrary to the City’s goals for the retail core and felt a consistent definition of designated street front and street depth was appropriate throughout the downtown area. The Planning Board recommended a consistent 45-foot depth. Staff’s walkthrough of commercial spaces downtown a few years ago found nearly all commercial spaces, in the BD1 zone in particular, were approximately 60 feet in depth. Existing uses will be allowed to continue, the amended depth will only apply to new development. 2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. There are currently no restrictions as long as the use is commercial. In the City’s economic development goals and the downtown Comprehensive Plan, pedestrian activity and retail activity in particular is a core goal for the downtown BD1 area. The Planning Board recommended not allowing offices or professional offices within the 45-foot designated street front in the BD1 zone. Uses within the first 45 feet uses must be retail or service-related businesses. The Planning Board felt offices and professional offices do not rely on walk-in customers and some offices in the BD1 close off their visible windows to the public via Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 3 blinds, etc. Mr. Chave reminded the BD1 zone is a very small area, the two blocks radiating out from the center fountain. Retail and service oriented business would be allowed to locate within the first 45 feet; any commercial use including offices can locate behind the first 45 feet or in the upper story. 3. Step‐back requirements. There is currently no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. The other downtown BD1 zones require a 15‐foot step‐back above 25 feet. The Planning Board felt building design could be addressed by the existing design guidance that refers to presence of building on the street, differentiating lower portions from upper portions. Historic buildings downtown such as Beeson Building or Chanterelles derive their character not from a step-back but decoration, ornamentation, etc. which the Planning Board felt provided more building design enhancement than a step-back. 4. Development Agreements. Developers would be allowed to build according to normal development pattern in accordance with the current zoning or could propose a development agreement. Development agreements have a thorough public hearing process at both the Planning Board and the City Council and the final decision is made by the City Council. Under the Planning Board’s recommendation, development agreements would achieve certain specified goals. A developer would need to achieve two of the following three goals: 1) Attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification 2) The development incorporates one or more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post office, farmers market, or space for artists) 3) The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Mr. Chave explained the goal of tonight’s hearing was to identify what the Council wants to include in an updated code. The language could be amended such as strengthening or providing further clarity on some of the development agreement criteria. A number of the code provisions were adopted in 2006, about the time of the economic downturn. Therefore, the City has virtually no experience with the code provisions. The Planning Board, Economic Development Commission (EDC) and staff feel a down economy is an appropriate time to make improvements to the code where appropriate. The EDC had a lengthy discussion regarding development agreements as they relate to the City’s economic development goals. The EDC discussed and endorsed the Planning Board’s recommendations at their recent meeting. The EDC expressed interest in further defining service uses, which service uses were appropriate in a retail core. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any sense of urgency or request that the City Council make a decision tonight following the public hearing rather than listening to points of view and making a decision in the next weeks or months before the end of the year. Mr. Chave answered it is a legislative matter so there is no particular deadline. The Planning Board and EDC felt these were important issues and hoped the Council would address them as quickly as possible. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was a need for the Council to make a decision tonight. Mr. Chave answered the public testimony may indicate a need that he is not aware of; there is no specific deadline. Councilmember Petso referred to minutes in the Council packet that indicate the CS/DS Committee wanted to refer the environmental sustainability considerations to the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee and asked whether that had been done. Mr. Chave answered that is a separate issue, including broader incentives in the codes. The environmental aspect tonight is only related to development agreements. Councilmember Petso asked whether there had been discussion regarding something other than LEED for the environmental incentive. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board’s discussion primarily focused on LEED although they did discuss other standards. The problem is there are few other good environmental Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 4 standards; LEED is the best established standard at this time. The words “or equivalent” were included because other standards or ways of measuring environmental benefits may develop over time such as the Master Builders green building initiatives. If a developer could show their proposal had equivalent environmental benefits, it would be acceptable. He summarized it was not expected that a developer would complete the LEED certification process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what type of businesses would be prohibited in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave answered general office such as a corporate or business office or a professional office such as a doctor’s office would not be allowed in the designated street front. Both could occur behind the designated street front, in the story above or in one of the surrounding commercial zones. Conversely any retail or service use would be allowed. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff, the EDC and the Planning Board for their work. As Council liaison to the EDC, she is aware of the discussions that occurred at their meeting and the Planning Board minutes demonstrate a very thoughtful process. She referred to page 9 of the Planning Board June 8 minutes, where Board Member Cloutier moved that the motion be amended to delete the words “or three stories, whichever is greater” from Item B.1. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johnson. The minutes do not reflect a vote on the amendment. Mr. Chave recalled it was approved. Councilmember Plunkett observed the proposed development agreement would increase height to 35 feet. In Mr. Spee’s case, per the Planning Board minutes, he is planning that some portion of his lot will have a 4-story building. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether removing 35 feet from the development agreement and retaining the height in the existing code would eviscerate the value of the development agreement. He asked whether development agreements were predicated on an increase in height up to 35 feet and in some cases, depending on the lot, up to 4 stories. Mr. Chave answered the language in the development agreement states the development standards in general can be varied. The language regarding 35 feet is a limitation. Even if a developer wants to vary other regulations in the code, the height cannot exceed 35 feet. If the Council did not want to allow height above the existing feet, the language would need to be changed to not more than 30 feet. Whether it eviscerated the value of a development agreement was in the eyes of the beholder. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was value in a development agreement if the Council did not approve allowing an increase in height. Mr. Chave answered there could still be some value because other regulations could be altered via a development agreement. Some of the discussion by the EDC and Planning Board was regarding uses that they wanted to occur downtown such as a boutique hotel. Companies who develop that use considered the City’s zoning and indicated it would not be feasible under the existing 30-foot height limit and would require a few additional feet in height. The discussion by the Planning Board and EDC specifically referenced that input. Depending on the situation, particularly where a higher building would not impact the existing street scape and the use would potentially be a huge economic benefit particularly for tourism, the Planning Board and EDC felt strongly the opportunity for increased height was appropriate. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council had been told previously that a certain building could not be built but it was later constructed when required to build to code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a development agreement could be used with a variance. Mr. Chave answered the City’s variance criteria are very tight and absent something unique to the site, the variance criteria could not be satisfied. For example, he could not imagine a circumstance where additional height would be granted via a variance for a boutique hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the land slopes. Mr. Chave explained there are slopes throughout the downtown and it would be difficult to argue that because a particular property slopes, granting additional height would be so unique Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 5 that another site should not also receive a variance for slope. He summarized granting a variance on one site opened up to variances all over the City. Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where there is one parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line designating the street front on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the lines were drawn, consideration was given to commercial streets and the designated street front were identified in areas where there are commercial uses on both sides or there is a long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately Planning Board may reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses or wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side. Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main develops, will it be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of the way along 2nd or none of the way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not a designated street front, the requirement for a 45 foot depth does not apply and any of the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted. Councilmember Petso observed this was supposed to be legislative but the discussion appears to relate strongly to a particular project that has yet to be submitted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this discussion is in regard to all the BD zones and the map on page 111 encompasses several blocks. To the extent any particular lot was discussed in the context of a hypothetical development, he supposed that could assist the Council in understanding the effect of the proposed changes as long as it was understood any discussion regarding a site specific application of the proposal was purely hypothetical. There is no quasi judicial land use application before the Council tonight. On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel, Councilmember Petso asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a designated street front as far as the blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it splits a parcel, only the portion of the parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The designated street fronts are tied to street sections rather than property lines. Councilmember Plunkett advised he heard a conversation that led him to believe this development agreement was pretty much centered around one potential developer. He was at a Historic Preservation Commission meeting when a representative for the developer of the post office made comments, believing he was speaking to the Planning Board. The representative stated all he needed to do was get the Council to change the code and they could construct a nice building with a number of nice attributes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this matter was still legislative when he heard something like that because he assumed this particular developer would ultimately submit an application. Mr. Taraday answered this is a legislative matter and while there may be developers/property owners in the community who lobby the City Council to adopt/not adopt the proposed amendments, they are free to do so in the context of approaching their elected officials about a legislative matter. Access to Councilmembers will change as soon as a development application is submitted; to his knowledge there is no application on file yet, therefore, the Council is truly in the legislative realm. Councilmember Plunkett clarified a developer could lobby a Councilmember as much as they wanted even if they would profit from the change. Mr. Taraday answered absolutely. Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue line extended through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the property. Mr. Chave answered the concept behind the designated street front is to identify portions of downtown where there is the strongest commercial activity. There are certain main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on Dayton, that tend to be the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 6 commercial is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its viability. When people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides. He summarized determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend is a judgment call, the reason this is a legislative matter. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who designated the street fronts. Mr. Chave answered the concept was first raised when the BD zones were adopted in 2006 and established only for the BD1 zone. The Planning Board ultimately recommended expanding that concept to the other BD zones. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th Avenue extends to Daley Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut off a block short of James and mid-block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton there is a consistent block on the south side of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large building on the east side and only a small corner on the west side. He reiterated it is a judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street fronts. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the definition of service uses. Mr. Chave acknowledged there was no definition for service uses. The EDC and Planning Board felt it worthwhile to forward the proposed amendments to the Council but want to review and further define services uses to determine whether some are more retail oriented. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was true that the height in the BD1 zone is 25 feet with a minimum 12 -foot first floor ceiling height but the building height can be 30 feet if the developer includes a 15-foot first floor ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered there must be a 15-foot first floor ceiling height and the maximum height is 30 feet. Councilmember Bernheim clarified in the BD1 zone a 15-foot first floor ceiling was required. Mr. Chave agreed. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, owner of a commercial building and former contractor, commented all the BD1 zone changes are beneficial. She expressed concern with the development agreement, opining that development agreements were legislated to avoid cities being accused of spot zoning. In this case the development agreement is for a specific building and lists the things that a property owner wants to do with the building. The development agreement also allows a building to extend above the height limit. She recalled the City’s Comprehensive Plan refers to 3-story buildings, not 4 stories. She concluded a development agreement was a fancy way to get around spot zoning. Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his interest may be more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the proposed amendment with regard to the designated street front; extending the designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look down Main and up the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting commercial space on the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has had a vacancy for four years. With regard to step-backs, he commented removing the step-back provision is long overdue. Although passage of that change five years ago was intended to reduce the perceived size of a new building as viewed from the street or sidewalk, it eliminates any possible duplication of layout for residential levels of a small mixed use building and it is architecturally unattractive unless above a fourth floor or higher. The code has adequate provisions without the step-back requirement to ensure esthetically pleasing and appropriate development downtown. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 7 With regard to development agreements, Mr. Spee pointed out a huge component of design downtown relates to the location of the site within the specific BD zone. Although the planner may have ideas, they must simply quote the code, play no part in the design even though a site may be perfectly situated for public open space, have overhead power lines could be undergrounded, or be perfectly situated for a certain use that deserved some concession to make it possible. The City’s unbending code language hurts the ability of a designer to take advantage of a site’s unique characteristics and prevents a flow of discussion between the developer and the planner which could result in a win-win project. Any development agreement requires public hearings and Council approval, thus eliminating the concern it would get out of control. He encouraged the City Council to approve the Planning Board’s recommendations as proposed. Don Hall, Edmonds, retail store owner and member of the EDC, urged the Council to pass the four proposed changes to the BD zone code, envisioning they will lead to better development, economic growth and go a long way toward bringing new business to Edmonds. Development agreements are the key to economic vitalization downtown. A hotel and apartments will add to the number of people that need the goods and services offered by downtown merchants. The use of development agreements would achieve the goal of silver and gold LEED building and require public amenities such as public restrooms, gathering spaces, and public art. He urged the Council to view the code change as a way to kick start the desperately needed economic revitalization downtown. John Reed, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, advised he was out of town when the Planning Board held the public hearing on the proposed modifications to the BD zones, ECDC 16.43. He expressed support for economic development and as a member of the Planning Board, supported recent changes to zoning at Firdale Village which among other things included significant height increases. He also supported the creation of the Edmonds Way Corridor zones and applauded the work of the EDC over the last 18 months. Regarding the proposed changes, he supported eliminating the step-back requirement but encouraged their use as an attractive design feature. He supported the changes to the primary and secondary uses in the BD zones and had recommended the BD1 zone be changed to full retail/restaurant and other commercial uses excluded although the Planning Board did not make that change. He supported changing the commercial depth on designated street fronts to a consistent 45 feet rather than the existing 30 and 60-foot depths. He expressed concern with 16.43.050, development agreements and its interaction with the development agreement section of ECDC 20.08. Section 16.43.050 allows all BD zone provisions except design provisions to be eligible for modification by a developer meeting only two criteria, some of which are loosely defined such as no square footage or percentage requirements and therefore could be minimal. Mr. Reed relayed ECDC 20.08 has two provisions that may be cause for concern; final plans and drawings are not required, conceptual drawings and general design criteria must be specified. These often change during design development as a project evolves. He questioned whether those changes would be transparent and public knowledge and whether follow-up hearings at the Planning Board and Council would be required. ECDC 20.08 also refers to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and existing code. He questioned whether the freedom to modify nearly all the major provisions of the BD zone code was consistent with this requirement. The 35-foot maximum height included a maximum of 3-story statement when considered by the Planning Board. That statement has been removed and he echoed the question whether that change was actually approved by the Planning Board. Some sloped lots would qualify for 4 stories which can be built if 35 feet is allowed without a story limitation. He believed 4 stories was 1 too many downtown and asked that the Council revise the statement to either limit development to 30 feet or 3 stories. He relayed his concern that the open ended nature of 16.43.050 may lead to litigation if/when an agreement meeting the basic but loosely defined criteria is denied by the Planning Board and City Council. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 8 Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendations, envisioning that the ability to use development agreements would stimulate economic development downtown. He pointed out there had been no new development downtown since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. Although the economy may be partially to blame, another cause is the rigid BD development standards. The only flexibility currently allowed in the BD zones is via a variance which requires a developer meet six criteria. Although the variance concept is well intended, meeting all six criteria generally prevents the granting of a variance. The development agreement provision will open new opportunity for controlled flexibility; developers will have more flexibility but the flexibility is controlled by the City Council. A development agreement allows for a win-win situation; the developer must give something to get something in return. With regard to the 35-foot maximum height, retaining the existing 30-foot height limit as Councilmember Plunkett suggested would eviscerate the value of a development agreement because although a building can be developed in 30 feet, it would prevent a third floor of apartments and the generation of sales tax and ongoing property taxes from those 17 apartments. As Mr. Spee has previously indicated, the additional floor of apartments would allow him to lower rents by $200/month. The tenants in his existing apartments in the Spee Building will attest he has not raised rents in ten years. He urged the Council to approve the amendments without delay so that much needed economic development can occur. Economic development is a real need, without economic development and as long as inflation exceeds 1%, annual levy lid lifts will be necessary. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to the Planning Board minutes in which Mr. Chave stated a development agreement is similar to the contract rezone concept that the City no longer uses. She asked why contract rezones are no longer being used by the City, how development agreement are superior to a contract rezone, and whether the flexibility provided by a development agreement would open the City to lawsuits if one developer is granted something for a specific site and another developer does not get what they want. Ruth Arista, Edmonds, advised the extension of the designated street front on 4th Avenue to Daley was related to that being part of the Arts Corridor to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. As a business owner in three locations in downtown Edmonds, on the corner of 5th & Main, next to that corner on 5th Avenue, and currently further south on 5th Avenue, she supported the proposed designated street front map. She described a shopper at the corner of 5th & Dayton on Saturday where there are two banks and an empty store front turning around and heading back to the intersection of 5th & Main. The designated street front proposal is very important to businesses located further down the street. Store fronts with good eye candy keep people walking and going into one store after another. Some offices do a great job decorating their windows, and although the banks provide a terrific service, people are not drawn to a bank. The blue line identifying designated street front stops in the middle of the parcel because a retail business located on the corner of 2nd & Bell was unlikely to get much foot traffic. She expressed her support for the proposed changes. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, member of the EDC and the tourism subcommittee, explained whenever the subcommittee thinks of something wonderful for Edmonds, the need for more hotels arises. The proposed project for a boutique hotel on 2nd & Main is very exciting. She recalled from their presentation that the elevation between Main and Bell makes development tricky without an increase in the height. She agreed with all the previous speakers who supported the proposed changes. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the criteria for a development agreement related to a green building, recalling a grocery store that installed an ugly water tank in an effort to be green. He hoped that would not be allowed in the future to meet the criteria for a green building. He questioned how long a uses that allowed a developer to use a development agreement would be required to remain and how that use could be guaranteed long term. Public restrooms are an expensive amenity and likely not practical for a developer to provide. His goal was protecting Edmonds’ small town atmosphere and protecting existing Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 9 views downtown. He questioned how a green building protected views. With regard to increasing the maximum height, he recommended further consideration such as whether the requirements are appropriate. Only three people spoke at the Planning Board; another public hearing was likely to generate more public participation. He urged the Council not to make a final decision tonight and to consider this the beginning of the discussion. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, explained as a member of the EDC he supported the recommended changes to the BD zone. There was a great deal of discussion by the EDC regarding service uses in the retail core and the EDC recommended further vetting of service uses. He explained a service is an exchange of money for a product or service such as a hair salon. That definition is consistent with recommendations for the BD1 zone in the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled comments that prohibiting a drive-through would discourage banks from locating in the BD zone. When someone is told they cannot do something, it is easy to get around that; when someone is told what is expected, it is harder to get around. He recommended the “such as” clause in the development agreement amendment needed further specificity. With regard to requiring two of the three criteria for a development agreement to be met, he recommended requiring the use criteria be met and then one of the other criteria. He summarized development agreements were a way for the community and the Council to help shape the downtown area. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out 2500-3000 additional residents will locate in Edmonds in the future. He recommended including a criteria for the use of a development agreement that relates to a transportation system that will bring people downtown to shop. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was positive about the changes, but due to the hour and the urgency of the levy discussion, he proposed bringing this matter back for a special workshop. He has questions about raising the height limit to 35 feet and raising the standard height limit to 30 feet but it was unlikely the Council would work through those issues tonight. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO RESCHEDULE THIS FOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. Council President Peterson recalled there was some concern the issues were not discussed by the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. He suggested discussing it at their August 4 meeting. In response to comments that this was to be reviewed again by the CS/DS Committee before forwarding it to full Council, he suggested the CS/DS Committee discuss it at their August 9 meeting and this item be scheduled on the August 23 Council agenda. Councilmember Wilson advised he would relay his questions under Council comments. Mayor Cooper encouraged Councilmembers to submit any questions/comments prior to the August 23 meeting. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ( Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to an interview of Human Resources Director Debbie Humann in the Everett Herald. Next, he reported on the legislative redistricting; the last meeting is in Seattle on August 9. Public hearings will be held in Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver and Olympia after the final decision is made in November. In 2000 a public hearing was not held after the final decision. Further information is available at 360-786-0046. With regard to the levy, he recommended forming a 100-150 member advisory committee. He suggested a levy include funds to purchase Al Dykes’ property and that it developed with a use that was beneficial to citizens. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 10 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, voiced his concern with a levy for roads. He suggested the Council obtain a list of the City’s ten worst roads according to Public Works. After viewing those roads, the Council could determine whether they were a big problem. He raised a question at the Finance Committee meeting regarding project cost overruns and questioned whether an answer would be provided or did he need to submit a public disclosure request. He was hopeful that the work done by Councilmembers Buckshnis and Petso to clarify the City’s financials will mean a levy is not needed. Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to the Edmonds Beacon July 5 headline that stated the Council was getting ready for a $3.75 million levy. As a member of the original levy committee, he recalled it was thought at that time there would not be enough money to sustain the City and since then the City has been playing “3 Card Monte” with the budget. He commended the Council and staff for keeping the City’s head above water. The City needs a levy because it is groveling in poverty. Property tax collections are less than projected and next year will be worse. The citizens are benevolent when they are informed and will pass a levy. He urged the Council to put a levy before the people, establish a group of people who are enthusiastic about supporting the levy and educate the public. Now is the time, the City needs it and it will happen as long as the public is educated. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a Council Committee could amend an item that came before their committee before it came to Council. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the committee could; it would be helpful to the Council if both versions of the proposal were provided. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if it would be appropriate to provide a strike-out version of the amendment. Mr. Taraday agreed it would. 5. ACTION REGARDING LEVY Mayor Cooper suggested Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte present his information followed by Councilmember Bernheim’s proposal. He encouraged the Council to listen careful to the information Mr. Tarte provides and try to focus their discussion on the levy versus the 2012 budget or other philosophical questions. Mayor Cooper explained since Mr. Tarte became the City’s Interim Finance Director, the City’s financial situation has been scrubbed like no other in his recent memory. While the City’s financial picture is not rosy, it is perhaps slightly better than may have been thought a year ago although there still needs to be a discussion regarding new revenues. The information Mr. Tarte will present includes: • Lower cost of the City Attorney • Lower WCIA rates in 2012 • Increased cost of pension contributions that take effect on July 1, 2011 and September 2, 1011 • Increased liability on the loan guarantee for the Edmonds Center for the Arts • Decreased employee healthcare cost in 2012 • Decreased property tax collections due to decreased property values, EMS collections will be substantially lower • Expenses were reviewed against the 2011 budgeted amount, 2010 actuals and actuals for the first 6 months of 2011 Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Tarte will also comment on revenues and expenses in the out years. He suggested if the discussion/debate about working capital, the beginning and ending cash balances, etc. is removed, at the end of 2012, expenses will exceed revenues by $347,000. The City is increasingly spending more than it collects, largely because expenses continue to increase but the City is limited in the amount of revenue it collects due to the economy and the 1% cap on property taxes, not because the City Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 11 is giving excessive pay raises to its employees. He pointed out of the City’s employees received no raise in 2012 and one-third received 1%. Mr. Tarte commented it is well known and accepted that the City’s expenditures exceed its revenue collections beginning in 2012. In 2009 revenues exceeded expenses by $600,000; the reason was a utility tax increase that year. In 2010 revenues exceeded expenditures due to the sale of the Fire Department. He has reviewed the 2011 revenue and expenditure model line by line and questioned each item by looking at the 2011 budget, the 2010 actual for specific line items, and the first 6 months of 2011 including asking questions of Directors. He was confident the 2011 projected revenues and expenses have been scrubbed, are accurate and do not have a lot of built in additional contingencies. 2011 was then used as a base year to create 2012 and future years. The forecast does not include any loss of liquor revenue via passage of the liquor privatization initiative. He was confident revenues in 2011 will exceed expenses by approximately $330,000. In 2012 expenses will exceed revenue by $347,000 and that amount increases in future years. The reason is the limitation on property tax increases to 1%/year. He projected a flat revenue increase up to a 2.5% increase in sales tax collections and other revenues, which he viewed as a realistic projection. Economists have said the recession is over, this is the new reality and it is unlikely sales tax will increase 2-3%/year. Mr. Tarte explained he forecasted a 1-2.5% increase in non-labor expenses, a conservative, moderate expense increase. For labor expenses, he used the rates in the recently approved labor contracts. Revenues are forecast to increase slightly more than 1%/year versus expenses that are forecast increase 2-2.5%/year, the reason expenses in excess of revenues increases each year. As Mayor Cooper stated, that has nothing to do with the beginning balance or whether working capital or fund balance is used. He encouraged the Council to focus their discussion on how to get revenues in line with expenses. Mr. Tarte identified options for addressing expenses in excess of revenues: 1. Propose a levy. 2. Decrease services provided to residents. 3. Utilize the City’s current resources via a change from a working capital beginning balance approach to a fund balance approach. In about two years, the City would have only two options. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out another option is a combination of increased revenue and reduced services. Mr. Tarte displayed a line graph chart comparing General Fund revenues and expenses 2008-2016, pointing out the City has continued to cut expenses without cutting services as illustrated by the graph and the City’s financial statements. In response to an earlier question by Councilmember Bernheim regarding the Edmonds portion of property taxes compared to CPI, Mr. Tarte provided a line graph comparison using 2002 as a base year. He highlighted the increase in the EMS rate in 2009 from $0.32 to $0.50 and decrease from 2010 to 2011 due to decrease in assessed value. The graph illustrates the actual Edmonds portion of an average home’s property taxes compared to the rate if it kept pace with the Puget Sound CPI index. The CPI mirrors 2003 and 2004 and then begins to grow 2-3% per year, flattens during the recession and increases again in 2008. An average Edmonds resident currently pays approximately $800 for the Edmonds portion for their property taxes. If that tax had kept pace with the Puget sound CPI, it would be slightly over $1000, a difference of approximately $240. He summarized Edmonds residents were paying substantially less in real estate taxes than they were 10 years ago when compared to the Puget Sound CPI. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 12 Mr. Tarte referred to the above three options, noting in approximately two years, only two options will remain. The sooner the Council addresses the issue, the easier it will be to take corrective action rather than reactive action in two years. At Councilmember Buckshnis’ request Mr. Tarte provided a line graph comparing other cities’ actual property taxes to their taxes if they kept pace with Puget Sound CPI. • Woodway – ahead of CPI in early years, behind in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and now exceed CPI. Woodway voters passed a levy in the recent past • Lynnwood – in a good position 2003-2008, then taxes based on CPI increase more than actual taxes. Actual taxes approximately $70 behind taxes based on CPI increase • Mountlake Terrace – actual taxes approximately $200 lower than taxes based on CPI increase • Everett – actual taxes approximately $150 lower than taxes based on CPI increase Mayor Cooper pointed out one of the reason Mountlake Terrace is not in dire financial straits is because their gambling tax generates a substantial amount of revenue. Councilmember Wilson pointed out Lynnwood also has sales taxes from Alderwood Mall. Councilmember Petso recalled last week following her Finance Committee report, she was asked to provide a presentation to the Council. It was her impression from Mayor Cooper’s earlier comments that perhaps that presentation was not desired. She asked whether the Council wanted to see her presentation. Mayor Cooper encouraged Councilmember Petso to make her presentation, finding it relevant to establishing whether there is a need. Councilmember Wilson inquired about utility taxes collected by the General Fund and the Utility Fund. Mr. Tarte answered all utility taxes are collected by the General Fund. The Utility Fund only collects funds from purchase of water and storm and water fees. Councilmember Wilson observed utility taxes collected by the General Fund are not restricted by the 1% cap. Mr. Tarte agreed, noting there were significant increases in utility taxes in 2009. Councilmember Bernheim presented a possible levy proposal, three separate modest, limited levy options: Cost to Taxpayer Average Home: $375,000 Program Amount/Year/3 Years Added Tax Increase/year Prop 1 Street Overlay $1 million $59 Prop 2 General Fund $750,000 $44 Prop 3 Maintenance/Parks $500,000 $30 Councilmember Bernheim referred to Mr. Tarte’s charts that demonstrate expenses have been cut and property taxes have actually not kept pace with inflation. He explained via his levy proposal, voters could decide to pass one, two or all three or none. His proposed levies would sunset after three years. Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion that the Council be provided a list of the worst roads in the City. He recognized that a road could begin to fail before it looks like it is failing. The City needs to preserve and maintain rather than repair its roads. He favored driving less and found roads less important than trails to some extent but he was willing to support putting a $1 million/year levy to the voters. He would not tell the voters how to vote; he preferred to let the voters tell him what type of town they wanted. The Council is not allowed to raise taxes; only the voters can raise taxes in excess of the 1% cap. The voters are part of the budgetary process and excluding them from the budgetary process is a failure of the Council’s responsibility. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 13 With regard to Proposition 2, Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged expenditures exceed revenues, if not now, very soon. The City can cut expenses, cut staff, cut services; he preferred to give voters the opportunity to say no to that by adding a modest $750,000/year to the General Fund at a cost to the average homeowner of $44/year for 3 years. He recognized the Council had succeeded in protecting the public money in very successful manner. There are future problems but the City is not defaulting on present debts. He suggested his proposed Proposition 3 could help fund urgently needed play equipment and maintain buildings. Councilmember Bernheim displayed the current Edmonds 2011 property tax bill for an average home of $375,000: Tax Entity Percent Taxes Paid Schools 41% $1,556.08 State 22% 827.39 City 16% 607.50 EMS 5% 187.50 County 9% 325.64 Library 4% 168.99 Hospital 2% 57.38 Port 1% 39.60 Conservation 0% 2.19 Total 100% $3,772.28 Councilmember Bernheim commented on the amounts in his proposed levy compared to a homeowner’s total taxes, explaining each property owner must ask themselves what their responsibility is in modern society. Do you get by with the least possible because the least advantaged have great difficulty in affording any tax increases, does everyone accept fewer government services or do voters bite the bullet and agree to increase taxes by a majority vote. Councilmember Bernheim assured he was not promoting a yes vote; he was promoting a people vote because voters are party of budgetary process and excluding from that process is not living up to the Council responsibility. He summarized his proposal was to take each of these three propositions to the voters separately to allow the voters to determine what is important to them. They are modest increases of limited duration. If the propositions are rejected, it is not a failure, the Council can learn for it. If some or all the proposition pass, the Council has three years to continue to earn the public trust with more believable, credible, accurate and understandable financial statements and a proven record of accomplishments. As Mr. Tarte demonstrated, property taxes compared to the cost of living have gone down. He urged Councilmembers to unite in presenting these options to the voters. Councilmember Petso explained the following was based on work done by the Finance Committee and additional meetings with Mr. Tarte. The information in her presentation relies on the balance sheet that is provided to the State. The balance sheet does not include the $1.3 million one-time cash but does include the $1.9 million reserve. Councilmember Petso reviewed the following, explaining the cash amount is from the City’s financial statement. The fund balance is public sector version of owner’s equity on a private sector balance sheet. The City’s past practice figure is the amount that would have been included in projections. The italicized numbers are without the $1.9 million and typically included in projections. General Fund 12/31/2010 Cash $5.8 million Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 14 (less $1.9 million) $3.9 million Fund Balance $6.8 million (less $1.9 million) $4.9 million City’s past practice $4.7 million (less $1.9 million) $2.8 million The accounting method that is being contemplated and that is used by a number of other cities is reporting the fund balance number. Rather than reporting $2.8 million on projections, $4.9 million would be reported. This change has not yet been made. The Finance Department is talking with other cities to learn more. This demonstrates fairly strong reserves. The difference between past practice and the $4.9 million is money owed to the City at year end. The City typically did not count that money as assets. It is received in the first two months of the year. Most of it is utility taxes accrued during November and December and paid in the next 60 days. Change in Accounting Fund Balance $6.8 million/$4.9 million City’s past practice $4.7 million/$2.8 million Councilmember Petso explained in the options Mr. Tarte outlined, the third option is to subsidize operations from existing assets. She did not recommend that as a long term strategy. She may be able to cope with it if it happens accidentally, incidentally or because of unforeseen events. This is an option, not an attractive option and not a long term way to operate the City. Reporting fund balances will improve clarity in financial reporting but reporting fund balance does not resolve the City’s projected operating deficit. If expenses exceed revenues, the City faces an operating deficit regardless of how the finances are reported. 1 month reserve: $2.75 million Cash $5.8 million 2.1 months Fund Balance $6.8 million 2.5 months City’s past practice $4.7 million 1.7 months Councilmember Buckshnis explained Councilmember Petso and she have discussed with Mr. Tarte moving toward modified accrual standards which is what most cities do and recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). She recommended changing to that methodology due to concerns with the financial integrity of last year’s financial statements and to allow citizens to trace numbers. She summarized the City still needed a levy but changing the methodology will improve the integrity of the City’s financials. Mr. Tarte agreed with the amounts provided in Councilmember Petso’s presentation. He explained the $2.8 million in Councilmember Petso’s presentation is the 2011 beginning working capital balance in the spreadsheet he provided. Historically the City has taken a very conservative, pure approach to the beginning balance. The $2.8 million is actual working capital, cash as of 12/31/10 minus expenses that will be paid in the next 20 days. As Councilmember Petso’s presentation indicated, that amount does not include what is expected to be collected in January and February 2011. Several other cities use a modified accrual method so that forecasts tie to the financial statements that are reported to the State. Mr. Tarte referred to the revenue shortfalls in years 2013-2016, pointing out the numbers were much larger than the $750,000/year General Fund levy proposed by Councilmember Bernheim. If the Council places a $750,000 General Fund levy on the ballot and the votes approve it, it will require a combination Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 15 of that and moving away from the conservative beginning balance approach to the fund balance approach to achieve an ending balance of the one month target. For illustrative purposes, Mr. Tarte added $750,000/year for three years (passage of a levy) to the forecast and converted the 2011 beginning balance from a working capital to a fund balance. He noted when the forecast is converted from a cash balance to a fund basis, there also needs to be an adjustment between $200,000 and $600,000. Councilmember Wilson clarified the fund balance amount does not include the $1.9 million or the 1.3 million; the difference is $2.2 million account receivables collected in January and February. Mr. Tarte agreed. Councilmember Wilson observed GFOA recommends a 1-2 month reserve balance. The forecast reflects a one month reserve balance. If the methodology is changed to include accounts receivable, it makes a two month reserve balance more relevant. The one month reserve is used because of the way the City accounts for its receivables. Mr. Tarte agreed; if the City moves away from a conservative forecasting model to a fund balance that includes receivables that have yet to be collected, consideration may need to be given to increasing the reserve to 45, 50 or 60 days. Councilmember Wilson clarified via a fund balance approach, the City is making a budget prediction, assuming it will collect 100% of the accounts receivable. He summarized if the City changes it methodology, it may need to change its assumptions regarding reserves and there is some risk involved with assuming the City will received 100% of its receivables. Mr. Tarte suggested the Mayor may want to increase the reserve from 30 days to 45 days to mitigate that risk. As an example, Councilmember Wilson recalled when the Council approved the EMS transport fee, it was projected to generate $1.5 million/year. The City actually receives approximately $750,000. The City may collect $1.2 million/year over the course of 4 years but will never receive $1.4 million in 1 year. Using that one example, that’s a $700,000-$800,000 consideration for budgeting. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Finance Committee plans to discuss the reserve at their August meeting. Mayor Cooper commented although the forecasting information is important for the 2012 budget, during that budget process the Council will have an opportunity to establish the reserve amount. He reminded that none of that changes the fact that expenses exceed revenues. Mr. Tarte described the impact on the shortfall of adding $750,000/year from a levy. He pointed out a $750,000 levy does not completely cover the shortfall. To completely cover it would require a General Fund levy of $1.5 million/year. If the Council wants to continue the conservative forecast and if they want revenues to equal expenses, the General Fund levy amount needs to be $1.5 million/year for more than 3 years. If the City changes to a fund balance approach, there is still the $1.9 million Act of God reserve and the $1.3 million reserve. A $750,000 General Fund levy solves about half the problem. Council President Peterson was glad the numbers are clearer for those Councilmembers who have concerns and that Mr. Tarte has provided a fresh set of eyes. He echoed Councilmember Bernheim’s earlier comment that the decision is ultimately the voters. He anticipated the Council may agree on a multiple item ballot. He reiterated his concern with multiple ballot items but was willing to make that compromise as long as there was a ballot item for the General Fund. He suggested the Council avoid philosophical discussions and focus on the facts. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN NEXT WEEK WITH ORDINANCES FOR THE THREE BALLOT MEASURES HE PROPOSED, $1 MILLION FOR STREET OVERLAY, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 16 $750,000 FOR THE GENERAL FUND, AND $500,000 FOR MAINTENANCE/PARKS FOR A 3 YEAR DURATION. Mr. Taraday advised the drafts in the Council packet assume a 3-year duration and will go away and revert back to current level after three years. The net effect of the ordinances in the packet is exactly what Mr. Tarte added to his spreadsheet. The Council has the option of placing a permanent levy on the ballot which would then become the new baseline for the 1% increases. Otherwise there will be three years of additional funds and then back to the current level. Councilmember Petso observed the levy for roads is not specifically limited to preservation paving. She asked whether it was Councilmember Bernheim’s intent to allow the levy to fund maintenance and salaries or that the roads levy be dedicated to preservation paving. Councilmember Bernheim responded his intent was to put every dollar into asphalt. Mayor Cooper advised Public Works Director Phil Williams raised that issue and Mr. Taraday will revise the ordinance to read overlays. Councilmember Petso inquired about Councilmember Bernheim’s intent with regard to an escalator, relaying the ordinance proposes increasing the levy rate in 2013 and 2014. It was also her understanding that by including an escalator, the levy becomes permanent. Councilmember Bernheim responded he did not intend to have an escalator. His intent is the same amount each year and when it is over, it’s over. In the meantime the Council has the time to consider other revenue sources. He did not support a permanent General Fund levy to balance the budget into 2020. He supported a temporary levy, not because the City has a temporary problem, but to provide time to build voters’ confidence and prove the money is being well spent. Mr. Taraday explained it is not technically an escalator. Another option the Council has is a multiple bump lid lift. The current proposal is a single bump lid lift and that is reflected in the ordinances in the Council packet. A multiple bump lid lift includes another lid lift in 2013. He referred to the language, “shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in 2013 and 2014.” That language allows the City to bump up in 2012 and get the 1% in 2013 and in 2014. Councilmember Bernheim agreed with that language. Councilmember Plunkett advised he would not support the motion because of the General Fund levy. The General Fund contains a 10% per year increase, wages and benefits; there is no end in sight to these increases; and he cannot in good conscience ask the taxpayers to subsidize the General Fund when 54% of the General Fund has not yet been addressed. He would support the capital improvement levies. Mayor Cooper reminded the motion is to have staff return with three separate ordinances. The Council will then have the ability to vote on each ordinance. Council President Peterson suggested even if Councilmembers are willing to support the motion, they express their reservations regarding specific levies now. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD $250,000 TO THE GENERAL FUND LEVY TO INCREASE IT TO $1 MILLION. Council President Peterson was very uncomfortable with a 3-year General Fund levy but he did not think the Council would support a permanent General Fund levy nor was he certain the voters would approve it. Based on the information Mr. Tarte presented, $750,000 does not provide enough breathing room to gain the voters’ confidence because the City would be doomed in another 1½ years. Councilmember Petso advised with the amended General Fund amount and the other two levies, the increase in the Edmonds portion the average home’s taxes is 18%. She preferred a smaller number for roads and to keep the levy under $50-$100/year. She anticipated voters would approve $50/year for roads, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 17 a total amount of $750,000/year. She noted the acceptable amount for a levy would be different for each voter; some may be supportive of a levy regardless of the amount. Due to her interest in a reasonable ask, she will likely vote against the amendment. Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Bernheim for his levy proposal. He will not support a $750,000 General Fund levy because it does not solve the basic budget challenge. If the City collects $750,000/year or $2.25 million over 3 years, the City is still $750,000 short of the funds needed to maintain existing services. Those existing services do not include the police officer that was cut, and do not restore the DARE program, parks maintenance cuts, or other cuts that reduced the City’s budget 3½ years ago. With a $1 million General Fund levy, the City can hold the line but at the end of 3 years, expenses will exceed revenues by $2.25 million in year 2 and $2.9 million in year 2. The Council would then need to go to the voters for a $2.5 million annual levy just to get through those next 2 years, 3 times as large as $750,000. He anticipated that would be a very difficult levy to pass. He wanted to propose a levy that solved the problem; $750,000 does not accomplish that and $1 million barely does. He expressed support for the amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment because it will ultimately cost only an additional $15/year. She wished a levy had been approved a couple years ago because it would have improved the City’s future. She did not anticipate this Council or a Council in the near future would have the ability to fix Edmonds. It is an unrealistic vision because in this economy the voters cannot be asked to increase their property taxes by $300/year to meet the deficit. She was not confident voters would approve even an increase of $200/year. She suggested getting through this period and then taking a closer look at reducing spending, selling assets, and way of doing business differently. She recognized the City did not have many places where future cuts could be made and without a General Fund levy, drastic steps will be necessary in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment because there are too many variables that have not yet been discussed such as self-insurance, the strategic plan, sports tourism, and a boutique hotel and the numbers needed to be scrubbed further. She noted Lynnwood is also interested in self-insurance. She wanted a levy to be placed on the ballot that would pass. She was supportive of individual ballot measures which allow voters to be part of the budget process. Council President Peterson agreed there were several things on the horizon but this is a 3-year levy. Sport tourism is increasing; there was a great petanque tournament recently. Sports tourism will not generate the amount of money the City needs within the next three years. The infrastructure necessary for sports tourism is at least a 10 year project. The other things Councilmember Buckshnis cited are excellent ideas but they are in the future. Although he was uncomfortable with the three year duration, he will support it to allow time to work on other things that may turn the ship around. This is a short-term band-aid and he wanted to ensure the band-aid stopped most of the bleeding for a couple years. Councilmember Bernheim suggested even though Councilmembers may have sharp disagreements on amendments, that does not mean they are a divided Council. It means they are united Council in solving the budget problem. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BERNHEIM VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Councilmember Wilson commented he still had real concerns over the viability of the levies when split into separate ballot measures. He has followed politics for over 15 years and 200 campaigns and has never seen a city anywhere pass three measures on the ballot nor had he seen a city put three on the ballot Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 18 and pass one of them. He feared voting in favor of the motion was entirely futile. He asked whether a permanent levy required 60% voter approval. Mr. Taraday answered no. Councilmember Wilson asked Councilmember Bernheim why he did not propose a permanent levy. He understands the palatability of a sunset clause but it will require the Council to ask for a levy three times that size in the future. Councilmember Bernheim responded it was a tradeoff. He personally would vote for a permanent levy that raised taxes more than proposed. He has the money and he likes to live in a community that has a great deal of social services. The City has few extras and most of the things that are funded are expensive such as installing new water pipes, preserving the shoreline, unexpected road washouts, etc. Ideally voters pass the levies, the money begins to be spent, and public confidence is gained and before the last minute the Council places a more responsible proposal on the ballot in 1½ years. With the passage of the 1% cap on property taxes, government must ask for money from voters. The Council needs to reach out to voters who doubt this process, who think they can protect their own houses from fire, who do not call the police, or who do not think they need roads. Councilmember Wilson commented Councilmember Bernheim’s comments solidify his opinion against the three ballot measures. He compared placing the levy on the ballot to get feedback to asking the voters where they wanted to raise the debt ceiling; 60% of voters do not want to raise the debt ceiling. That would be a fundamental failure of the U.S. Congress if it were put to a vote. If the Council knows that a $1 million General Fund levy will not get the City out of the hole it is a fundamental failure to place it on the ballot. If the purpose of passing these three ballot measures is to then ask the voters again next year for money, there is no chance of passing 4 levies in the course of 12-18 months. The strategy of asking small so the Council can ask again is flawed. He provided the analogy if someone asked him for $100 he might give it to them, but if they asked 20 times for $5 there was no way he would give them $100 because he would get tired of being asked. He felt it was incumbent on the Council to make the case for a General Fund levy that would get the City out of the hole. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the survey response regarding individual levies. Mayor Cooper explained in the scientific survey, a large majority of respondents preferred separate levies but a smaller majority indicated they would vote for his $2.25 million proposed levy. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether the survey inquired about a levy amount they would support. Mayor Cooper explained the City must be careful during polling not to breach public disclosure rules and therefore could not ask whether they would support a specific levy amount. The poll asked general questions about his $2.25 million levy proposal and 52% said they would support that proposal which included parks, police and streets. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she would not support a permanent levy. She support a 3-year levy and if it passes, the Council has 2½ - 3 years to figure out what to do with regard to assets, spending and the future of the City. Mayor Cooper commented his proposed levy was for 4 years. He recalled in the survey respondents were more interested in a temporary 4-year levy than a permanent levy. Mr. Taraday explained the Council has the option to limit the General Fund levy to a subset of General Fund expenses. For example, Shoreline’s levy while not technically called a General Fund levy had essentially the same effect as a General Fund levy. Their ballot title read, “Shoreline City Council adopted Resolution 307 concerning basic public safety, parks and recreation and community services. If approved, this proposition would maintain current police emergency protection including neighborhood patrols and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 19 crime prevention, preserve safe parks, trails, playgrounds, playfields and the Shoreline Pool and maintain community services including the senior center and youth programs.” He clarified the drawback of that ballot title is it limits the use of the funds; funds cannot be used for anything that is not included in the ballot title. The benefit is it gives the voters a better understanding of how the funds will be used and essentially commits to the voters that the funds will only be used for those purposes outlined in the ballot title. Mr. Taraday invited the Council to provide direction regarding the ballot title; as drafted the ordinance allows unrestricted General Fund use. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered her assumption was the General Fund levy would be to maintain existing services not to add services or staff. Mr. Taraday explained numerous things are funded by the General Fund. The Council has the option of restricting the funds collected from the levy to only certain things. When that is done, it is not technically a General Fund levy; it is for the uses stated. The net effect is the same because General Fund dollars pay for all those services. Mayor Cooper pointed out the Shoreline ballot title essentially covered everything that is funded by the General Fund but identifies priorities. Mr. Taraday pointed out it is more than prioritizing, it legally limits the use of the funds. For example, Shoreline’s ballot title does not include their Planning Department; Shoreline could not use proceeds from the levy to pay staff in the Planning Department. He clarified the Council did not have to limit the funds to certain items but now was the time to provide that direction if any limitation was desired. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to target the funds to police and parks rather than simply the General Fund. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was not interested in playing footsie with the voters. The money the General Fund levy generates will be used to pay salaries and benefits. He agreed wording other than any government purpose as the current ordinance states would be preferable such as maintenance and support of the General Fund in order to continue to provide services and pay the City’s bills. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the ballot title could be more vague. Mr. Taraday the ballot title could state unrestricted General Fund usage which is more or less what the current draft states. The ballot title could be similar to what Councilmember Bernheim said, maintain and support general services of the City. That has legally the same effect but presents it in a different manner. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not want funds generated by a $1 million General Fund used to add staff or programs; she wanted it used to maintain existing services. Mayor Cooper commented an additional $1 million General Fund levy will only pay for existing services and prevent cuts. He suggested Mr. Taraday and he develop language for Council consideration such as the funds will be used for existing government services. The Council has an opportunity to amend the ballot title next week when they consider the ordinances. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper clarified next week the Council will consider ballot titles and ordinances. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the Council will also need to begin the announcement process for the pro and con committees next week which must be submitted to the Snohomish County Auditor by August 16. Explanatory statements also need to be prepared for each ballot measure. In the past the Council President has made appointments to the committees. 6. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 20 Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) discussed the amendments to the BD zones and efforts related to fiber optics that will generate additional revenue for the City. The EDC also had an in-depth discussion regarding sports tourism including meetings held with the Edmonds School District, sports companies, and Snohomish County Hospital District who has funds to distribute for partnerships. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Edmonds Marsh restoration has been approved by the WIRA 8 Steering Committee and grant funds are being sought. Councilmember Wilson reported SNOCOM has been very active though not often reported on due to the technical nature. SNOCOM has had tremendous structural challenges in the past 5-6 years and a cultural transformation is occurring that strengthens public safety in South Snohomish County. Public safety is being strengthened to such an extent that cities such as Bothell are asking to become members. SNOCOM’s model of governance is being used by other call centers such as SNOPAC, the North Snohomish County 911 call center. He acknowledged this has not been without challenges including a public employee relations commission action filed by the union against Edmonds and other SNOCOM members during the past which was found to be without merit. Throughout that process, SNOCOM has effectively had a 0% growth in their overall budget. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on a Snohomish County Cities dinner and meeting that included a discussion regarding how to keep Boeing in Snohomish County to continue supporting cities and the workforce. Councilmember Plunkett advised CIO Carl Nelson will be providing the Council a CTAC report soon. Councilmember Petso reported the Public Facilities District Board (PFD) endorsed a new PFD Board Member who the Council approved on tonight’ Consent Agenda, replacing Maria Montalvo. The PFD Board imposed term limits and changed the practice of members serving on both the PFD Board and ECA Board. They will now function as two separate boards with no members in common and will communicate with each other via the Steering Committee. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper reported on Regional Fire Authority Communications subcommittee meeting. He encouraged the public to visit the website, RFA-planning.org. A monthly briefing will be issued regarding the planning process. He recognized FD1 and FD7 for lending the staff time of their PIOs Leslie Hines, FD1, and Autumn Waite, FD7, to the communications committee to better educate the public. Mayor Cooper reported tonight’s Edmonds Night Out was a great success and the Edmonds Police Foundation did a great job. He thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and Council President Peterson who attended. Mayor Cooper reported during the summer he often receives emails and phone calls about the City not emptying garbage cans downtown, specifically the garbage can on 5th & Dayton. He explained there are two kinds of garbage cans downtown, some are City owned and others are owned by Community Transit. He assured Parks maintenance employees empty the city-owned garbage cans downtown three times a week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday). The garbage can that is a problem is owned by Community Transit. Park Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay has reminded Community Transit to empty their garbage cans. After a busy weekend the garbage cans downtown are overflowing and Community Transit only empties their cans once a week. Without doing Community Transit’s job, staff will clean up trash on Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 26, 2011 Page 21 the street to maintain the City’s image. Mr. Lindsay and he are imploring Community Transit to uphold their responsibility and keep their garbage cans emptied. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Edmonds Night Out was a great deal of fun. She thanked the Police Foundation and businesses for their support particularly QFC who provided the food. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern the Planning Board minutes did not reflect a vote on an amendment to strike the 3-story limit in the BD1 zone. He planned to email Planning Manager Rob Chave to request he research the matter. He may also request a copy of the meeting recording after contacting Mr. Chave. Councilmember Petso referred to questions asked by the public regarding development agreements such as why a development agreement is not a rezone, how it replaced the contract rezone, how fairness is ensured and what standards can be established to evaluate development agreements. Prior to returning the amendments to the BD zones to the Council, she requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday prepare the legal background on development agreements, the standards, why it is not considered a rezone and responses to other questions asked tonight. To Mr. Hertrich who asked questions at the Finance Committee meeting regarding cost overruns, Councilmember Petso advised she relayed his questions to Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte and will confirm with Mr. Taraday what can be disclosed regarding the cost overruns. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Councilmember Plunkett share with her the answer he receives from Mr. Chave regarding the missing vote in the Planning Board minutes. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to misinformation that as part of the labor negotiations the City gave up 100% of insurance savings which costs the City about $30,000/month. That is incorrect; Teamsters have 75% and SEIU has 100% and the City is saving $43,311/month and $32,483/month. Councilmember Bernheim referred to a blog entry made during last week’s Council meeting, “I am arguing at Council for at least one child-friendly element in our new park at Milltown. Bernheim says “kids are as important as bike racks.” Monillas says “more seniors” so kids aren’t important. Jerks.” Councilmember Bernheim relayed comments made during the senior center walk today that there should be less bickering on the City Council. He explained it is not possible for the Council to conduct business while a Councilmember on his campaign website is calling other Councilmembers jerks. He was not opposed to Councilmembers being on their campaign website during Council meetings but he was opposed to this type of language in public. Council President Peterson thanked Public Works Director Phil Williams and the staff of the treatment plant for the tour they provided him today. It is amazing what the City is able to accomplish with regard to energy savings and state of the art sewage treatment. He congratulated Dick Van Hollenbeke who was part of the winning team at the inaugural Edmonds Petanque Tournament last weekend. 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. AM-4117   Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 08/02/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #126843 through #126968 dated July 28, 2011 for $494,038.74. 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:494,038.74 Fiscal Impact: Claims $494,038.74 Attachments claim cks 7-28-11 claim cks1 7-28-11 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Jim Tarte 07/28/2011 09:56 AM City Clerk Linda Hynd 07/28/2011 02:39 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 07/29/2011 09:27 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/29/2011 12:23 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/28/2011 08:02 AM Final Approval Date: 07/29/2011  07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126843 7/28/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 296621 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56 Total :75.56 126844 7/28/2011 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND AUG 2011 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 8/11 EDMONDS AC ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 08/2011 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66 Total :2,032.66 126845 7/28/2011 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101348251 M5Z34 CARBON MONOXIDE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 453.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 43.13 Total :496.83 126846 7/28/2011 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 7150 TREE PRUNING CUT BACK 4 HORNBEAMS 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 1,875.00 CUT BACK 3 HORNBEAMS 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,875.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.480.00 178.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 178.12 Total :4,106.25 126847 7/28/2011 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC TD72 NPDES NPDES SAMPLING 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 130.00 Total :130.00 1Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126848 7/28/2011 071766 AQUA TREK KAYAK & MARINE CTR CAMPBELL14013 INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING MARINA BEACH INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 482.16 Total :482.16 126849 7/28/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5666757 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 106.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 10.10 Total :116.41 126850 7/28/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5666763 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.47 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.79 Total :78.26 126851 7/28/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5659338 FLEET UNIFORM SVC Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 11.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.09 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5666758 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86 PW MATS655-5671366 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 2Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126851 7/28/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 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 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 FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5671369 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00 Total :78.59 126852 7/28/2011 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0208763-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 3,497.31 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 332.25 Total :3,829.56 126853 7/28/2011 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 60813 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.91 3Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126853 7/28/2011 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.91 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 38.04 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 120.80 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 120.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.61 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS60913 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 32.59 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 32.59 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 33.57 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 111.67 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 111.67 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.18 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS60982 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 150.01 4Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126853 7/28/2011 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 150.01 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 154.55 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 487.44 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 487.44 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 14.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 14.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 14.68 Total :2,168.19 126854 7/28/2011 073730 AXIUM COMPOSITES INC 211-5185 ANGLE FITTING/BRACKET/FLANGE/FASTENER/ ANGLE FITTING/BRACKET/FLANGE/FASTENER/ 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,226.05 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 116.47 Total :1,342.52 126855 7/28/2011 002170 BARTON, RONALD 50 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 284.40 Total :284.40 126856 7/28/2011 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP13932 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #13932 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 7,052.00 Total :7,052.00 126857 7/28/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 875889 INV#875889 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE PATROL JACKET 5Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126857 7/28/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 395.00 NAME TAGS 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 38.47 INV#875889-80 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE875889-80 CORP CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 0.48 INV#887690 - EDMONDS PD - FRAUSTO887690 HOLSTER FOR S&W W/LIGHT 001.000.410.521.230.350.00 176.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.230.350.00 16.81 INV#889435 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE889435 ATAC 8" W/P SIDE ZIP BOOTS 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 129.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 12.35 Total :784.95 126858 7/28/2011 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40229033 Ped Walk Way Lease - 8/1/11-7/31/12 Ped Walk Way Lease - 8/1/11-7/31/12 111.000.653.542.310.450.00 695.57 Total :695.57 126859 7/28/2011 073465 BRENNAN HEATING BLD20110577 Void online permit - not in city limits. Void online permit - not in city limits. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00 Total :75.00 126860 7/28/2011 070483 BREWER, MARTY BREWER0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (7 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 175.00 6Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :175.001268607/28/2011 070483 070483 BREWER, MARTY 126861 7/28/2011 070482 BROTTEN, BILL BROTTEN0726 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (3 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 126862 7/28/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11156277 601079 COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 85.80 Total :85.80 126863 7/28/2011 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON14032 ART FOR KIDZ ART FOR KIDZ: ADVENTURES IN ART MINI 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 536.90 Total :536.90 126864 7/28/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 7238 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director 001.000.310.514.100.410.00 5,250.00 Total :5,250.00 126865 7/28/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14129 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14129 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 78.40 Total :78.40 126866 7/28/2011 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 30703108 INV#30703108 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 104.33 Total :104.33 126867 7/28/2011 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I11001835 Laboratory Analysis Laboratory Analysis 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 907.20 Total :907.20 7Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126868 7/28/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8716 INV#8716 CUST#1655 - EDMONDS PD VERIZON INTERNET-NARCS 05/11 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 62.44 Total :62.44 126869 7/28/2011 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 METER 762972 METER 762972 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 16.20 Total :16.20 126870 7/28/2011 068116 CLIFTON, STEPHEN 07272011 PURCHASE OF DESK CHAIR FOR DIRECTOR Reimbursement of deak chair for director 001.000.610.519.700.350.00 119.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.350.00 11.40 Total :131.39 126871 7/28/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2329225-1 Fac. Maint - Cable vs18 Fac. Maint - Cable vs18 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 182.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.37 Fac. Maint - suppliesW2335089 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.61 Fac. Maint - supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 490.67 Total :737.46 126872 7/28/2011 073667 COBURN, LI COBURN0726 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 7/11 - 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00 Total :144.00 126873 7/28/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3214 COUNCIL MINUTES Council Minutes 8Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126873 7/28/2011 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 570.00 Total :570.00 126874 7/28/2011 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 11-10611 Analysis Analysis 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 972.00 Analysis11-10806 Analysis 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 178.00 Total :1,150.00 126875 7/28/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 37561 FASTENERS MISC. FASTENERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.19 Total :2.19 126876 7/28/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 16113 75TH PL W 16113 75TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 55.99 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 349.22 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 540.12 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 298.98 MINI PARK6-00475 MINI PARK 9Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126876 7/28/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 724.07 CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 332.67 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,461.01 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 294.94 310 6TH AVE N6-02727 310 6TH AVE N 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 167.32 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 157.87 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 453.14 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 311.88 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 103.55 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 187.76 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 212.20 8100 185TH PL SW6-04425 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 350.43 SIERRA PARK6-04450 10Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126876 7/28/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 261.93 BALLINGER PARK6-07775 BALLINGER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 201.57 YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 749.02 YOST PARK POOL6-08525 YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,109.25 Total :9,350.42 126877 7/28/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.87 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 241.16 LIFT STATION #123-07525 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.99 LIFT STATION #153-07709 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.87 LIFT STATION #43-09350 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.99 LIFT STATION #103-09800 LIFT STATION #10 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50 LIFT STATION #93-29875 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50 11Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :467.881268777/28/2011 008705 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 126878 7/28/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 067240 MK0653 COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 29.96 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 2.85 Total :32.81 126879 7/28/2011 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0296451 Fire Hydrant Replacement - 7531- 242nd Fire Hydrant Replacement - 7531- 242nd 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4,611.95 Water Main Svc replacement Supplies for 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,110.46 7.7% sales tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 440.63 Water Main Svc Replacement parts0296451-1 Water Main Svc Replacement parts 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 525.30 7.7% sales tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 40.45 Total :6,728.79 126880 7/28/2011 067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING KING13856 ETIQUETTE CLASS YOUNG LADIES & GENTLEMEN #13856 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 675.00 Total :675.00 126881 7/28/2011 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 333085 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Aug-11 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total :300.00 126882 7/28/2011 065704 FOLSOM, ROB OMB0727 SUMMER CONCERT MANAGER PAYMENT #1: SUMMER CONCERT MANAGER 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 975.00 12Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :975.001268827/28/2011 065704 065704 FOLSOM, ROB 126883 7/28/2011 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH14135 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+ #14135 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 87.75 IRISH DANCE 13+ #14139 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 321.75 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #14147 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 136.50 Total :546.00 126884 7/28/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 411.10 Total :411.10 126885 7/28/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.34 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 110.80 Total :161.14 126886 7/28/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9583827010 Sewer - Folding Alum Ramp for Muck Truck Sewer - Folding Alum Ramp for Muck Truck 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 219.96 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.90 Total :240.86 126887 7/28/2011 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 1213 Professional services for Edmonds Energy Professional services for Edmonds Energy 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,684.50 Total :1,684.50 126888 7/28/2011 073731 HOBBS, JENNIFER HOBBS0727 REFUND 13Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126888 7/28/2011 (Continued)073731 HOBBS, JENNIFER REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 100.00 Total :100.00 126889 7/28/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2040784 0205 SAKRETE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.39 020541319 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 89.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.52 02056065200 SAKRETE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.08 02057035114 PLYWOOD 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.12 02057263580 BALL VALVES, COUPLINGS, SOLVENT, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.88 Total :265.03 126890 7/28/2011 013677 HORTICULTURE LINDSAY0727 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL HORTICULTURE SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 44.95 14Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :44.951268907/28/2011 013677 013677 HORTICULTURE 126891 7/28/2011 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 22214 MEIERS RESIDENCE PEER REVIEW-FINAL PMT Meiers Residence Peer Review - Final Pmt 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,410.00 E0IA.SERVICES THRU 06/25/1122254 E0IA.Services thru 6/25/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,982.50 Total :4,392.50 126892 7/28/2011 070042 IKON 85201705 INV#85201705 ACCT#467070-1005305A3 COPIER RENTAL 07/13-08/12/11 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 345.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 65.16 Total :751.05 126893 7/28/2011 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5019450758 Meter charges for reception copier for Meter charges for reception copier for 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 0.62 Total :7.13 126894 7/28/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1910513 Copy paper Copy paper 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 24.53 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 24.52 Copy paper 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 24.53 Office supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 27.99 9.5% Sales Tax 15Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126894 7/28/2011 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.32 Total :111.21 126895 7/28/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1914314 STORAGE BOXES & STAPLE REMOVERS Extra Strength Storage Boxes, Staple 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 64.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 6.10 Total :70.26 126896 7/28/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1910350 Copy Paper for DSD Copy Paper for DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 120.85 New swivel stool for M. Harrison - Bldg.1911825 New swivel stool for M. Harrison - Bldg. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 306.59 Office supplies for DSD1912746 Office supplies for DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 42.22 Total :469.66 126897 7/28/2011 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E3JC.Ret Release E3JC.RETAINAGE RELEASE E3JC.Retainage Release 412.100.000.223.400.000.00 45,599.63 Total :45,599.63 126898 7/28/2011 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE 07202011 MONITOR FOR ECON DEV COMMISSION MTG 7/20 Monitor for Economic Development 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 126899 7/28/2011 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE JOHNSON0724 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 16Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126899 7/28/2011 (Continued)072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/24/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 126900 7/28/2011 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC E7JA.Pmt 3 E7JA.PMT 3 THRU 7/20/11 E7JA.Pmt 3 thru 7/20/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 184,572.11 E7JA.Pmt 3 thru 7/20/11 412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -8,427.95 Total :176,144.16 126901 7/28/2011 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 373711-001 Field supplies for Eng Div. Field supplies for Eng Div. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 169.40 Total :169.40 126902 7/28/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07122011-03 COE Code Enforcement Car Wash Code Enforcement Car Wash 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 5.03 Total :5.03 126903 7/28/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0722 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/22 & 7/24/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 160.00 Total :160.00 126904 7/28/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 7011-366 OIL, SAFETY GLASSES 2 CYCLE OIL, SAFETY GLASSES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 116.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.03 GLOVES7011-367 NITRILE GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 99.98 9.5% Sales Tax 17Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126904 7/28/2011 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.50 LEVER ANGLE, REEL7011-377 LEVER ANGLE, REEL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 48.03 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.41 MOWER PARTS7011-410 CEMETERY WALKER MOWER SUPPLIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 65.74 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 6.25 Total :371.02 126905 7/28/2011 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 57643 TILE CEMENT THINSET TILE CEMENT/YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 26.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.56 Total :29.51 126906 7/28/2011 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER0726 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 126907 7/28/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 131075 SUPPLIES PARKS PRESSURE WASHER PUMP PART 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 589.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 55.95 EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES131132 FITTING, AIR FILTER, BEARINGS, FUEL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 78.20 18Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126907 7/28/2011 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.43 Total :730.58 126908 7/28/2011 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 11-1196-6 E1JA.SERVICES THRU 06/30/11 E1JA.Services thru 06/30/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 14,104.50 Total :14,104.50 126909 7/28/2011 072833 MVP MAY 2011 MAY 2011 - EDMONDS PD CD OF 5/19/11 POLICE AWARDS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 150.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 13.35 Total :163.35 126910 7/28/2011 067891 MYSTIC SEA CHARTERS MYSTICSEA13995 WHALE WATCH CRUISE WHALE WATCH CRUISE #13995 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 343.00 Total :343.00 126911 7/28/2011 063034 NCL 289821 13465 LAB SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 501.64 Total :501.64 126912 7/28/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-313442 CREDIT FOR POOR SERVICE CREDIT FOR POOR SERVICE @ HAINES WHARF 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -15.00 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-318114 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PINE STREET PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-318115 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: EDMONDS ELEMENTARY 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-318116 19Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126912 7/28/2011 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-319466 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HAINES WHARF PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77 Total :542.82 126913 7/28/2011 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 044250 Fleet - Shop Supplies Fleet - Shop Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 91.88 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.33 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.18 Total :103.39 126914 7/28/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 225 Planning Board minutes on 7/13/11. Planning Board minutes on 7/13/11. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 448.00 Total :448.00 126915 7/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 788729 INV#788729 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD WALL SIGN HOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.70 STENO BOOKS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.73 STAPLER 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 16.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 1.52 Total :70.55 126916 7/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 610196 CREDIT FOR PHOTO PAPER 20Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126916 7/28/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC CREDIT FOR PHOTO PAPER 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 -16.24 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 -1.55 COVER STOCK782376 WHITE COVER STOCK 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 23.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.25 PAPER, FILE POCKETS813713 PAPER, FILE POCKET 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 12.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.15 FILE POCKET813753 FILE POCKET 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.18 LABELS851373 LABELS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 45.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.30 Total :72.91 126917 7/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 801025 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 140.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 13.39 Total :154.29 126918 7/28/2011 068709 OFFICETEAM 33601591 TEMPORARY ADMIN STAFFING Temp in Clerk's Office 21Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126918 7/28/2011 (Continued)068709 OFFICETEAM 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 714.56 Total :714.56 126919 7/28/2011 072876 OPENSHAW, DOUG OPENSHAW0721 REFUND REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT CLASS 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 40.00 Total :40.00 126920 7/28/2011 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 050528 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL CHEMICALS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 199.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.91 Total :218.06 126921 7/28/2011 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS06279G811 Public Works - Service contract for Public Works - Service contract for 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 2,205.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 209.55 Total :2,415.45 126922 7/28/2011 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0726 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT DAYCAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 137.35 DAYCAMP PHOTO PRINTS 001.000.640.575.530.490.00 2.22 Total :139.57 126923 7/28/2011 071222 PARKS, ELMER PARKS0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (12 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 300.00 Total :300.00 126924 7/28/2011 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK13945 PILATES MAT PILATES MAT #13945 22Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126924 7/28/2011 (Continued)069944 PECK, ELIZABETH 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 234.50 Total :234.50 126925 7/28/2011 007800 PETTY CASH Treasurer Petty Cash REIMBURSE TREASURER PETTY CASH Supplies for Finance Director's 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 59.26 Copies from Snohomish County 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 5.50 Engraving for 2010 Employee of the year 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 13.69 Registration Fee for WA Association for 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 25.00 Development Services Microwave 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 104.24 Mileage to ICC Meeting & Parking 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 28.87 Pop & Coffee for Econ Development 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 37.77 Gina Coccia - Parking and Mileage 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 53.72 Total :328.05 126926 7/28/2011 073733 PHILIPPI, JUDY PHILIPPI14244 PROJECT SEWING PROJECT SEWING #14244 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 280.00 Total :280.00 126927 7/28/2011 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES PLAYWELL13770 LEGO CAMPS LEGO CAMP #13770 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,000.00 LEGO CAMP #13773 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,000.00 Total :6,000.00 126928 7/28/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 194135 INV#194135 ACCT#2772 - EDMONDS PD 23Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126928 7/28/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR MAIL SPECTROMETRY FOR REPAIR 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 73.64 Total :73.64 126929 7/28/2011 065021 PRINTING PLUS 70456 WRITE ON THE SOUND BROCHURES WRITE ON THE SOUND BROCHURES 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 2,711.08 9.5% Sales Tax 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 257.55 WRITE ON THE SOUND POSTER70545 WRITE ON THE SOUND POSTER 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 171.23 9.5% Sales Tax 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 16.27 Total :3,156.13 126930 7/28/2011 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC Alarm Monitoring for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 207.42 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS291104 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 51.10 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.10 Fire Monitoring F/S 16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.39 Library - Monitoring service for 7/1/1183208436 Library - Monitoring service for 7/1/11 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 193.41 Total :605.42 126931 7/28/2011 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2422756 Library Bldg - Upgrade of Fire System Library Bldg - Upgrade of Fire System 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 21,846.31 24Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :21,846.311269317/28/2011 064088 064088 PROTECTION ONE 126932 7/28/2011 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 119456 MARKER MARKER: HOWARD 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 472.00 INSCRIPTION119457 INSCRIPTION: SCHAFFER 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 INSCRIPTION119458 INSCRIPTION: GODSEY 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 INSCRIPTION119459 INSCRIPTION: CORWIN 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 Total :712.00 126933 7/28/2011 071815 REILLY AND MALONEY R&M0731 CITY PARK CONCERT CITY PARK CONCERT: 7/31/11 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 800.00 Total :800.00 126934 7/28/2011 070480 RINALDI, MATT RINALDI0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE UMPIRING (30 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 750.00 Total :750.00 126935 7/28/2011 070488 SELMANN, DAN SELMAN0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (8 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 200.00 Total :200.00 126936 7/28/2011 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 11-0702 Q2-2011 AMBULANCE BILLINGS & POSTAGE Q2-11 Ambulance Billings & Postage 001.000.390.526.100.410.00 12,651.20 Total :12,651.20 126937 7/28/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2012-3682-5 100 DAYTON ST 25Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126937 7/28/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 100 DAYTON ST 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 390.21 SPRINKLER SYSTEM201762101 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 95.24 Total :485.45 126938 7/28/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 110396347 2030-9778-7 WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 21,839.57 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,310.37 Total :23,149.94 126939 7/28/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200386456 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 98.54 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD200468593 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 402.68 4 WAY LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S200592954 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55 200 DAYTON ST-OLD PW BLDG200638609 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 447.25 SIGNAL LIGHT 200 3RD200678019 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.92 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W201265980 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 301.97 4 WAY LIGHT 599 MAIN ST201283892 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.99 26Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126939 7/28/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W201374964 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.92 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S201572898 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 127.24 LS #15 7710 168TH PL SW201594488 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.55 DECO LIGHT 413 MAIN ST201656907 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 376.00 4 WAY LIGHT 901 WALNUT201782646 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 54.79 LIGHT 120 5TH N202389375 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.43 LOG CABIN202421582 LOG CABIN 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 115.89 Total :2,142.72 126940 7/28/2011 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES Fraley-Monillas 7-21 Dinner Mtg /SCC 7-21/11 - Dinner Mtg /SCC 7-21/11 - 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 35.00 Total :35.00 126941 7/28/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 07192011 ASH DISPOSAL ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,673.98 Total :3,673.98 126942 7/28/2011 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 08/01/2011 Standard AUGUST 2011 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS August 2011 Standard Insurance Premiums 27Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126942 7/28/2011 (Continued)060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,412.47 Total :13,412.47 126943 7/28/2011 073549 STERRETT CONSULTING LLC 0902-04 Consultant for Special Distrcit Plans Consultant for Special Distrcit Plans 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 2,250.80 Total :2,250.80 126944 7/28/2011 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360003771111 C/A 360000657091 Basic e-commerce hosting 6/22/11 - 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 36.95 C/A 360000764828360003774609 07/2011 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 C/A 430001405909440010930421 P&R Directory Listing 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 132.50 Total :204.40 126945 7/28/2011 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1224 SEPT - DEC 2011 CRAZE SEPT - DEC 2011 CRAZE 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,462.50 Total :1,462.50 126946 7/28/2011 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 55851 Water/Sewer - Shirts Water/Sewer - Shirts 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 322.20 Water/Sewer - Shirts 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 322.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 30.61 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 30.61 Total :705.62 126947 7/28/2011 073544 TEKTRONIX SERVICE SOLUTIONS USG1395 308350 28Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126947 7/28/2011 (Continued)073544 TEKTRONIX SERVICE SOLUTIONS CALIBRATION 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 93.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 8.84 Total :101.84 126948 7/28/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1743182 Legal notice - Werre - PLN20110045 Legal notice - Werre - PLN20110045 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 82.68 Total :82.68 126949 7/28/2011 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0723 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/23/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 Total :105.00 126950 7/28/2011 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 36417 E1FB.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2011 E1FB.Services thru June 2011 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 4,031.42 Total :4,031.42 126951 7/28/2011 043935 UPS 0000327F51291 SHIPPING FEE PARK MAINTENANCE SHIPPING CHARGES 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 43.83 Total :43.83 126952 7/28/2011 073732 UPTAIN, AMY UPTAIN0727 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT LESS EXTRA 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 470.00 Total :470.00 126953 7/28/2011 062693 US BANK 3363 Home Depot - Unit 31 supplies Home Depot - Unit 31 supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.68 Office Depot - unit 15 supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.98 29Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126953 7/28/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK Superior Signals Inc. - unit 98 cable 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 174.46 Criminalist Inc. -Unit EQ80PO Canine 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 793.35 Ray Allen - Unit EQ80PO deluxe 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 84.95 MacNeil Automotive - Unit EQ80PO 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 114.95 Camcal Inc. - Vapor recovery nozzle for 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 219.15 Dan Fast Muffler - Unit 55 truck muffler 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 164.25 Complete Hydraulic Service - partial 511.000.657.594.480.640.00 2,634.19 Total :4,213.96 126954 7/28/2011 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0371196-WA INV I0371196-WA EDMONDS PD RESPIRATORY QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW - 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 64.00 Total :64.00 126955 7/28/2011 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 407 SUMMER LEAGUE REGISTRATIONS SUMMER SOFTBALL TEAM REGISTRATIONS 001.000.640.575.520.490.00 560.00 Total :560.00 126956 7/28/2011 070486 VASCONCELLOS, JOE VASCONCELLOS0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (1 GAME) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 25.00 Total :25.00 126957 7/28/2011 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0994322430 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 121.56 Cell Service-Eng 30Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126957 7/28/2011 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 146.12 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 73.59 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.44 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 61.93 Cell Service-PD 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 465.54 Cell Service-Planning 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.76 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 28.98 Cell Service-PW Storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 27.06 Cell Service-PW Water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 82.38 Cell Service-PW Fleet 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.38 Cell Service-WWTP 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.16 Total :1,100.90 126958 7/28/2011 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 25355666 Miranda Peers - clerical services (w/e Miranda Peers - clerical services (w/e 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 665.60 Miranda Peers - clerical services (w/e25394872 Miranda Peers - clerical services (w/e 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 665.60 Total :1,331.20 126959 7/28/2011 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 46212135 1066294 THERMOMETER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 98.55 Freight 31Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126959 7/28/2011 (Continued)069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.87 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.40 106629446252732 THERMOMETER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 55.96 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.87 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 6.35 Total :193.00 126960 7/28/2011 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 11-452 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS JULY 2011 - JUNE 2012 MEMBERSHIPS FOR 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 234.00 Total :234.00 126961 7/28/2011 047605 WA ST TREASURER 2ND QTR 2011 EDMONDS FORFEITURES - 2ND QTR 2011 2ND QTR/PROCEEDS/CASH 104.000.000.237.100.000.00 259.80 Total :259.80 126962 7/28/2011 070481 WHITE, DAN WHITE0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (9 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 225.00 Total :225.00 126963 7/28/2011 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 937 JULY-11 RETAINER July 2011 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00 Total :13,000.00 126964 7/28/2011 070484 ZYLSTRA, JERRY ZYLSTRA0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (12 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 300.00 32Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 7:27:42AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :300.001269647/28/2011 070484 070484 ZYLSTRA, JERRY 126965 7/28/2011 070485 ZYLSTRA, RON ZYLSTRA0728 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE (8 GAMES) 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 200.00 Total :200.00 Bank total :427,099.69123 Vouchers for bank code :front 427,099.69Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report123 33Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:09:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126966 7/28/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 10924389 CANON LEASE 3RD FLR 4/2011 AND 5/2011 3RD FLR COPIER LEASE/ APRIL 2011 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 82.50 3RD FLR COPIER LEASE/ APRIL 2011 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 84.99 3RD FLR COPIER LEASE MAY 2011 BACKBILL 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 83.25 3RD FLR COPIER LEASE MAY 2011 BACKBILL 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 83.25 3RD FLR COPIER LEASE MAY 2011 BACKBILL 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 83.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 15.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 15.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 16.00 3RD FLR COPIER LEASE/ APRIL 2011 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 82.50 CANON MAYOR OFFC 1030 LEASE 8/201111140931 mayors office copier lease 8/2011 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 27.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 2.66 CANON LEASE 3RD FLR 8/1111140937 Third floor copy contract Aug. 2011 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 82.49 Third floor copy contract Aug. 2011 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 82.49 Third floor copy contract Aug. 2011 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 85.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.84 9.5% Sales Tax 1Page: 07/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:09:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 126966 7/28/2011 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 8.07 Total :851.87 126967 7/28/2011 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 2011FD#1 Note 2011 DEBT SERVICE PMT FIRE STN 20 2011 Prin Debt Service Pmt Fire Station 001.000.390.591.780.750.00 62,752.46 2011 Int Debt Service Pmt Fire Station 001.000.390.592.770.830.00 3,201.00 Total :65,953.46 126968 7/28/2011 062693 US BANK 6078 JULY 11 MAYORS OFFICE CARD/ COLE Office Depot Mayors Office Supplies/ 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 63.95 Fred Meyer: SERS 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 17.25 Office Depot: 3rd flr Cleaning 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 52.52 Total :133.72 Bank total :66,939.053 Vouchers for bank code :front 66,939.05Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report3 2Page: AM-4083   Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 08/02/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize Mayor to sign Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement. Previous Council Action On December 21, 2010, City Council authorized Staff to advertise for Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from consultants for the design and ROW phases of the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements project. On July 12, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative This project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St. SW from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave. W and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99/228th St. SW and 76th Ave W/228th St. SW. New bike lanes and sidewalks will also be added to both sides of 228th St. SW. This new east-west corridor will improve access to the following regional transportation facilities:  1. Interstate 5 interchange at 236th St. SW 2. The recently expanded Mountlake Terrace Park-n-Ride 3. Freeway Station in the I-5 median at 236th St. SW 4. Future Sound Transit Light Rail Station The project will also improve vehicle and pedestrian safety. The left turns from southbound SR99 to 76th Ave will be relocated to a protected left turn at the new signal at SR99/228th and pedestrians will be able to cross SR99 at the signalized intersection. This project was a priority recommendation of the Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study, approved by Council in February 2007, and the 2009 Transportation Comprehensive Plan.  The preliminary design for the project was completed in 2008. In spring 2009, the City submitted a federal grant application for $536,000 to fund final design and right of way acquisition. The City was awarded the grant in 2010 and it provides $307,000 for final design and $229,000 for right of way acquisition. A 13.5% local match is required and will be funded through the 112 Street Construction Fund. The scope of work includes 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 is scheduled for completion by spring of 2013. The completion of the design and right of way phases will help the project score well on future grant applications for construction funding.  Four Statements of Qualifications (Perteet, HDR, Lochner, and Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering) were submitted and evaluated by the Selection Committee and from that group, two firms (Perteet and HDR) were selected to be interviewed. Following the interviews, Perteet was chosen by the Selection Committee to complete the design and right of way phases. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/26/2011 05:01 PM Public Works Linda Hynd 07/28/2011 05:06 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 07/28/2011 05:06 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 07/29/2011 09:26 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/29/2011 12:23 PM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 07/13/2011  Final Approval Date: 07/29/2011  DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 1 of 8 Revised 3/2008 Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement Consultant/Address/Telephone Perteet, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 Tel. 425/252-7700 Fax. 425/339-6018 Architectural/Engineering Agreement Personal Services Agreement Agreement Number Project Title And Work Description City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor Improvement Project Federal Aid Number Agreement Type (Choose one) Lump Sum Lump Sum Amount $ ___________________ Cost Plus Fixed Fee Overhead Progress Payment Rate 162.58 % Overhead Cost Method Actual Cost Actual Cost Not To Exceed __________ % Fixed Rate 30 % Fixed Fee $ 23,872 Specific Rates Of Pay Negotiated Hourly Rate Provisional Hourly Rate Cost Per Unit of Work DBE Participation Yes No ____________ % Federal ID Number or Social Security Number 91-1505037 Do you require a 1099 for IRS? Yes No Completion Date August 31, 2013 Total Amount Authorized $ 411,517 Management Reserve Fund $ 35,000 Maximum Amount Payable $ 446,517 Index of Exhibits (check all that apply): Exhibit A-1 – Scope of Work Exhibit G-2 Fee-Sub Specific Rates Exhibit A-2 Task Order Agreement Exhibit G-3 Sub Overhead Cost Exhibit B-1 DBE Utilization Certification Exhibit H Title VI Assurances Exhibit C Electronic Exchange of Data Exhibit I Payment Upon Termination of Agreement Exhibit D-1 Payment – Lump Sum Exhibit J Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures Exhibit D-2 Payment – Cost Plus Exhibit K Consultant Claim Procedures Exhibit D-3 Payment – Hourly Rate Exhibit L Liability Insurance Increase Exhibit D-4 Payment – Provisional Exhibit M -1a Consultant Certification Exhibit E-1 Fee – Lump/Fixed/Unit Exhibit M-1b Agency Official Certification Exhibit E-2 Fee – Specific Rates Exhibit M-2 Certification – Primary Exhibit F Overhead Cost Exhibit M-3 Lobbying Certification Exhibit G Subcontracted Work Exhibit M-4 Pricing Data Certification Exhibit G-1 Subconsultant Fee App 31.910 Supplemental Signature Page THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , , between the Local Agency of CITY OF EDMONDS , Washington, hereinafter called the “AGENCY”, and the above organization hereinafter called the “CONSULTANT”. DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 2 of 8 Revised 3/2008 WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY does not have sufficient staff to meet the required commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistant of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary services for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State Statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish Consulting services to the AGENCY. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performance contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: I General Description of Work The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above described work and services as herein defined and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor, and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. II Scope of Work The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for this PROJECT is detailed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. III General Requirements All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT with outside agencies, groups, or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups, and/or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress and presentation meetings with the AGENCY and/or such Federal, State, Community, City or County officials, groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meeting requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum required hours or days notice shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit “A”. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, which will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the work in sufficient detail so that the progress of the work can easily be evaluated. The CONSULTANT, and each SUBCONSULTANT, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The CONSULTANT, and each SUBCONSULTANT, shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of USDOT-assigned contracts. Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this AGREEMENT that may result in the termination of this AGREEMENT. Participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), if required, per 49 CFR Part 26, or participation of Minority Business Enterprises (MBE), and Women Business Enterprises (WBE), shall be shown on the heading of this AGREEMENT. If D/M/WBE firms are utilized, the amounts authorized to each firm and their certification number will be shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. If the Prime CONSULTANT is a DBE firm they must comply with the Commercial Useful Function (CUF) regulation outlined in the AGENCY’S “DBE Program Participation Plan”. The mandatory DBE participation goals of the AGREEMENT are those established by the WSDOT’S Highway and Local Programs Project Development Engineer in consultation with the AGENCY. All Reports, PS&E materials, and other data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned. All electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT, must meet the requirements as outlined in Exhibit “C”. All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products, including all electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for this PROJECT, and are the property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others, acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a part of this PROJECT, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 3 of 8 Revised 3/2008 IV Time for Beginning and Completion The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under completion date. The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental agreement issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. V Payment Provisions The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit “D” attached hereto, and by reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, suppliers, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work. The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31. A post audit may be performed on this AGREEMENT. The need for a post audit will be determined by the State Auditor, WSDOT External Audit Office and/or at the request of the AGENCY’S PROJECT Manager. VI Sub-Contracting The AGENCY permits sub-contracts for those items of work shown in Exhibit “G” attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Compensation for this sub-consultant work shall be based on the cost factors shown in Exhibit “G”. The work of the sub-consultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor, overhead, direct non-salary costs and fixed fee costs for the sub-consultant shall be substantiated in the same manner, as outlined in Section V. All sub-contracts shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT. With respect to sub-consultant payment, the CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the Prompt Payment laws as set forth in RCW 39.04.250 and RCW 39.76.011. The CONSULTANT shall not sub-contract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for sub-contracting shall create, between the AGENCY and sub- contractor, any contract or any other relationship. A DBE certified sub-consultant is required to perform a minimum amount of their sub-contracted agreement that is established by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Project Development Engineer in consultation with the AGENCY. VII Employment The CONSULTANT warrants that they have not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may arise under any Workmen’s Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 4 of 8 Revised 3/2008 third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT’S employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full- or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contracts, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of the contract, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation, or the STATE, or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person. VIII Nondiscrimination During the performance of this contract, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC Chapter 21 Subchapter V Section 2000d through 2000d-4a) Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 USC Chapter 3 Section 324) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC Chapter 16 Subchapter V Section 794) Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 USC Chapter 76 Section 6101 et seq.) Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-259) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Chapter 126 Section 12101 et. seq.) 49 CFR Part 21 23 CFR Part 200 RCW 49.60.180 In relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the CONSULTANT is bound by the provisions of Exhibit “H” attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT, and shall include the attached Exhibit “H” in every sub-contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. IX Termination of Agreement The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten (10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit “I” for the type of AGREEMENT used. No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the Notice to Terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due when computed as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, the above formula for payment shall not apply. DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 5 of 8 Revised 3/2008 In such an event, the amount to be paid shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination, the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to complete the work required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount, which would have been made using the formula set forth above. If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT’S failure to perform is without the CONSULTANT’S or it’s employee’s default or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY. In such an event, the CONSULTANT would be reimbursed for actual costs in accordance with the termination for other than default clauses listed previously. In the event of the death of any member, partner or officer of the CONSULTANT or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the PROJECT, or dissolution of the partnership, termination of the corporation, of disaffiliation of the principally involved employee, the surviving members of the CONSULTANT hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this AGREEMENT, if requested to do so by the AGENCY. The subsection shall not be a bar to renegotiation of the AGREEMENT between the surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, if the AGENCY so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving members of the CONSULTANT, with the AGENCY’S concurrence, desire to terminate this AGREEMENT, payment shall be made as set forth in the second paragraph of this section. Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform work required of it by the AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. X Changes of Work The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the complete work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the AGENCY, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof changed or revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under Section XIV. XI Disputes Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connection with the work not disposed of by AGREEMENT between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall be referred for determination to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT; provided, however, that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer’s decision, that decision shall be subject to de novo judicial review. If the parties to this AGREEMENT mutually agree, disputes concerning alleged design errors will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit “J”, and disputes concerning claims will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit “K”. XII Venue, Applicable Law, and Personal Jurisdiction In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties to such action shall have the right to appeal from such decisions of the Superior court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 6 of 8 Revised 3/2008 XIII Legal Relations The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this AGREEMENT. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the AGENCY and the STATE and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the CONSULTANT’S negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this AGREEMENT; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to indemnify the AGENCY or the STATE against and hold harmless the AGENCY or the STATE from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the AGENCY or the STATE, their agents, officers and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT’S agents or employees, and (b) The AGENCY or the STATE, their agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence (2) the costs to the AGENCY or the STATE of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT’S negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT’S agents or employees. The CONSULTANT’S relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT’S own employees against the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts, if any, on the PROJECT. Subject to the processing of a new sole source, or an acceptable supplemental agreement, the CONSULTANT shall provide On-Call assistance to the AGENCY during contract administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for: proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the AGREEMENT, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the Stage Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the STATE. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and any Professional Liability Insurance secured by the CONSULTANT, the AGENCY will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen (14) days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to the AGENCY. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT’S professional liability to the AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable under this AGREEMENT or one million ($1,000,000) dollars, whichever is the greater, unless modified by Exhibit “L”. In no case shall the CONSULTANT’S professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 7 of 8 Revised 3/2008 The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive, and the AGENCY and the STATE may take such other action as is available to it under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law. XIV Extra Work A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of the AGREEMENT in the services to be performed. B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms and shall modify the AGREEMENT accordingly. C. The CONSULTANT must submit any “request for equitable adjustment”, hereafter referred to as “CLAIM”, under this clause within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act upon a CLAIM submitted before final payment of the AGREEMENT. D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. E. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs (A) and (B) above, the maximum amount payable for this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT. XV Endorsement of Plans If applicable, the CONSULTANT shall place their endorsement on all plans, estimates, or any other engineering data furnished by them. XVI Federal and State Review The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the work in progress. XVII Certification of the Consultant and the Agency Attached hereto as Exhibit “M-1(a and b)” are the Certifications of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, Exhibit “M-2” Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters – Primary Covered Transactions, Exhibit “M-3” Certification Regarding the Restrictions and the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying and Exhibit “m-4” Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibit “M-3” is required only in AGREEMENTS over $100,000 and Exhibit “M-4” is required only in AGREEMENTS over $500,000. XVIII Complete Agreement This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and t he parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this AGREEMENT. XIX Execution and Acceptance This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the proposal, and the supporting material submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept the AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. DOT Form 140-089 EF Page 8 of 8 Revised 3/2008 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year shown in the “Execution Date” box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT. By By Consultant PERTEET, INC. Agency CITY OF EDMONDS DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 EXHIBIT A-1 Scope of Work City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor Improvement Project INTRODUCTION Completion of the 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements project will solve a key safety issue for vehicles accessing SR 99 and provide a safer pedestrian link connecting the neighborhoods on either side of SR 99. The project will construct a new roadway in the 228th Street SW right-of-way between 76th Avenue W and SR 99. It will improve an existing roadway between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W. Task 1 – Project Management The intent of this task is to provide the overall project management and oversight for the project. Work Elements: • Prepare a work plan - This will include the project goals, responsibilities matrix, project directory, communication protocols, scope of work, budget, schedule, required checklists, and required project forms. • Prepare and maintain a project schedule – This will include twelve (12) updates in MS Project format. Updated project schedules will be presented to the City at project coordination meetings. • Hold project kickoff meeting – This meeting will be held at the City of Edmonds. Key subconsultants will be in attendance. • Prepare progress reports and invoices that will report level of effort spent by task. The Consultant may have the ability to move budget from task to task if the consultant’s work and deliverables are on schedule and within budget. The City, however, must authorize this action in writing prior to it occurring. • Weekly conference calls – Brief 5 to 15 minute conference calls. The intent is that these conference calls will be informal and short in nature. These brief calls help keep the project on track and are used to assign action items between the Consultant and City staff. • Project Coordination Meetings – These meetings will be held once a month during the first six months of the project. During the last 12 months of the project, these meeting will be scaled back to one (1) every other month. A total of twelve (12) project coordination meetings will be held. • Manage subconsultant activities. Assumptions: • Project duration shall be 24 months Deliverables: • Draft and Final Work Plan (2 hard copies) DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Project Schedule (MS Project Format) PDF (12 updates) • Project Kickoff meeting agenda and minutes • Twelve (12) coordination meeting agendas and minutes • Twenty-four (24) progress reports and invoices Task 2 – Supplemental Survey and Basemapping Work Elements: • Survey team management and scheduling. • Boundary and right-of-way determination for up to 12 parcels. • Supplemental topographic survey and mapping of four (4) properties adjacent to the intersection of 228th Street SW with SR 99. • Preparation of final basemap for design. • Preparation of legal descriptions and parcel maps for the acquisition of right-of-way from seven (7) properties and easements from seventeen (17) properties. • One (1) day of topographic survey pickups, as needed, to answer design questions. • QA/QC of project deliverables by Principal Land Surveyor. • Utility coordination. Assumptions: • Horizontal and Vertical control for additional topographic survey will be provided by the City (Inca Control). • City of Edmonds will provide current Title Reports for up to 16 individual parcels. • Title instruments necessary to establish the existing right-of-way limits of 228th Street SW between 76th Avenue West and SR 99 will be provided by the City • Topographic survey and DTM prepared by Inca is complete and without error. The DTM was in AutoCAD Civil3D format. • Underground utilities within the roadway prism have been marked out and located in existing basemap. Perteet will coordinate with utility companies to ensure all utilities within the project limits have been identified. Formal written responses to comments will not be prepared. • Acquisitions will be performed by Universal Field Services Deliverables: • Up-dated AutoCAD Version 8 with Carlson basemap • Six (6) legal descriptions and parcel maps (exhibits) for right-of-way acquisition • Twelve (12) legal descriptions and parcel maps (exhibits) for easement acquisition Task 3 – Channelization Plan for Approval The intent of this task is to secure the required channelization plan for approval required from WSDOT Northwest Region. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 Work Elements: • Address last round of WSDOT channelization plan for approval review comments dated May 21, 2009. • Revise channelization plans to reflect 228th Street SW alignment shift five (5) feet to the north. • Attend WSDOT channelization for approval submittal meeting. Assumptions: • Traffic signal permit has been secured by the City of Edmonds for this project. • Shift current 228th alignment five (5) feet to the north. A half lane width taper across the 76th Avenue West intersection will be required. Perteet proposes to taper back to the original alignment west of Hwy 99 so an intersection taper is not required. • Move 76th Avenue West southbound turn lane north twenty (20) feet to preserve Hwy 99 Illumination Improvements. • Edmonds Parks does not support landscaping in the Hwy 99 median due to maintenance and safety concerns. • Electronic copies of the current Channelization Plans for Approval in AutoCAD version 09 format, Project Analysis, and Deviation Requests will be provided to the Consultant from the City. • WSDOT channelization plan for approval checklist will be utilized in the development of the channelization plans. • WSDOT will only have one additional round of minor comments for the Consultant to address on the Channelization Plan for Approval assuming Perteet submits a complete and accurate set of drawings in accordance with WSDOT standards. • No additional deviation requests will be required by WSDOT to approve the Channelization Plan for Approval. Deliverables: • Channelization Plan for Approval to WSDOT (1 draft, 1 final) Task 4 – Prepare 60% PS&E The intent of this task is to develop the plan set to the 60% level. Work Elements: • Prepare 60% plans – The following plan sheets will be prepared: o Cover Sheet (1 plan sheet) o Legend and Abbreviations (1 plan sheet) o Survey and Alignment Control Plan (1 plan sheet) o Alignment and Right-of-Way (6 plan sheets) will be billed under Task 8 o Site Preparation and Erosion Control (6 plan sheets) o Site Preparation and Erosion Control Details (1 plan sheet) o Typical Roadway Sections (4 plan sheets) DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 o Paving and Drainage Plans (6 plan sheets) o Paving Plan Details (1 plan sheet) o Wall Plan and Profiles (4 plan sheets) o Drainage Details (2 plan sheets) o Traffic Signal Plans (4 plan sheets) o Channelization Plans (6 plan sheets) • Prepare 60% opinion of probable construction costs • 60% Plans will be sent to utility companies for identification of possible utility conflicts Assumptions: • HDR 30% plans and their Channelization Plans for Approval will be the basis for the 60% plan development. • Plans will generally be prepared in accordance with the WSDOT Plans Preparation Manual. • CAD format will be 2010 Civil3D and CAD layers shall be APWA format. • WSDOT Standard Plans will be referenced and placed in an appendix of the project specifications. • City standard plans will be incorporated into the plan set. • Quantity tab sheets and a summary of quantity plan sheet will not be prepared. • The budget effort to prepare the structural plans will be performed under Task 12. • City will provide the Consultant with one set of non-conflicting comments on the 60% PS&E to be incorporated into the 90% PS&E submittal. Perteet will not formally respond to these comments in writing. However, Perteet intends to incorporate non conflicting design comments into the plan set. • Contract specifications will not be prepared for the 60% PS&E submittal. Deliverables: • 60% Plans (4 sets - 11”x17” Plan Sheets) • 60% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) Task 5 – Prepare Stormwater Analysis The intent of this task is to conduct a Stormwater Analysis for the preparation of the drainage plans and details. Work Elements: • Drainage Site Assessment Mapping: Prepare drainage basin maps identifying the on-site threshold discharge areas (TDA’s) as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Prepare a basin map showing the area that discharges storm runoff onto the project site located up-gradient of the road project (i.e. ‘off-site basins’). Gather and review sensitive area maps, provided by the City. The off-site basin map will be prepared using City topographic and GIS maps. The City’s drainage information from their GIS data set will be relied upon for this effort. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Threshold Analysis: Prepare new impervious and new PGIS (pollution generating impervious surface) maps. Using the new impervious and new PGIS area numbers, perform threshold analysis to determine which minimum design requirements apply to this project. The existing site conditions and existing detention provided by an existing pond at the project site will be incorporated into the threshold analysis. • Concept Drainage Design: Prepare a conceptual drainage design identifying flow control and water quality treatment facilities. Prepare a drainage layout exhibit showing the approximate location and size of the detention/flow control and water quality treatment facilities and outfall locations. Conduct preliminary hydrologic calculations for sizing estimates of the stormwater facilities. Present the findings and exhibit to the City for review and input prior to commencing the 60% design. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques will be considered as part of this design. • Detention Design Calculations: Prepare drainage calculations for one detention/flow control facility. The hydrologic analysis will be done using MGS FloodTM, a continuous simulation modeling software accepted by the Washington Department of Ecology. • Conveyance Design Calculations: Prepare stormwater pipe conveyance calculations. Pipe conveyance calculations will be limited to performing an estimate of flow capacity using the Rational Method and Manning equation at 2 or 3 representative pipe segments within the project limits. Detailed backwater capacity analysis and gutter flow calculations are not included in this Scope of Services, but can be provided as an optional service. • Water Quality Treatment Design Calculations: Prepare design calculations for one water quality treatment facility. The hydrologic analysis will be done using MGS FloodTM, a continuous simulation modeling software accepted by the Washington Department of Ecology. • Drainage Report: Prepare and assemble a draft and final Stormwater Site Plan with the contents limited to the task items described in this Scope of Work. The final Stormwater Site Plan is to include basin maps, design criteria, flow control and water quality treatment calculations, as well as conveyance design and calculations. Assumptions: • The drainage design will comply with the Stormwater Code Supplement to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30, limited to the task items described in this Scope of Services. • The information included in the Draft Storm Drainage Report (April 2009) can be incorporated into the Stormwater Analysis and Stormwater Site Plan prepared for this project. • It is assumed that porous pavement for areas outside the 228th driving surface will be pursued as an LID concept to reduce impervious area. • It is assumed that area trades within the project TDA’s will be permitted. • It is assumed that one flow control facility will be designed for this project. • It is assumed that one water quality treatment facility will be designed for this project. • The stormwater system(s) will discharge into an existing storm pipe system location within the project site. It is assumed that no off-site drainage improvements are needed, but the analysis and design of any off-site improvements can be provided as an additional service. • The draft Stormwater Site Plan will be submitted for City review and comment after 60% plan submittal. The final Stormwater Site Plan will be submitted following the 90% PS&E submittal. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Per the City's direction, a downstream analysis will not be prepared. Deliverables: • Conceptual Drainage Plan Exhibit with proposed BMPs • Draft Drainage Report (1 electronic copy) • Final Drainage Report (3 hard copies, 1 electronic copy) • Stormwater plans, profiles, and details to be incorporated into the overall project construction plans. Task 6 – Prepare NEPA/SEPA Documentation 6.1 NEPA Documentation For the purposes of this scope of work, it is assumed that the project can be authorized under a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under 23 CFR 771.117. WSDOT Highways and Local Programs (H&LP) will be the lead and decision-making agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in consultation with/for the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). Perteet will coordinate directly with WSDOT H&LP, including a site visit with WSDOT staff and submittal of NEPA documentation. To address cultural resources compliance under NEPA, the Consultant will coordinate with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources. The Consultant will initiate the review by preparing written documentation of any historic sites or structures within the area of potential effect of a project. The Consultant will compile the results of the research and submit these results in the form of an Area of Potential Effects (APE) for concurrence from WSDOT, DAHP, and any affected tribes. To address federal Endangered Species Act compliance under NEPA, the Consultant will assess the project’s likely effects on species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Washington Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) databases will be consulted, and a field visit will be made. The assessment will review habitat needs of listed species, document the lack of occurrences in the project area, and summarize documentation to consider project related effects on listed species. Based on the likely avoidance of impacts to ESA species, no effects on listed species are assumed. A No Effect Letter (NEL) will be prepared and submitted to WSDOT for review and forwarded for federal resource agency concurrence. To address social and community effects under NEPA, the Consultant will prepare an analysis of environmental justice for the project. The analysis will be prepared in the format specified by WSDOT, utilizing 2000 Census data and 2010 data when available. School district data will also be used as a second source of information. The analysis will and other data from local sources as needed. Assuming the presence of some minority business operators in the area, some outreach will be necessary. Specific outreach recommendations will be incorporated into the public involvement program for the project. Scope includes additional outreach meetings to specific property owners/groups of owners, if needed. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 To analyze air quality and noise impacts, Perteet will subcontract to Michael Minor & Associates Inc. (MM&A). The project is located within the Puget Sound maintenance area for carbon monoxide and ozone, so an air quality conformity analysis is required. The project will extend an existing street and create two new signalized intersections on 228th Street SW between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W. Because of the high volumes on SR 99, this scope assumes that the signalized intersection at Highway 99 will have a LOS of “D” or worse and will require a screening analysis for carbon monoxide using the Washington State Intersection Screening Tool (WASIST). The air quality study will describe the existing air quality in the vicinity of the project area using existing sources of information such as Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Annual Air Quality Reports, and available data from Ecology monitoring stations. The report will also provide a discussion of Green House Gases and Mobile Source Air Toxics, as required by the FHWA. A qualitative analysis of air quality impacts from construction activities will also be included. Temporary air quality impacts during construction will be examined, and mitigation measures to control fugitive dust will be discussed. MM&A shall also prepare a technical traffic noise analysis for the extension of 228th Street SW between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W. Because this is an extension of an existing roadway, this project meets the FHWA Type 1 project requiring a noise analysis. This analysis will follow the New FHWA Rule and the New WSDOT Policy and Procedures Manual for traffic noise studies. MM&A shall visit project study area, identify noise sensitive properties and note physical and terrain features that affect noise propagation. Noise measurements will be taken at up to 4 locations in the project study area during daytime off-peak hours (10 AM to 4 PM) when traffic is moving freely. At each measurement site, traffic counts will be conducted concurrently with the noise measurements. Traffic volumes that are counted during the noise measurement survey will be modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) and the resulting sound levels will be compared with the measured sound levels to reach close agreement. The validated TNM model will be used to predict the existing peak hour traffic noise levels. The future year traffic noise level with and without the proposed project will also be predicted using TNM. Impacts will be identified and noise abatement measures will be considered at locations along the alignments where traffic noise impacts are predicted. The analysis shall provide location, length, height, profile, estimated cost and number of benefiting noise sensitive properties for any proposed mitigation measures. Construction activities that may cause annoyance at nearby noise sensitive land uses will be qualitatively assessed by MM&A in accordance with WSDOT’s procedures. MM&A will discuss local laws applying to construction noise. 6.2 SEPA Checklist Facilitation We understand the City will prepare a draft State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist based on 60% plans and other provided documentation. Perteet will then review and provide comments on the on the draft checklist and provide the edited checklist back to the City’s project manager for final review and submittal. The City’s project manager will submit the SEPA checklist to the Edmond’s Community Development department for a SEPA determination. It is assumed that the City will be lead agency, and the same checklist and determination will be used for County permitting purposes, if necessary. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 Work Elements Provided to Facilitate SEPA Completion by the City: • Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) • Cultural Resources APE Letter • Environmental Justice Technical Memo • Environmental Justice meetings • ESA No Effect Letter (including field visit) • Air Quality Analysis • Noise Analysis • Coordination with/submittal to WSDOT • Comments on SEPA Checklist Draft Initiated by the City Assumptions: • A NEPA Documented Categorical Exemption is assumed for this project; an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. • No cultural resources will be present and site exploration work by an archaeologist will not be required for this project. • The ESA assessment will result in a no effect determination and a biological assessment will not be required. • Some minority populations/business operators in the area are assumed to be present. Outreach to these populations will be provided and appropriate measures incorporated into the public involvement program (Task 7). • One (1) round of consolidated City comments will be provided in a timely manner on all draft documents. • One (1) site visit with WSDOT H&LP is budgeted. • No in-water work is proposed; therefore, no aquatic resources permits will be required. • No impacts to wetlands or other sensitive areas are proposed; therefore, no wetland determinations, delineations, or reports will be generated. • The City of Edmonds shall pay all permitting fees. • If required by WSDOT, the City shall be responsible for setting up and funding a JA account to facilitate the State NEPA review. • An air quality screening analysis for carbon monoxide will be performed using the Washington State Intersection Screening Tool (WASIST) due to a new roadway and new signal. • Air quality impacts from construction activities shall be evaluated qualitatively per the State’s Environmental Procedures Manual guidelines. Temporary air quality impacts during construction shall be described, and mitigation measures to control fugitive dust shall be discussed. • Traffic data required to qualitatively assess the signalized intersection area will be provided by the City or HDR. Data required will include a summary of LOS, delay, V/C and total entering volumes for the project. • Only one signalized intersection will require CO screening. • Only one build design will be analyzed for the air quality analysis. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Existing and future traffic volumes for no-build and build alternatives, to include percentages of passenger vehicles, medium trucks, heavy trucks, shall be provided by the City traffic engineers. • The SEPA Determination issued for this project will be a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) or a Mitigated DNS. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. It is assumed that the SEPA determination will not be appealed or that generation of additional documentation will be required. A separate SEPA checklist will not be prepared for the County, which will adopt the City’s SEPA determination, if necessary. Deliverables: • Draft ECS, via electronic format and final ECS, via electronic and paper formats • Draft APE Letter, via electronic format and final APE Letter, via electronic and paper formats • Draft NEL, via electronic format and final NEL, via electronic and paper formats • Draft EJ Technical Memo, via electronic format and final EJ Technical Memo, via electronic and paper formats • Draft air quality analysis, via electronic format and final air quality analysis, via electronic and paper formats • Draft SEPA Checklist, via electronic format and final SEPA Checklist, via electronic and paper formats • Noise Model Data files (electronic version) • Record of noise field measurements and traffic counts • Final Noise Analysis Technical Memorandum, via electronic and paper formats Task 7 – Assist with Public Meetings The intent of this task is to assist the City of Edmonds with 228th Street SW Public Meetings. Two (2) design open house meetings will be held. Work Elements: • Open House Meetings (2) • Prepare two (2) informational project flyers Assumptions: • A maximum of two (2) Open House meetings will be held. These meetings will be informative in nature with question and answer stations. A Power Point presentation may be necessary. • Perteet will provide one (1) staff member for each of the two public design open house meetings. • Perteet project manager will be available to attend City Council meetings and, if necessary, present updates to the City Council. • All mailing materials and postage will be paid for directly by the City of Edmonds. Deliverables: • Aerial Roll Plot (2) – Hard copy roll plot, plotted on bond paper • Channelization Roll Plot (2) – Hard copy roll plot, plotted on bond paper DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Display Boards (2) – 22" x 34" Foam Board • Project Schedule • Typical Roadway Sections • Informational Flyer (2) - PDF Task 8 – Right-of-Way Acquisition (Universal) This project includes federal funding (FHWA) in the Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition process. Therefore, all ROW Acquisition services provided shall be in accordance with procedures specified by the City of Edmond’s WSDOT approved ROW acquisition procedures dated December 21, 2001, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Agency Guidelines – Section 25 (Right-of-Way Procedures), and in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA). Work Elements: • Preparation and Administration - Discuss, strategize, and plan overall process with Right-of-Way Acquisition team. Attend project kickoff meeting and provide up to 24 progress reports. Coordinate with City the use of approved acquisition documents. Prepare parcel files to include fair offer letters, recording and ancillary documents, a standard diary form indicating all contacts with owner(s), and other items necessary for negotiations. • Title/Ownership Review - Perform reviews of existing right of way and ownership information. Review special exceptions described in each title report to determine the City’s acceptance of title at closing. • Public Outreach – Assist the City in preparation of Introduction Letter to all impacted property owners. The letter should describe the project’s purpose; identify the Engineering and Right-of- Way Team, the purpose of each team, estimated schedule, etc. Attend one (1) design open house meeting and up to six (6) separate one-on-one “onsite” design meetings with property owners shown in Table A requiring an appraisal. • Project Funding Estimate (PFE) – The PFE will be completed per WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines – Section 25. Generally, the PFE is a tool to be used for confirming estimated Right- of-Way costs and primarily for consideration of utilizing the Appraisal Waiver process when the estimated just compensation to property owners is at or below the City’s WSDOT approved Appraisal Waiver limit (currently $10,000) and when the acquisition is uncomplicated. As part of the PFE, individual worksheets will be prepared using comparable sales data determined by the project appraiser and information obtained from Right-of-Way plans. All parcel worksheets will be combined into a project summary worksheet for review by the City. The PFE must be completed in order to take advantage of the Appraisal Waiver process. The PFE provides the estimated Right-of-Way project costs and expenses broken down by parcel. The estimate summarizes Just Compensation to the Property Owners, Appraisal / Appraisal Review Fees, Negotiation Fees, Title / Escrow Fees, Property Management Fees, Relocation Fees, Relocation Payments, Condemnation and Incidental Costs. As a result of the PFE findings, the City may elect to make Administrative Offers when estimated Just Compensation to property owners has been deemed to be at or below the City’s WSDOT approved Appraisal Waiver limit (currently $10,000) and when the acquisition is uncomplicated. Administrative Offers are based on data and analysis presented in DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) worksheets in lieu of an appraisal, in accordance with the City’s approved Appraisal Waiver process. Note: Property owners must be informed if the offer is not based on an Appraisal and that one will be prepared if requested. If the property owner elects, an appraisal report must be completed and a revised offer considered. This requirement may have an impact on the approved right-of-way budget and project schedule. • Appraisal & Appraisal Review - Upon completion of the PFE, Universal (UFS) will coordinate with the City to determine which parcels will require Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews. Appraisal reports will be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Agency Guidelines, the WSDOT Right-of-Way Manual (in particular, Chapters 4 and 5), and the URA. Appraisal scope of work and expenses for specialty studies of hazardous materials, septic costs, equipment appraisals, timber cruising, etc., are excluded. Total number of Appraisals and Appraisal reviews is subject to change based on project design, confirmation of the larger parcels during the Project Funding Estimate (PFE) process, completion of the Right of Way plans, and at the request of property owners when administrative offers (AOS worksheets in- lieu of Appraisal) are presented. According to the City’s procedures approved by WSDOT, property owners must be informed if the offer presented to them is not based on an appraisal and that one will be prepared if requested. Upon completion of all real property owner valuations, UFS will coordinate with the City to obtain written approvals of just compensation prior to making any offers to property owners. • Acquisition Negotiation - Acquire fee simple and temporary construction easements from up to twelve (12) larger parcels as shown in Table A of this task element. Additional parcels or real property rights other than those shown in Table A will require an amendment to this scope of work. Negotiations to include: Negotiate with each property owner and/or their representative in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements; coordinate administrative settlement approvals with the City; negotiate as necessary with lien holders, assisting escrow in the closing process Prepare and maintain parcel files to include fair offer letters, acquisition documents, a standard diary form indicating all contacts with owner(s), and other items necessary for negotiations. Negotiations shall not be deemed to have failed until at least three significant meaningful contacts have been made and documented with each owner and/or their representative through direct personal contacts. Out-of-area owner(s) will be contacted by telephone and by certified mail. If negotiations reach an impasse, provide the City with written notification. The filing and cost of condemnation proceedings shall be the responsibility of the City. • Relocation – Provide Relocation Assistance and Advisory Services under the guidelines of the City’s WSDOT approved procedures, the URA, and WSDOT LAG Manual – Section 25 (Right- of-Way Procedures). Currently, it is assumed relocation services are limited to two (2) Personal Property Only (PPO) moves of used car sales in public right-of-way and acquisition area. It is assumed there are no business occupants or residential occupants displaced by this project. Parcels assumed to require relocation assistance are identified in Table A below. Relocation services and requirements are assumed and subject to change due to project design and City code enforcement of parking used car sales in public Right-of-Way. o Relocation services are generally outlined as follows: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 a. Develop a relocation plan resulting from windshield surveys and/or personal assessment interviews with potential displacees to determine their needs for replacement sites; research of potential replacement sites through discussions with local real estate brokers, searches of multiple listing service, local newspapers and publications; preparing initial pre-move inventories and estimates for moving costs and relocation entitlements. The relocation plan will be developed based on the City’s approved Right-of-Way Procedures, including WSDOT’s LAG Manual Section 25. If additional displacements are subsequently identified due to design changes or refinements, the Relocation Plan will be amended by UFS, submitted to the City for review with final approval from WSDOT’s Assistant Director of Relocation Assistance Programs in Olympia. The process for amending the Relocation Plan will be to conduct personal interviews with displacees, update the assurances in the plan, provide estimates of the relocation entitlements and complete the research of potential replacement sites as necessary. b. Inform displaced occupants, in writing, of their potential displacement, eligibility, entitlements, and provide an explanation of their relocation benefits. c. Assist in search of replacement site(s). d. Assist displaced occupant(s) in filing relocation claims to the City for payment. e. Maintain a current relocation diary on each displacee. f. Create and maintain necessary records to support state audit of project. • Parcel Closeout – Escrow Closing - Upon securing required acquisition agreements, Universal will submit the necessary acquisition documents and closing instructions to the designated Title/Escrow Company. Work with the Title/Escrow Company in order to obtain release documentation from the encumbrance(s) of public record that are not acceptable to the City to provide clear title to the property being acquired, subject to the City’s title clearing guidelines. The Escrow Company shall prepare and obtain the owner(s) signature on the necessary closing documents. Universal will coordinate signatures on closing documents for submittal to the City and payment(s) to the owner(s), coordinate with the Escrow/Title Company in filing documents with Snohomish County, and deliver completed files to the City. • Right-of-Way Certification - Universal will provide certification advisory review services. This may include being available to the WSDOT Right of Way parcel file reviewer, typically WSDOT’s Real Estate Services Local Agency Coordinator. All files will be prepared and completed to the satisfaction of a WSDOT Right of Way file review for Certification. Assumptions: • Federal Funding (FHWA) in ROW Acquisition. • Determination of the twelve (12) larger parcels are correctly defined based upon contiguity, unity of use and common ownership (see Table A). • Up to six (6) appraisal and appraisal review reports will be required (see Table A). • Up to six (6) Administrative Offer Summary worksheets will be required (see Table A). • Relocation services are limited to two (2) Personal Property Only (PPO) moves of used car sales in public right of way and the acquisition area (see Table A). City / Perteet will provide to Universal the following: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 1. Preliminary Commitments (Title Reports) for all parcels impacted. For those parcels requiring a Temporary Construction Easement only, ownership information may be obtained from public on-line records, last deed of conveyance, etc., in-lieu of a title report. 2. Approve designation of the escrow company used for this project. The escrow company will bill the City directly for all escrow services provided. 3. Right-of-Way Plans and Drawings, Maps, Exhibits, Right-of-Way Staking, etc., as necessary. 4. Legal descriptions in electronic format for all real property rights to be acquired. 5. Form approval, in electronic format, of all legal conveyance documents prior to use (i.e. offer letters, purchase and sale agreements, escrow instructions, easements, deeds, leases and permits). 6. Review and approval of all determinations of value, established by the project appraisers, and provide written authorization prior to offers being made to property owners. 7. Payment of any and all compensation payments to property owners, escrow services, recording fees, legal services and any incidental costs which may arise necessary to complete each transaction. • Right of Entry agreements for surveying, geotechnical studies, etc. are excluded. Perteet Work Element: Provide 28 hours of technical design support during property owner negotiations. Deliverables: • Up to twenty four (24) progress reports • Attend one(1) design open house meeting • Attend up to six(6) one-on-one “onsite” design meetings • Review title report information • Document Preparation / Progress Reporting • Project Funding Estimate (PFE) • Relocation Plan for two (2) PPO moves – used car sales • Six (6) Appraisal & Appraisal Review reports • Six (6) Administrative Offer Summary Worksheets • Prepare up to twelve (12) negotiation parcel files • Acquisition Negotiation Services • Prepare two (2) relocation parcel files • Relocation Assistance Services • Twelve (12) completed parcel files and records for all Right-of-Way services • Right of Way Certification Document DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 TABLE A La r g e r P a r c e l Pr o j e c t Pa r c e l N o . Tax Parcel No. Owner Ri g h t o f En t r y Fe e S i m p l e Te m p C o n s t Es m t Re l o c a t i o n (s e e n o t e 1 ) Ap p r a i s a l AO S 1 1 00576700000204 RJ Willy, LLC X X AR 2 00576700000202 RJ Willy, LLC X 2 3 00527800002600 Appleton, Alana M. X AOS 3 4 27043000403600 Boo Han Plaza IV, LLC X AR 5 27043000404800 Boo Han Plaza IV, LLC X 6 27043000404000 Boo Han Plaza IV, LLC X X PPO 4 7 27043000404400 Sun SM, LLC & Tyroot, LLC X X AR 5 8 00576700000102 Michlitch, Robert S., Jr. X X AR 6 9 00576700000206 Millers Equipment, LLC X X AOS 7 10 00441500100100 Yunis, Shamail X X AOS 8 11 00501400000100 Hochberg, Henry & GI X X AOS 9 12 27043000404100 U-Save Oil Company X AR 13 27043000404200 U-Save Oil Company X 10 14 27042900307400 Franklin – Edmonds, LLC X AR 11 15 27043000403200 Shurgard Storage Centers Inc X AOS 12 16 27042900307300 Mitchell Rosemary Living Trust X PPO AOS Note: 1.) Relocation services for parcel numbers 6 (Boo Han Plaza) and 16 (MRLT) above to include Personal Property Only (PPO) moves of used car sales from the acquisition area. 2.) AR (Appraisal Report) / AOS (Administrative Offer Summary) Task 9 – Prepare 90% PS&E The intent of this task is to develop the plan set to the 90% level. Work Elements: • Prepare 90% plans – the following plan sheets will be prepared: o Cover Sheet (1 plan sheet) o Legend and Abbreviations (1 plan sheet) o Survey and Alignment Control Plan (1 plan sheet) o Alignment and Right-of-Way (6 plan sheets) will be billed under Task 8 o Site Preparation and Erosion Control (6 plan sheets) o Site Preparation and Erosion Control Details (1 plan sheet) o Typical Roadway Sections (4 plan sheets) o Paving and Drainage Plans (6 plan sheets) DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 o Paving Plan Details (1 plan sheets) o Wall Plan and Profiles (4 plan sheets) o Drainage Details (3 plan sheets) o Traffic Signal Plans (6 plan sheets) o Channelization Plans (6 plan sheets) • Prepare 90% specification in WSDOT/APWA format • Prepare 90% opinion of probable construction costs Assumptions: • Same as Task 4. Deliverables: • 90% Plans (4 sets - 11”x17” Plan Sheets) • 90% Specifications (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • 90% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • WSDOT Local Programs PS&E Checklist Task 10 – Secure State and Local Permits Perteet will prepare applications and obtain necessary State and local permits for construction of the project. 10.1 State Permits The City will prepare a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency form and submittal to the State Department of Ecology (required for federally-funded projects in Snohomish County). Perteet will prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) for a General Construction permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, Perteet will prepare the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by Ecology for compliance with stormwater regulations under NPDES. 10.2 Local Permitting (City of Edmonds) The City will prepare all necessary Critical Areas Checklists for work on private driveways and easements, where required. It is assumed that no critical areas will be affected by the project. The City will also prepare all necessary City ROW Construction Permit applications for review by the City of Edmonds. 10.3 Local Permitting (Snohomish County) Because a portion of the work is within SR 99 and affecting driveways to adjacent parcels will be within Snohomish County’s jurisdiction, the City will coordinate with the County’s Engineering Department for needed permits. It is assumed that a County right-of-way permit and utility construction permit will be DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 necessary. The Consultant will assist in the preparation of the required NPDES Notice of Intent and the SWPPP. Work Elements: • NPDES Notice of Intent • SWPPP Assumptions: • The City will prepare a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency form and submittal • The City will prepare all necessary Critical Areas Checklists • The City will prepare all necessary City ROW Construction Permit applications • The City will prepare all necessary County ROW Construction Permit applications • One (1) round of consolidated City comments will be provided in a timely manner on all draft documents. • No impacts to wetlands or other sensitive areas are proposed; therefore, no wetland reconnaissance, determinations, delineations, or reports will be generated. • The State Department of Transportation has transferred jurisdiction over SR 99 in this area to the City of Edmonds; a general WSDOT construction permits however will be required. • The work within the right-of-way is exempt from Edmonds grading and right-of-way permit requirements; therefore, these will not be required. • Work on private properties (utilities and driveway aprons) will not exceed the 50 CY threshold and will be exempt from City grading permit requirements. • The City of Edmonds shall provide all permitting fees. • Perteet will make permit submittals to the State on the City’s behalf. • The City project manager will apply for and coordinate all City and County permits. • Perteet will assist the City in preparing applications for the County ROW Construction Permit Deliverables: • Draft NOI for NPDES, via electronic format and final NOI, via electronic and paper formats. • Draft SWPPP, via electronic format, and final SWPPP, via electronic and paper formats. Task 11 – Prepare 100% PS&E The intent of this task is to develop the plan set to the 100% level and be bid ready. Work Elements: • Prepare 100% plans – The following plan sheets will be prepared: o Cover Sheet (1 plan sheet) o Legend and Abbreviations (1 plan sheet) o Alignment and Right-of-Way (6 plan sheets) will be billed under Task 8 o Site Preparation and Erosion Control Plans (6 plan sheets) DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 o Site Preparation and Erosion Control Details (1 plan sheet) o Typical Roadway Sections (4 plan sheets) o Paving and Drainage Plans (6 plan sheets) o Paving Plan Details (1 plan sheets) o Wall Plan and Profiles (4 plan sheets) o Drainage Details (3 plan sheets) o Traffic Signal Plans (6 plan sheets) o Channelization Plans (6 plan sheets) • Prepare 100% specification in WSDOT/APWA format • Prepare 100% opinion of probable construction costs Assumptions: • Same as Task 4 Deliverables: • 100% Plans (4 sets - 11”x17” Plan Sheets) • 100% Specifications (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • 100% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • WSDOT Local Programs PS&E Checklist Task 12 – Structural Design (CG Engineers) 12.1 Project Management The intent of this task is to provide the project management and oversight for structural elements of the project to be performed by CG Engineering. Work Elements: • Attend project kickoff meeting at City Hall • Prepare progress reports and invoices that will report level of effort spent by task • Two Project Coordination Meetings Assumptions: • Project duration will be 24 months Deliverables: • Twenty-four (24) progress reports and invoices 12.2 Prepare 60% PS&E The intent of this task is to develop the structural plan set to the 60% level. Work Elements: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Prepare 60% plans – The following structural plan sheets will be prepared: o Structural Notes (1 plan sheets) o Vault Foundation and Framing Plan (1 plan sheet) o Vault Details ( 2 plan sheet) o Retaining Wall Details (1 plan sheet) Note that plan and profiles will be prepared by Perteet • Prepare 60% opinion of probable construction costs Assumptions: • Size of vault will be determined prior to submittal such that a 60% structural design can be accomplished. • Type of wall will be decided by 60% complete submittal. • CG will do a preliminary design of the MSE Walls and prepare details, but since these are a proprietary product, stamped design and drawings will be required from the manufacturer. • Plans will generally be prepared in accordance with WSDOT Plans Preparation Manual. • CAD format will be 2010 Civil3D and CAD layers shall be APWA format. • Appropriate City and WSDOT Standard Plans will be referenced and placed in an appendix of the project specifications. Deliverables: • 60% Plans (4 sets - 11”x17” Plan Sheets) • 60% Specifications (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • 60% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) 12.3 Prepare 90% PS&E The intent of this task is to develop the structural plan set to the 90% level. Work Elements: • Respond to 60% review comments in a letter format • Prepare 90% plans – the following plan sheets will be prepared: o Structural Notes (1 plan sheet) o Vault Foundation and Framing Plan (1 plan sheet) o Vault Details ( 2 plan sheets) o Retaining Wall Details (1 plan sheet). Note that plan and profiles will be prepared by Perteet. • Prepare 90% specification in WSDOT/APWA format • Prepare 90% opinion of probable construction costs Assumptions: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Same as Subtask 12.2. • 90% drawings will be submitted for permit. Deliverables: • 90% Plans (4 sets - 11”x17” Plan Sheets) • 90% Specifications (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • 90% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • Stamped Structural Calculations and Drawings (2 sets) • Response letter to 60% review comments 12.4 Prepare 100% PS&E The intent of this task is to develop the structural plan set to the 100% level and be bid ready. Work Elements: • Respond to 90% review comments in a letter format • Respond to jurisdictional comments in a letter format • Prepare 100% plans – The following plan sheets will be prepared: o Structural Notes (1 plan sheet) o Vault Foundation and Framing Plan (1 plan sheet) o Vault Details ( 2 plan sheets) o Retaining Wall Details (1 plan sheet). Note that plan and profiles will be prepared by Perteet. • Prepare 100% specification in WSDOT/APWA format • Prepare 100% opinion of probable construction costs Assumptions: • Same as Subtask 12.2 Deliverables: • 100% Plans (4 sets - 11”x17” Plan Sheets) • 100% Specifications (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • 100% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (4 sets – 8.5”x11” Sheets) • Stamped Structural Calculations and Drawings (2 sets) • Stamped response letter to jurisdictional comments • Response letter to 90% review comments 12.5 Bid Assistance Work Elements: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Respond to bid questions in an addendum format with revisions to affected drawings as necessary Assumptions: • Perteet will be point of contact • CG will respond to structural elements of the project only • Only one (1) addendum will be required • Structural construction services can be added as a supplement • Construction services related to the structural scope of work will be negotiated at a later date if requested by the client. Deliverables: • 1 Addendum Task 13 – Geotechnical Support (HWA GeoSciences) The purpose of this task is to plan, conduct, and analyze the data collected during a geotechnical investigation conducted in support of the structural improvements required for the project. The work will consist of planning and executing a field exploration and laboratory testing program to characterize project site subgrade/foundation soils. It will also include engineering analyses and the development of geotechnical recommendations and seismic considerations for use by the project team for the design of a MSE retaining wall, signal pole foundations, pavement design, and general earthworks. • Review Existing Data – Conduct review of existing geotechnical data; locate pre-existing borings on current exploration plan. • Exploration, Traffic Control, and Permitting – Prepare an exploration plan, including proposed traffic control provisions (as appropriate) in support of right-of-way permit applications required for submittal to the City of Edmonds. • Field Exploration – Conduct a field exploration program consisting of a maximum of seven (7) borings to depths of 20 to 25 feet for signal pole and wall foundation design. • Prepare electronic Field logs of explorations and develop geologic cross-sections through 228th Street SW extension area. • Laboratory Testing Program – Plan and manage geotechnical testing program for samples obtained in the field during exploration. • Conduct Engineering Analyses – Analyze field and laboratory data and develop design recommendations for subgrade preparation, earthworks, structural fills, wall and signal pole foundations, seismic loading parameters, groundwater and limited assessment of the feasibility of local soils for stormwater infiltration. • Pavement Design – Evaluate subgrade conditions and provide information on those subgrade conditions for a pavement design to be prepared by Perteet. • Draft Geotechnical Report – Prepare a Draft Geotechnical Report as part of 60% design submittal for review and comment. • Prepare Final Geotechnical Report – Prepare a Final Geotechnical Report incorporating review comments obtained after 60% submittal review. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A-1 Revised 6/05 • Conduct 100% Submittal Review – Conduct a final review limited to sheets or specification sections relevant to geotechnical engineering considerations. • Provide Bid Assistance – Provide assistance during review of bid items specifically relevant to geotechnical considerations such as materials or earthwork costs. • Project Coordination Meetings – Participate in a maximum of 3 coordination meetings throughout the 24 month project life. • Quality Assurance – Conduct internal quality assurance throughout the project as appropriate. Assumptions: • HWA’s efforts will largely be expended during the first 6 months of the 24 months of the project. • HWA’s permitting efforts for access to conduct explorations will be limited to preparing and filing permit applications with the City of Edmonds (COE). We assume the lead agency (COE) will liaise with the WSDOT or the City of Lynnwood as appropriate. Deliverables: • Exploration Plan and Permit Application. • Draft and Final Geotechnical Reports. • Review Comments for 100% submittal and during bid assistance. • Invoices and progress reports for months when work was conducted. Task 14 – Bid Assistance Perteet will prepare a bid package and submit it to Builders Exchange on behalf of the City. Work Elements: • Respond to RFI’s • Prepare up to 3 addendums. The Consultant team will not charge for additional addendums if they are needed to correct or clarify errors or omissions in the bid package. Assumptions: • Construction Administration support can be added as a supplement to this agreement Deliverables: • Written RFI’s (email format) • Maximum of three (3) addendums DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit C Revised 6/05 Exhibit C Electronic Exchange of Engineering and Other Data In this Exhibit the agency, as applicable, is to provide a description of the format and standards the consultant is to use in preparing electronic files for transmission to the agency. The format and standards to be provided may include, but are not limited to, the following: I. Surveying, Roadway Design & Plans Preparation Section A. Survey Data B. Roadway Design Files C. Computer Aided Drafting Files D. Specify the Agency’s Right to Review Product with the Consultant E. Specify the Electronic Deliverables to be Provided to the Agency F. Specify What Agency Furnished Services and Information Is to Be Provided II. Any Other Electronic Files to Be Provided III. Methods to Electronically Exchange Data A. Agency Software Suite B. Electronic Messaging System C. File Transfers Format DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit D-2 Revised 6/05 Exhibit D-2 Payment (Cost Plus a Fixed Fee) The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work specified in Section II, “Scope of Work”. The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31. A. Actual Costs: Payment for all consulting services for this PROJECT shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT’S actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead, direct non-salary costs, and fixed fee. 1. Direct Salary Costs: The Direct Salary Cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical, and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain support data to verify the direct salary costs billed to the AGENCY. 2. Overhead Costs: Overhead Costs are those costs other than direct costs, which are included as such on the books of the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payment shall be made at the rate shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under “Overhead Progress Payment Rate.” Total overhead payment shall be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The two options are explained as follows: a. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for overhead at the percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change during the life of the AGREEMENT. b. Actual Cost: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT the actual overhead costs verified by audit, up to the Maximum Total Amount Payable, authorized under this AGREEMENT, when accumulated with all other Actual Costs. A summary of the CONSULTANTS cost estimate and the overhead computation is shown in Exhibit “E” attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. When an Actual Cost method is used, the CONSULTANT (prime and all sub-consultants) will submit to the AGENCY within six (6) months after the end of each firm’s fiscal year, an overhead schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes. It shall be used for the computation of progress payments during the following year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year’s overhead cost to reflect the actual rate. Failure to supply this information by either the prime CONSULTANT or any of their sub-consultants shall cause the AGENCY to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved. The AGENCY, STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT’S books and records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate, if they so desire. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit D-2 Revised 6/05 3. Direct Non-Salary Costs: Direct Non-Salary Costs will be reimbursed at the Actual Cost to the CONSULTANT. These charges may include, but are not limited to, the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges and sub-consultant costs. a. Air or train travel will be reimbursed only to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs (excluding air, train, and rental car costs) in accordance with the AGENCY’S Travel Rules and Procedures. However, air, train, and rental car costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with 48 CFR Part 31.205-46 “Travel Costs.” b. The billing for Direct Non-Salary Costs shall include an itemized listing of the charges directly identifiable with the PROJECT. c. The CONSULTANT shall maintain the original supporting documents in their office. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be supplied to the AGENCY upon request. d. All above charges must be necessary for the services provided under this AGREEMENT. 4. Fixed Fee: The Fixed Fee, which represents the CONSULTANT’S profit, is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional Fixed Fee, which could be authorized form the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the Scope of Work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated person-hours required to perform the stated Scope of Work. In the event the CONSULTANT enters into a supplemental AGREEMENT for additional work, the supplemental AGREEMENT may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The Fixed Fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported in the Monthly Progress Reports accompanying the billings. Any portion of the Fixed Fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX entitled “Termination of Agreement.” 5. Management Reserve Fund: The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement Administrator with the flexibility to authorize additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included for the Management Reserve Fund is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. This fund may not be replenished. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the Management Reserve Fund shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, “Extra Work.” 6. Maximum Total Amount Payable: The Maximum Total Amount Payable by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for Extra Work as stipulated in Section XIV, “Extra Work.” No minimum amount payable is guaranteed under this AGREEMENT. B. Monthly Progress Payments: The CONSULTANT may submit billings to the AGENCY for reimbursement of Actual Costs plus the calculated overhead and fee on a monthly basis during the progress of the work. Such billings shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required under Section III, “General Requirements” of this AGREEMENT. The billings will be supported by an itemized listing for each item including Direct Salary, Direct Non-Salary, and allowable Overhead Costs to which will be added the prorated Fixed DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit D-2 Revised 6/05 Fee. To provide a means of verifying the billed salary costs for CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names, titles, salary rates, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the time of the interview. C. Final Payment: Final Payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, electronic data and other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such Final Payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment, which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said Final Payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and at the time of final audit, all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within thirty (30) days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment. The CONSULTANT has twenty (20) days after receipt of the final POST AUDIT to begin the appeal process to the AGENCY for audit findings. D. Inspection of Cost Records: The CONSULTANT and their sub-consultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY, STATE and the United States, for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this contract is initiated before the expiration of the three (3) year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit E-1 Revised 6/05 Exhibit E-1 – Consultant Fee Determination DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit E-1 Revised 6/05 Perteet, Inc. Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 | Everett, WA 98201 | PH: 425.252.7700 | FAX: 425-339-6018 Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements Project Client: City of Edmonds HOURLY COSTS PLUS FIXED FEE ESTIMATE Classification Hours Rate Cost Principal 39 x $72.12 = $2,813 Senior Associate 207 x $56.49 = $11,693 Lead Engineer/ Manager 200 x $46.63 = $9,326 Technician III 662 x $25.00 = $16,550 Senior Associate 20 x $54.81 = $1,096 Senior Planner/ Manager 46 x $43.05 = $1,980 Ecologist III 102 x $32.80 = $3,346 Engineer II 414 x $29.50 = $12,213 Lead Engineer/ Manager 228 x $43.75 = $9,975 Planner II 12 x $31.98 = $384 PLS 90 x $36.58 = $3,292 Survey Technician IV 132 x $29.75 = $3,927 Clerical 14 x $26.73 = $374 Accountant 9 x $32.00 = $288 Survey Technician IV 40 x $31.11 = $1,244 Survey Technician III 40 x $26.75 = $1,070 Total Direct Salary Costs = $79,572 Overhead Costs at 162.58 % = $129,368 Fixed Fee at 30 % = $23,872 TOTAL HOURLY COSTS = $232,812 REIMBURSABLES Copies $325 Mileage @ current IRS rate $250 Miscellaneous Vehicle Expense $75 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE COST = $650 SUBCONSULTANTS Sub Fee Markup Total Michael Minor & Associates (Air Quality) $6,000 5.0% $300 6,300$ Michael Minor & Associates (Noise) $14,220 5.0% $711 14,931$ HWA GeoSciences (Geo Tech) $33,472 5.0% $1,674 35,146$ CG Engineering (Structural) $30,541 5.0% $1,527 32,068$ Universal (Right-of-Way) $79,343 5.0% $3,967 83,310$ Universal (PFE)$6,000 5.0% $300 6,300$ TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS COST = 178,055$ OTHER Management Reserve 35,000$ TOTAL OTHER COST = 35,000$ CONTRACT TOTAL =$446,517 Prepared By : Darrell Smith, PE Date: July 26, 2011 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit F Revised 6/05 Exhibit F DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit F Revised 6/05 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit F Revised 6/05 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit F Revised 6/05 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G Revised 6/05 Exhibit G Subcontracted Work The AGENCY permits subcontracts for the following portions of the work of this AGREEMENT: Michael Minor & Associates (Air Quality/Noise) HWA GeoSciences, Inc. (Geotechnical) CG Engineering (Structural) Universal Field Services, Inc. (Right-of-Way) DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-2 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-2 Michael Minor & Associates Subconsultant Fee Determination – Summary Sheet Noise Analysis $14,220 Air Quality Analysis $ 6,000 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-3 Breakdown of Subconsultants Overhead Cost Michael Minor & Associates Title Billing Rate Overhead Profit Wage Rate Assigned SOC Code Principal $140.00 $74.05 $18.26 $47.70 172081 Senior Engineer $120.00 $63.46 $15.65 $40.89 172081 Associate Consultant $ 75.00 $39.66 $ 9.78 $25.56 172081 Note: Michael Minor & Associates does not have an audited overhead rate. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-2 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-2 HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Subconsultant Fee Determination – Summary Sheet HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements Client: City of Edmonds HOURLY COSTS PLUS FIXED FEE ESTIMATE Classification Hours Rate Cost Principal 8 x $75.48 = $604 PM 32 x $55.53 = $1,777 Eng IV 20 x $45.43 = $909 Eng III 64 x $36.05 = $2,307 Geo IV 32 x $32.45 = $1,038 Flaggers 9 x $20.00 = $180 CAD 18 x $21.63 = $389 Clerical 12 x $20.43 = $245 Total Direct Salary Costs = $7,450 Overhead Costs @ 166.33% = $12,391 Fixed Fee @ 30% = $2,235 TOTAL HOURLY COSTS = $22,075 REIMBURSABLES Mileage @ current IRS rate $200 Drilling Subcontractor $7,731 Laboratory Testing $2,516 Miscelleneous ODC's $100 Pavement Cores @ $100 per core $500 Traffic Control Signs Rental $350 TOTAL REIMBURSABLE COST = $11,397 CONTRACT TOTAL =$33,472 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-3 Breakdown of Subconsultants Overhead Cost HWA GeoSciences, Inc. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-2 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-2 CG Engineering Subconsultant Fee Determination – Summary Sheet CG Engineering Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements Project Client: City of Edmonds HOURLY COSTS PLUS FIXED FEE ESTIMATE Classification Hours Rate Cost Principal 43 x $43.27 = $1,861 Project Manager Engineer III 74 x $39.42 = $2,917 Project Engineer Engineer II 106 x $32.31 = $3,425 Staff Engineer Engineer I 0 x $26.39 = $0 CADD Drafter 78 x $23.50 = $1,833 Book Keeper 9 x $28.50 = $257 Clerical 12 x $11.00 = $132 Total Direct Salary Costs = $10,424 Overhead Costs at 162.99 % = $16,990 Fixed Fee at 30 % = $3,127 TOTAL HOURLY COSTS = $30,541 Prepared By : CG Engineering Date: July 21, 2011 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-3 Breakdown of Subconsultants Overhead Cost CG Engineering Note: CG Engineering’s most current overhead has been audited at 162.99% - paperwork pending. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-2 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-2 Universal Field Services, Inc. Subconsultant Fee Determination – Summary Sheet DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-3 Breakdown of Subconsultants Overhead Cost Universal Field Services, Inc. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-3 Revised 6/05 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit H Revised 6/05 Exhibit H Title VI Assurances During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The CONSULTANT shall comply with the Regulations relative to non- discrimination in federally assisted programs of the AGENCY, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “REGULATIONS”), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this AGREEMENT. 2. Non-discrimination: The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in the selection and retention of sub-consultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the REGULATIONS, including employment practices when the AGREEMENT covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the REGULATIONS. 3. Solicitations for Sub-consultants, Including Procurement of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiations made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a sub-contract, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-consultant or supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT’S obligations under this AGREEMENT and the REGULATIONS relative to non-discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin. 4. Information and Reports: The CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the REGULATIONS or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by AGENCY, STATE or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such REGULATIONS, orders and instructions. Where any information required of a CONOSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the CONSULTANT shall so certify to the AGENCY, STATE or the FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. 5. Sanctions for Non-compliance: In the event of the CONSULTANT’S non-compliance with the non- discrimination provisions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall impose such AGREEMENT sanctions as it, the STATE or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: • Withholding of payments to the CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT until the CONSULTANT complies, and/or; • Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the AGREEMENT, in whole or in part 6. Incorporation of Provisions: The CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (5) in every sub-contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the REGULATIONS, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any sub-consultant or procurement as the AGENCY, STATE or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for non-compliance. Provided, however, that in the event a CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub-consultant or supplier as a result of such direction, the CONSULTANT may request the AGENCY and the STATE enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the AGENCY and the STATE and, in addition, the CONSULTANT may request the United States enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit I Revised 6/05 Exhibit I Payment Upon Termination of Agreement By the Agency Other Than for Fault of the Consultant (Refer to Agreement, Section IX) Lump Sum Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made shall total the same percentage of the Lump Sum Amount as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the PROJECT. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. Specific Rates of Pay Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT plus any direct nonsalary costs incurred at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. Costs Per Unit of Work Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual units of work completed at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit J Revised 6/05 Exhibit J Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures The purpose of this exhibit is to establish a procedure to determine if a consultant’s alleged design error is of a nature that exceeds the accepted standard of care. In addition, it will establish a uniform method for the resolution and/or cost recovery procedures in those instances where the agency believes is has suffered some material damage due to the alleged error by the consultant. Step 1 – Potential Consultant Design Error(s) is Identified by Agency’s Project Manager At the first indication of potential consultant design error(s), the first step in the process is for the Agency’s project manager to notify the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer regarding the potential design error(s). For federally funded projects, the Region Highways and Local Programs Engineer should be informed and involved in these procedures. (Note: The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer may appoint an agency staff person other than the project manager, who has not been as directly involved in the project, to be responsible for the remaining steps in these procedures.) Step 2 – Project Manager Documents the Alleged Design Error(s) After discussion of the alleged design error(s) and the magnitude of the alleged error(s), and with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer’s concurrence, the project manager obtains more detailed documentation than is normally required on the project. Examples include: all decisions and descriptions of work; photographs, records of labor, materials and equipment. Step 3 – Contact the Consultant Regarding the Alleged Design Error(s) If it is determined that there is a need to proceed further, the next step in the process is for the project manager to contact the consultant regarding the alleged design error(s) and the magnitude of the alleged error(s). The project manager and other appropriate agency staff should represent the agency and the consultant should be represented by their project manager and any personnel (including sub-consultants) deemed appropriate for the alleged design error(s) issue. Step 4 – Attempt to Resolve Alleged Design Error with Consultant After the meeting(s) with the consultant have been completed regarding the consultant’s alleged design error(s), there are three possible scenarios: • It is determined via mutual agreement that there is not a consultant design error(s). If this is the case, then the process will not proceed beyond this point. • It is determined via mutual agreement that a consultant design error(s) occurred. If this is the case, then the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, or their representatives, negotiate a settlement with the consultant. The settlement would be paid to the agency for the services on the project in which the design error took place. The agency is to provide H&LP, through the Region Local Programs DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit J Revised 6/05 Engineer, a summary of the settlement for review and to make adjustments, if any, as to how the settlement affects federal reimbursements. No further action is required. • There is not a mutual agreement regarding the alleged consultant design error(s). The consultant may request that the alleged design error(s) issue be forwarded to the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer for review. If the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, after review with their legal counsel, is not able to reach mutual agreement with the consultant, proceed to Step 5. Step 5 – Forward Document to Highways and Local Programs For federally funded projects all available information, including costs, should be forwarded though the Region Highways and Local Programs Engineer to H&LP for their review and consultation with the FWA. H&LP will meet with representatives of the agency and the consultant to review the alleged design error(s), and attempt to find a resolution to the issue. If necessary, H&LP will also request assistance from the Attorney General’s Office for legal interpretation. H&LP will also identify how the alleged error(s) affects eligibility of project costs for federal reimbursement. • If mutual agreement is reached, the agency and consultant adjust the scope of work and costs to reflect the agreed upon resolution. H&LP, in consultation with FHWA, will identify the amount of federal participation in the agreed upon resolution of the issue. • If mutual agreement is not reached, the agency and consultant may seek settlement by arbitration or by litigation. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit K Revised 6/05 Exhibit K Consultant Claim Procedures The purpose of this exhibit is to describe a procedure regarding claim(s) on a consultant agreement. The following procedures should only be utilized on consultant claims greater than $1,000. If the consultant’s claim(s) are a total of $1,000 or less, it would not be cost effective to proceed through the outlined steps. It is suggested that the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the consultant’s claim(s) that total $1,000 or less. This exhibit will outline the procedures to be followed by the consultant and the agency to consider a potential claim by the consultant. Step 1 – Consultant Files a Claim with the Agency Project Manager If the consultant determines that they were requested to perform additional services that were outside of the agreement’s scope of work, they may be entitled to a claim. The first step that must be completed is the request for consideration of the claim to the Agency’s project manager. • The consultant’s claim must outline the following: • Summation of hours by classification for each firm that is included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; • Timeframe of the additional work that was outside of the project scope; • Summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs, profit and reimbursable costs associated with the additional work; and • Explanation as to why the consultant believes the additional work was outside of the agreement scope of work. Step 2 – Review by Agency Personnel Regarding the Consultant’s Claim for Additional Compensation After the consultant has completed step 1, the next step in the process is to forward the request to the Agency’s project manager. The project manager will review the consultant’s claim and will meet with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer to determine if the Agency agrees with the claim. If the FHWA is participating in the project’s funding, forward a copy of the consultant’s claim and the Agency’s recommendation for federal participation in the claim to the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs through the Region Local Programs Engineer. If the claim is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. If the Agency project manager, Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, WSDOT Highways and Local Programs (if applicable), and FHWA (if applicable) agree with the consultant’s claim, send a request memo, including backup documentation to the consultant to either supplement the agreement, or create a new agreement for the claim. After the request has been approved, the Agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. No further action is needed regarding the claim procedures. If the agency does not agree with the consultant’s claim, proceed to step 3 of the procedures. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit K Revised 6/05 Step 3 – Preparation of Support Documentation Regarding Consultant’s Claim(s) If the Agency does not agree with the consultant’s claim, the project manager shall prepare a summary for the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer that included the following: • Copy of information supplied by the consultant regarding the claim; • Agency’s summation of hours by classification for each firm that should be included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; • Agency’s summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs, profit and reimbursable costs associated with the additional work; • Explanation regarding those areas in which the Agency does/does not agree with the consultant’s claim(s); • Explanation to describe what has been instituted to preclude future consultant claim(s); and • Recommendations to resolve the claim. Step 4 – Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer Reviews Consultant Claim Agency Documentation The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer shall review and administratively approve or disapprove the claim, of portions thereof, which may include getting Agency Council or Commission approval (as appropriate to agency dispute resolution procedures). If the project involves federal participation, obtain concurrence from WSDOT Highways and Local Programs and FHWA regarding final settlement of the claim. If the claim is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. Step 5 – Informing Consultant of Decision Regarding the Claim The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer shall notify (in writing) the consultant of their final decision regarding the consultant’s claim(s). Include the final dollar amount of the accepted claim(s) and rationale utilized for the decision. Step 6 – Preparation of Supplement or New Agreement for the Consultant’s Claim(s) The agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-1(a) Revised 6/05 Exhibit M-1(a) Certification of Consultant I hereby certify that I am Crystal L. Donner, President and duly authorized representative of the firm of Perteet, Inc. whose address is 2707 Colby Ave., #900, Everett, WA 98201 and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has: (a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) to solicit or secure the AGREEMENT; (b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out this AGREEMENT; or (c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this AGREEMENT; except as hereby expressly stated (if any); I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal-aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. ______________________________ _____________________________ Date Signature DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-1(b) Revised 6/05 Exhibit M-1(b) Certification of Agency Official I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of the CITY OF EDMONDS , Washington, and that the consulting firm or its representative has not been required, directly or indirectly as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this AGREEMENT to: (a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ to retain, any firm or person; or (b) Pay, or agree to pay, to any firm, person, or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind; except as hereby expressly stated (if any): I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal-aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Date Signature DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-2 Revised 6/05 Exhibit M-2 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions I. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: A. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; B. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; C. Are not presently indicted for otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (I)(B) of this certification; and D. Have not within a three (3) year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default. II. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Consultant (Firm): Perteet, Inc. _____________________ _________________________________________ (Date) (Signature) President or Authorized Official of Consultant DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-3 Revised 6/05 Exhibit M-3 Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the use of Federal Funds for Lobbying The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed $10,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Consultant (Firm): Perteet, Inc. _____________________ _________________________________________ (Date) (Signature) President or Authorized Official of Consultant DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-4 Revised 6/05 Exhibit M-4 Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in section 15.401 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection 15.403-4) submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the contracting officer’s representative in support of _________________________________* are accurate, complete, and current as of _______________________________**. This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal. Firm Perteet, Inc. Name Crystal L. Donner Title President Date of Execution*** * Identify the proposal, quotation, request for price adjustment, or other submission involved, giving the appropriate identifying number (e.g., RFP No.). ** Insert the day, month, and year when price negotiations were concluded and price agreement was reached. *** Insert the day, month, and year of signing, which should be as close as practicable to the date when the price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to. AM-4115   Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 08/02/2011 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Sound Transit Update Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Sound Transit representatives will be attending the August 2, 2011 City Council meeting to present an update on Sound Transit Activities. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 07/28/2011 02:39 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 07/29/2011 09:27 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/29/2011 12:23 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 07/27/2011 01:30 PM Final Approval Date: 07/29/2011  AM-4114   Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 08/02/2011 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action   Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action regarding three ordinances placing propositions on the November 8, 2011 General Election. A. An Ordinance relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at the November 8, 2011 General Election of a proposition authorizing an increase in the regular property tax levy in excess of the increase otherwise allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW to help maintain current levels of service in Public Safety, Parks, and other City services; setting forth the ballot title therefore; requesting that the Snohomish County Auditor place the proposition on the November 8, 2011 ballot; and fixing the time when the same shall become effective. B. An Ordinance relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at the November 8, 2011 General Election of a proposition authorizing an increase in the regular property tax levy in excess of the increase otherwise allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW to fund street pavement overlays; setting forth the ballot title therefore; requesting that the Snohomish County Auditor place the proposition on the November 8, 2011 ballot; and fixing the time when the same shall become effective. C. An Ordinance relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at the November 8, 2011 General Election of a proposition authorizing an increase in the regular property tax levy in excess of the increase otherwise allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW to fund building maintenance and park improvements; setting forth the ballot title therefore; requesting that the Snohomish County Auditor place the proposition on the November 8, 2011 ballot; and fixing the time when the same shall become effective. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Attached for Council consideration are copies of the three ordinances referenced above. Attached for Council consideration are copies of the three ordinances referenced above. Attachments Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 07/29/2011 01:15 PM Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/29/2011 01:17 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/27/2011 01:30 PM Final Approval Date: 07/29/2011  ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO HELP MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 provides for the levy of regular property taxes in an amount exceeding the limitations specified in chapter 84.55 RCW if such increased levy is authorized by a ballot proposition approved by a majority of the voters at an election held within the taxing district (a “levy lid lift”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition under RCW 84.55.050(1) to the voters for their approval or rejection; and WHEREAS, according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2011 Taxes, the City of Edmonds regular property tax levy for 2011 amounted to $9,499,558.01; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds 2011 regular property tax levy rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation was 1.47663233; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds also has an additional EMS levy rate that is fixed at 0.5 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds also has an additional 2011 levy rate 0.14572144 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for G.O. bonds related to public safety; and WHEREAS, in 2011 these three rates combined to create a total City of Edmonds levy rate of 2.12235377 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds assessed valuation for 2011 was $6,433,258,853; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office estimates that the City’s 2012 assessed value will be approximately $5,794,962,200; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds can increase its regular property tax levy by 1% each year without voter approval; and WHEREAS, in 2012 the City of Edmonds could levy regular property taxes (which do not include the EMS levy and the GO bond levy) of approximately $9,594,553.59 without voter approval and without including any increased revenue associated with new construction; and WHEREAS, without any additional voter authorization, the City of Edmonds regular property tax levy rate for 2012 would be approximately 1.655671471 per $1,000 in assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to ask the voters whether they are willing to fund an additional One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) to help maintain current levels of service in public safety, parks, and other city services through a levy lid lift for each of the years 2012, 2013, and 2014; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Levy Lid Lift Election Called For. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the Edmonds City Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking whether the City shall levy regular property taxes in excess of the limitation established in RCW 84.55.010. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish County, is hereby requested to call and conduct the election referenced herein in the City of Edmonds on November 8, 2011. The proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the City for their approval or rejection is to authorize increasing the City’s regular property tax levy by 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to a total regular (not including EMS or GO bond) property tax levy rate of 1.82823515 per one thousand dollars of assessed valuation (if only this proposition passes), for collection beginning in 2012. If this proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular budget process, an increased regular property tax as described herein. Section 2. Purpose of Levy and Description of Ballot Proposition. For the purposes identified below, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW 84.55.050 for a levy lid lift, as follows: (a) Purpose. The amounts collected pursuant to the increase authorized by the Proposition may be used to help maintain current levels of service in public safety, parks, and other city services. (b) Increase Authorized Beginning in 2012. The Proposition authorizes a maximum increase in the City’s total levy rate to the maximum rate otherwise allowed for collection in 2012 under chapter 84.55 RCW plus not to exceed 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed value. The total regular property tax rate produced is estimated to be approximately 1.82823515 per $1,000 of assessed value (if only this proposition passes), based on estimated 2012 assessed values. (c) Increase Authorized for Future Years through 2014. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the dollar amount of the maximum authorized levy under chapter 84.55 RCW for collection in 2012 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in 2013 and 2014 provided for under chapter 84.55 RCW, and such funds shall be limited to the purposes described in Section 2(a), above. Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is here by authorized and directed, not later than August 16, 2011, to certify a copy of this ordinance and a proposition to the Auditor of Snohomish County, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections in Snohomish County Washington, in substantially the following form: CITY OF EDMONDS PROPOSITION NO. __ Levy to Help Maintain Current Levels of Service in Public Safety, Parks, and Other City Services The Edmonds City Council has passed Ordinance No. _____ to place before the voters property taxes to help maintain current levels of service in public safety, parks, and other city services. This proposition would authorize an increase in the regular property tax rate for collection in 2012 of 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, for a total regular property tax rate (if only this proposition passes) of 1.82823515 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Use of the additional 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed valuation would help maintain current levels of service in public safety, parks, and other city services. The 2012 levy amount would become the basis upon which levy increases would be computed for 2013 and 2014. Should this proposition be approved? YES ___________ NO ___________ Section 4. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Ordinance as approved by the City Council. Section 5. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving notice of the exact language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A.36.080, the City Council hereby designates the City Clerk. Section 6. Severability. The recitals stated above (i.e., the “Whereas” clauses) constitute specific findings by the City Council in support of passage of this ordinance. If any provision of this ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance, and shall in no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of any other ordinance or resolution, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds at a regular open public meeting thereof this _____ day of _____, 2011. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 4845-8302-2346, v. 3 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ______ 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO HELP MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE 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 ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 provides for the levy of regular property taxes in an amount exceeding the limitations specified in chapter 84.55 RCW if such increased levy is authorized by a ballot proposition approved by a majority of the voters at an election held within the taxing district (a “levy lid lift”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition under RCW 84.55.050(1) to the voters for their approval or rejection; and WHEREAS, according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2011 Taxes, the City of Edmonds regular property tax levy for 2011 amounted to $9,499,558.01; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds 2011 regular property tax levy rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation was 1.47663233; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds also has an additional EMS levy rate that is fixed at 0.5 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds also has an additional 2011 levy rate 0.14572144 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for G.O. bonds related to public safety; and WHEREAS, in 2011 these three rates combined to create a total City of Edmonds levy rate of 2.12235377 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds assessed valuation for 2011 was $6,433,258,853; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office estimates that the City’s 2012 assessed value will be approximately $5,794,962,200; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds can increase its regular property tax levy by 1% each year without voter approval; and WHEREAS, in 2012 the City of Edmonds could levy regular property taxes (which do not include the EMS levy and the GO bond levy) of approximately $9,594,553.59 without voter approval and without including any increased revenue associated with new construction; and WHEREAS, without any additional voter authorization, the City of Edmonds regular property tax levy rate for 2012 would be approximately 1.655671471 per $1,000 in assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to ask the voters whether they are willing to fund an additional One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) to fund street pavement overlays through a levy lid lift for each of the years 2012, 2013, and 2014; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Levy Lid Lift Election Called For. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the Edmonds City Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking whether the City shall levy regular property taxes in excess of the limitation established in RCW 84.55.010. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish County, is hereby requested to call and conduct the election referenced herein in the City of Edmonds on November 8, 2011. The proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the City for their approval or rejection is to authorize increasing the City’s regular property tax levy by 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to a total regular (not including EMS or GO bond) property tax levy rate of 1.82823515 per one thousand dollars of assessed valuation (if only this proposition passes), for collection beginning in 2012. If this proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular budget process, an increased regular property tax as described herein. Section 2. Purpose of Levy and Description of Ballot Proposition. For the purposes identified below, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW 84.55.050 for a levy lid lift, as follows: (a) Purpose. The amounts collected pursuant to the increase authorized by the Proposition may be used to fund street pavement overlays. (b) Increase Authorized Beginning in 2012. The Proposition authorizes a maximum increase in the City’s total levy rate to the maximum rate otherwise allowed for collection in 2012 under chapter 84.55 RCW plus not to exceed 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed value. The total regular property tax rate produced is estimated to be approximately 1.82823515 per $1,000 of assessed value (if only this proposition passes), based on estimated 2012 assessed values. (c) Increase Authorized for Future Years through 2014. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the dollar amount of the maximum authorized levy under chapter 84.55 RCW for collection in 2012 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in 2013 and 2014 provided for under chapter 84.55 RCW, and such funds shall be limited to the purposes described in Section 2(a), above. Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is here by authorized and directed, not later than August 16, 2011, to certify a copy of this ordinance and a proposition to the Auditor of Snohomish County, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections in Snohomish County Washington, in substantially the following form: CITY OF EDMONDS PROPOSITION NO. __ Levy for Street Pavement Overlays The Edmonds City Council has passed Ordinance No. _____ to place before the voters property taxes to fund street pavement overlays. This proposition would authorize an increase in the regular property tax rate for collection in 2012 of 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, for a total regular property tax rate (if only this proposition passes) of 1.82823515 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Use of the additional 0.17256368 per $1,000 of assessed valuation would fund street pavement overlays. The 2012 levy amount would become the basis upon which levy increases would be computed for 2013 and 2014. Should this proposition be approved? YES ___________ NO ___________ Section 4. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Ordinance as approved by the City Council. Section 5. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving notice of the exact language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A.36.080, the City Council hereby designates the City Clerk. Section 6. Severability. The recitals stated above (i.e., the “Whereas” clauses) constitute specific findings by the City Council in support of passage of this ordinance. If any provision of this ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance, and shall in no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of any other ordinance or resolution, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds at a regular open public meeting thereof this ___ day of _____, 2011. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 4844-6466-8170, v. 1 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ______ 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE 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 ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 provides for the levy of regular property taxes in an amount exceeding the limitations specified in chapter 84.55 RCW if such increased levy is authorized by a ballot proposition approved by a majority of the voters at an election held within the taxing district (a “levy lid lift”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition under RCW 84.55.050(1) to the voters for their approval or rejection; and WHEREAS, according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2011 Taxes, the City of Edmonds regular property tax levy for 2011 amounted to $9,499,558.01; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds 2011 regular property tax levy rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation was 1.47663233; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds also has an additional EMS levy rate that is fixed at 0.5 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds also has an additional 2011 levy rate 0.14572144 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for G.O. bonds related to public safety; and WHEREAS, in 2011 these three rates combined to create a total City of Edmonds levy rate of 2.12235377 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds assessed valuation for 2011 was $6,433,258,853; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office estimates that the City’s 2012 assessed value will be approximately $5,794,962,200; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds can increase its regular property tax levy by 1% each year without voter approval; and WHEREAS, in 2012 the City of Edmonds could levy regular property taxes (which do not include the EMS levy and the GO bond levy) of approximately $9,594,553.59 without voter approval and without including any increased revenue associated with new construction; and WHEREAS, without any additional voter authorization, the City of Edmonds regular property tax levy rate for 2012 would be approximately 1.655671471 per $1,000 in assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to ask the voters whether they are willing to fund an additional Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) to fund building maintenance and park improvements through a levy lid lift for each of the years 2012, 2013, and 2014; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Levy Lid Lift Election Called For. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, the Edmonds City Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking whether the City shall levy regular property taxes in excess of the limitation established in RCW 84.55.010. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish County, is hereby requested to call and conduct the election referenced herein in the City of Edmonds on November 8, 2011. The proposition to be submitted to the qualified voters of the City for their approval or rejection is to authorize increasing the City’s regular property tax levy by 0.08628184 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to a total regular (not including EMS or GO bond) property tax levy rate of 1.74195331 per one thousand dollars of assessed valuation (if only this proposition passes), for collection beginning in 2012. If this proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular budget process, an increased regular property tax as described herein. Section 2. Purpose of Levy and Description of Ballot Proposition. For the purposes identified below, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW 84.55.050 for a levy lid lift, as follows: (a) Purpose. The amounts collected pursuant to the increase authorized by the Proposition may be used to fund building maintenance and park improvements. (b) Increase Authorized Beginning in 2012. The Proposition authorizes a maximum increase in the City’s total levy rate to the maximum rate otherwise allowed for collection in 2012 under chapter 84.55 RCW plus not to exceed 0.08628184 per $1,000 of assessed value. The total regular property tax rate produced is estimated to be approximately 1.74195331 per $1,000 of assessed value (if only this proposition passes), based on estimated 2012 assessed values. (c) Increase Authorized for Future Years through 2014. Pursuant to RCW 84.55.050(4), the dollar amount of the maximum authorized levy under chapter 84.55 RCW for collection in 2012 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies in 2013 and 2014 provided for under chapter 84.55 RCW, and such funds shall be limited to the purposes described in Section 2(a), above. Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is here by authorized and directed, not later than August 16, 2011, to certify a copy of this ordinance and a proposition to the Auditor of Snohomish County, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections in Snohomish County Washington, in substantially the following form: CITY OF EDMONDS PROPOSITION NO. __ Levy for Building Maintenance and Park Improvements The Edmonds City Council has passed Ordinance No. _____ to place before the voters property taxes to fund building maintenance and park improvements. This proposition would authorize an increase in the regular property tax rate for collection in 2012 of 0.08628184 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, for a total regular property tax rate (if only this proposition passes) of 1.74195331 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Use of the additional 0.08628184 per $1,000 of assessed valuation would fund building maintenance and park improvements. The 2012 levy amount would become the basis upon which levy increases would be computed for 2013 and 2014. Should this proposition be approved? YES ___________ NO ___________ Section 4. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Ordinance as approved by the City Council. Section 5. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving notice of the exact language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A.36.080, the City Council hereby designates the City Clerk. Section 6. Severability. The recitals stated above (i.e., the “Whereas” clauses) constitute specific findings by the City Council in support of passage of this ordinance. If any provision of this ordinance is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining provisions of this ordinance, and shall in no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this ordinance or of any other ordinance or resolution, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds at a regular open public meeting thereof this ___ day of _____, 2011. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 4841-6287-4890, v. 1 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ______ 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE 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 AM-4118   Item #: 6. City Council Meeting Date: 08/02/2011 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilman D.J. wilson Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding a Diversity Commission Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Edmonds, like our neighboring areas, is increasingly diverse. According to the 2010 census, 9.9% of Edmonds residents are classified as “foreign born.” Moreover, 11.6% of Edmonds residents speak a language other than English in the home. The City of Edmonds has responded to this important and changing demographic by highlighting and promoting the International District on Highway 99. The Council is also on record supporting the creation of a Human Rights Commission at Snohomish County with the express authority to investigate threats or actions taken against our diverse community. However, the diversity in Edmonds goes beyond language and ethnicity. Edmonds is also one of the more economically diverse cities in our region, home to some of the most affluent citizens of Puget Sound, and some of the more disadvantaged populations as well.  Increases in age diversity is apparent, as well. Edmonds has a significant and active senior citizen community, and has attracted recently an influx of young families.  Edmonds is home to wide range of sexual orientations, as well. Our community includes one of the Legislature’s openly gay members in Rep. Marko Liias, and active LGBT organizations in our high schools. Stacy Gardea and Carol Schillios wish to address the Council on the possibilities of creating a Diversity Commission as well as a Youth Commission. The discussion for Council is informational and meant to determine whether Council would like to develop an ordinance for future consideration and discussion.  Attached to this agenda is an ordinance from Lynnwood. It is for informational purposes only, and will not be a model Edmonds follows. Also attached is a resolution expressing the interest of the Council to see future ordinances and discussion regarding the creation of a Diversity and/or Youth Commission. Attach 1 - Diversity Commission Resolution  Attach 2 - Lynnwood Diversity Ord. Attachments Attach 1 - Diversity Commission Resolution Attach 2 - Lynnwood Diversity Ord. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 07/28/2011 02:39 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 07/29/2011 09:27 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/29/2011 12:23 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 07/28/2011 11:16 AM Final Approval Date: 07/29/2011  No: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF AN ORDINANCE(S) FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUTURE DELIBERATION REGARDING THE CREATION OF COMMISSION STRUCTURES RELATED TO OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT Whereas, the City Council recognizes the increasing demographic, economic, ethnic and other diversity arising within and around the City of Edmonds, and Whereas, the City Council appreciates the efforts by citizen leaders who wish to make our city government even more inclusive and engaging of our diverse community, and Whereas, the City Council sees future deliberation on the creation of formal commission structures to further support these citizen efforts and with which to prioritize City efforts to reach out and engage relevant communities, Now Therefore be it Resolved that the Council supports the creation of an ordinance(s) for the purposes of future deliberation regarding the creation of commission structures related to outreach, education, and engagement, and be it Further Resolved that the Council recognizes and appreciates the diversity within our Edmonds community and recognizes those populations may warrant additional effort on the part of the City to engage in our representative form of democracy. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _____, 2011. ____________________________________ MAYOR, MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO: CITY OF L YNN\VOOD ORDINANCE NO.2488 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD, '¥ASHINGTON,ESTABLISIDNG A NEW CHAPTER OF THE LYNNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY COMl\USSION AND SETTING FORnI THE DUTIES, MEMBERSHIP,AND APPLICATION OF ADVISORY BODY GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO;AND ALSO PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR SUl\1MARY PUBLICATION. WHEREAS,the national 2000 census provides important objective information on racial and ethnic diversity;on the aging,income,employment and standard of living of our citizens, and also on housing and places of work;and 'VHEREAS,the national 2000 census shows that the City of Lynnwood is rapidly becoming a more demographically diverse community and home to people from many different cultures and countries;and WHEREAS,the Lynnwood City Council has previously adopted Resolution No.2002- 19 supporting our citizens'efforts to participate in encouraging mutual understanding about our increasing demographic diversity in our city through a diversity project;and WHEREAS,Resolution No.2002-19 stated in paragraph 6,«that upon recommendations of the citizens involved in the diversity project,the City of Lynnwood will consider and determine the nature and scope of the types of support which it can provide to most likely ensure the success of the project in OUT community;"and 'WHEREAS,a citizens Diversity Task Force has presented to the Lynnwood City Council its report and recommendations dated February 23,2004;and 'VHEREAS,the members of the Diversity Task Force and the City of Lynnwood have been recognized by the Association for Washington Cities for its leadership in developing a diversity project;and \VHEREAS,good stewardship of our city and community means making and following through on commitments to reach out to our citizens,and ensuring that City Government and its Internal Operations,programs and services are accessible and understandable by everyone,and in helping strengthen our sense of community;and WHEREAS,RCW 35A.l1 authorizes the City Council to organize and regulate internal city operations and processes,and to define the functions,duties and authority of city officers and staff; NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY LYNNWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1.New Lynnwood Municipal Code Chapter and Sections.There is hereby IfIII Position No.1:Ending December 31,2006 Position NO.2:Ending December 31,2006 Position No.3:Ending December 31,2006 Position No.4:Ending December 31.2007 Position No.5:Ending December 31,2007 Position No.6:Ending December 31,2007 Position No.7:Ending December 31,2007 established in the Lynnwood Municipal Code,Chapter 2.58 entitled,"Neighborhoods & Demographic Diversity Advisory Commission."Each section herein,is a new section to be included within Chapter 2.58. 2.58.010 Created. There is hereby created and established a Neighborhood and Demographic Diversity Advisory Commission of the city of Lynnwood composed of seven members as hereinafter provided. 2.58.020 Duties. The commission is hereby declared to be an advisory body of the city of Lynnwood whose duties shall be to monitor demographic trends in our city and to identify and recommend to the mayor and city council ways to encourage mutual understanding among our citizens about the increasing demographic di versity of our city through,but not limited to: 1.Connecting and partnering with neighborhood,community,educational, business,and social service groups and organizations; 2.Sponsoring city-wide,neighborhood and community events,which would include opportunities for heritage and cultural events;and 3.Programs for engaging citizens and community leaders in an wholistic approach including dialogues,education,and training about diversity issues. 2.58.030 Membership appointment -Term. Members of the commission shall be appointed to a position for a term of two years (or for fulfillment of an unexpired term).Appointees shall serve terms as follows: Any person may be removed from the commission by the mayor,with approval of the city council. 2.58.040 General Advisory Provisions -Compliance The commission structure,operations and appointments thereto,shall comply with the general provisions for advisory bodies in LMC 2.24. Section 2.Severability.If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause OT phrase of this ordinance. SIGNED AND APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Lynnwood,Washington,this 12th day of October,2004. Section 3.Effective Date and Summary Publication.This ordinance,being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body,is not subject to referendum,and shall take effect January 1,2005 and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lynnwood,Washington,at its regular meeting held the 11th day of October,2004. Attested!Authenticated by: ~'--¥'-'ic~~~-!e---r=fo~~~'~~ Finance Director Approved As To Fonn Office of the City Attorney: