2011.12.13 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
____________________________________________________
DECEMBER 13, 2011
6:00 P.M.
City Council Committee Meetings
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
1.Community Services/Development Services Committee
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A. (5 Minutes)Report on final project costs for 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement Project and Council acceptance of
Project.
B. (5 Minutes)Report on final construction costs for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project and acceptance of
project.
C. (5 Minutes)Authorization to approve an easement for installation of storm pipe and a catch basin at 220 7th Ave N.
D. (5 Minutes)2012 CDBG Application Resolution
E. (15 Minutes)Discussion regarding draft revisions to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and addition of a definition of
outdoor dining to ECDC 21.75. (File No. AMD20110005)
F. (10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)
2.Finance Committee
Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room
A. (15 Minutes)Non-represented employee compensation ordinance.
B. (15 Minutes)Holiday and Kelly day buy back EPOA and Law Support.
C. (10 Minutes)Reserve Policy
D. (10 Minutes)Investment Policy
E. (10 Minutes)Amendment #16 to Seattle Fiber Partners Agreement.
Packet Page 1 of 180
F. (10 Minutes)General Fund Update - October 2011
G. (10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)
3.Public Safety/Human Resources Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A. (10 Minutes)Orchid Cellmark DNA Testing
B. (30 Minutes)Discussion regarding Governor's proposal to legalize medical marijuana.
Packet Page 2 of 180
AM-4426 Item #: 1. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final project costs for 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement Project and Council acceptance of Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the December 20, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On July19, 2011, Council authorized the Mayor to award a contract in the amount of $59,935 to Trenchless Construction
Services, LLC.
Narrative
The 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement Project is now complete and the project was inspected and accepted by City
staff. The final construction cost for the contractor is $66,503, including one change order in the amount of $6,568. The
project costs were paid by the 412-200 Stormwater Utility Fund.
Attached is a letter from the property owner at 1025 12th Ave expressing her satisfaction with how the project was managed
and constructed.
Attachments
Attachment 1-Citizen Letter
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 12/08/2011 03:03 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/08/2011 03:37 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 05:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/09/2011 07:44 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2011 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 12/08/2011 12:04 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/09/2011
Packet Page 3 of 180
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
8
0
AM-4425 Item #: 1. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project and acceptance of project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the December 20, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On November 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to call for bids for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project.
On March 8, 2011, the CSDS committee recommended Council award a contract to Omega Contractors for the construction of
the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project.
On March 15, 2011 Council awarded a contract to Omega Contractors, Inc. for the construction of the Alderwood Intertie and
Reservoir Improvement Project.
Narrative
The Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project is now complete and was inspected and accepted by City staff. The
final construction cost for the contractor is $230,732. Two change orders were processed during construction. The first
change order amended the contract completion time and the second change order was $6,445. The project costs were paid by
the 412-100 Water Utility Fund.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 12/08/2011 01:49 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/08/2011 03:37 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 05:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/09/2011 07:45 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2011 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 12/08/2011 10:50 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/09/2011
Packet Page 6 of 180
AM-4421 Item #: 1. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:JoAnne Zulauf Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to approve an easement for installation of storm pipe and a catch basin at 220 7th Ave N.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the December 20, 2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The proposed easement is for the installation of storm pipe and a catch basin to resolve stormwater issues at 220 7th Ave N.
The installation will include a storm catch basin at the southeast corner of the property to collect stormwater from the public
alley (adjacent to the property to the south). A new pipe will convey the storm water from the new catch basin to an existing
catch basin located on Edmonds St (adjacent to the property to the north). The property owner has signed and approved the
documents which will dedicate the easement to the City. See Exhibit A for easement limits and Exhibit B for easement
documents.
Attachments
Exhibit A-Easement Limits
Exhibit B-Easement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Megan Cruz 12/08/2011 12:33 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/08/2011 03:37 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 05:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/09/2011 07:46 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2011 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 12/07/2011 04:28 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/09/2011
Packet Page 7 of 180
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
8
0
Page 1 Storm Water Easement
Return Address:
City Clerk
City of Edmonds
121 - 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
UTILITY EASEMENT
Property Address:
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.:
IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, Kathrine Stojkovic,
hereby grants to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the installation,
operation, and maintenance of a Storm Easement, over, across, through, and below the following described property,
and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location,
construction, and maintenance of said Storm Easement, together with the right of access to the easement at any time
for the stated purpose.
Tax Parcel: 00434208600100,
Also known as Lots 1, 2, and 3 of City of Edmonds Blk 086, according to the Plat therof,
recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, Page 39, Records of Snohomish County, Washington.
The easement hereby granted is located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described as follows:
The East 5 feet as measured along the east line of parcel described as City of Edmonds Blk 086, Lots 1, 2,
and 3;
2.5 feet on either side of centerline of storm drainage structure, pipes and appurtenances existing, as
constructed and as shown on Exhibit “A”.
THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed
during the construction, maintenance, and repair of said utility or utilities, provided the grantors, their heirs, or
assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement.
DATED THIS DAY OF 20
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the individual
described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that signed the same
as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 20
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
Packet Page 9 of 180
AM-4422 Item #: 1. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
2012 CDBG Application Resolution
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve moving the proposed resolution forward for the full Council to take action via the consent agenda on December 20,
2011.
Previous Council Action
In 2010, the Council approved Resolution #1235 in support of the CDBG application and authorizing the mayor to make
formal application for the funding. Likewise, in 2007, and in preceding years, the Council has consistently given its approval
for the applications in support of other project work proposed to be funded through the Community Development Block Grant
(formerly HUD) Program.
Narrative
The CDBG process is administered locally through Snohomish County and has already provided funding for vital and
necessary work such as the elevator replacement, fire alarm system replacement, kitchen refurbishment, roof repairs, and other
significant improvements at the Edmonds Senior Center. These grants are competitive in nature and are scored to rank project
request priority by a Technical Advisory Committee composed of representatives from various local municipal organizations.
One particular requirement that applies to Edmonds during every cycle is that the City Council must pass a resolution in
support of the request that also authorizes the mayor to make formal application for project funding assistance. The projects
being requested this year are for siding replacement on the Puget Sound face of the Center, for renewing the upstairs
restrooms, and for floor repair work to the interior in the lobby and library. The total value of the request being made for
CDBG funding is $161,248.
In order to maintain eligibility for this application, Snohomish County must receive a fully signed copy of this resolution no
later than January 15, 2012. A copy of the application itself is attached to this agenda item as well as the proposed resolution.
Attachments
CDBG Application Resolution
2012 CDBG Application
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 12/08/2011 03:37 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 05:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/09/2011 07:45 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2011 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 12/07/2011 05:20 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/09/2011
Packet Page 10 of 180
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (HUD) FUNDING.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has historically applied for
Community Development Block Grant (HUD) Funds; and,
WHEREAS, The Snohomish county CDBG Consortium announces the availability of
2012 funds for non-housing capital projects through the CDBG program; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds owns the Edmonds Senior Center
located at 220 Railroad Avenue and leases the facility at a nominal cost to the Edmonds Senior Center, a
non-profit program for senior citizen activities and services; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council of Edmonds has recognized the Senior Center Siding
Replacement, Restroom Repairs, and Floor Repairs Projects for application of CDBG funding; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds considers it in the public interest to
support and submit the application for CDBG project work for the Edmonds Senior Center.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to make formal application to the Snohomish
County Community Development Block Grant Consortium for funding assistance.
Section 2.
The CBG funding assistance so received shall be used for siding replacement,
restroom repairs, and floor repairs at the Edmonds Senior Center, 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds,
Washington.
Section 3.
This resolution shall form part of a formal application to the Snohomish
County Community Development Block Grant Consortium.
RESOLVED this 20th
day of December, 2011.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 11 of 180
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
2012 PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE
APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION
Date Received:
Applications which are incomplete or late will not be considered for funding.
This Application is available on the Snohomish County website in Microsoft Word at:
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/
1. Title of Proposed Project:
Edmonds Senior Center Refurbishment Project
2. Project Location (street address or nearest intersection and applicable zip code)
*zip code required:
220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020
3. Proposed Use of CDBG Funds (Summarize in one or two sentences what the
CDBG funds would be used for:
Replace the failing wood siding on the west wall; renovate the 1st & 2nd floor
restrooms; and level and repair the lobby and library floors.
4. Project Cost
a) CDBG Funds Requested: $ 161,248 b) Total Project Cost $ 232,026
5. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED. THE APPLICANT
UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE POLICIES, RULES AND
REGULATIONS REFERENCED IN THE APPLICATION IF FUNDING IS AWARDED.
Applicant /Agency Name and Mailing Address: Authorized Signature of Applicant:
Public Works
City of Edmonds Signature
700 Main St Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Edmonds, WA 98020 Name and Title
phil.williams@ci.edmonds.wa.us
E-mail Address
Applicants must summit a copy of
their Board Or City Council minutes
authorizing submittal of this
application or make other
arrangements by calling 425-388-3264
Contact person: (list person responsible
for answering questions about the
application)
Farrell Fleming
Copy of Authorization is Attached.
Yes No Name
425-774-5555, ext. 103
If applying for more than one project,
what priority is this project? __n/a__
91-600-1244
Telephone Number with Area Code
execdirector@scscedmonds.org
Organizations Federal Taxpayer ID No. E-mail Address
Packet Page 12 of 180
2
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING: COMPLETE SECTIONS 1 through 4
1. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
A. Describe, in one or two sentences, what you plan to acquire, construct or
rehabilitate with the CDBG funds.
Our project has three subprojects, which can be done separately.
(1) Replace the wood siding and supporting structure as necessary on the west (water)
side of the senior center. (2) Renovate the first and second floor restrooms in the two story
CMU building. (3) Level and replace the flooring in the main entrance lobby and adjoining
library/classroom.
B. Please complete the following:
Organization’s Executive Director: Name/Title: Dave Earling, Mayor
E-Mail: dave.earling@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-0247 425-771-0252
Manager: Name/Title:PhilWilliams, DirectorPublic Works
E-Mail: phil.willias@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-0220 425-744-6057
Financial Contact: Name/Title: Megan Cruz, Engineering Div.
E-Mail: Mcruz@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-0220 425-771-0221
Designated Project Manager Name/Title: Jim Stevens, Facilities Mgr.
E-Mail: Jstevens@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-3334 425-771-5316
C. How many years has the Organization been in business?
The City of Edmonds was incorporated in 1890. The Edmonds Senior Center has been
incorporated as a non-profit agency since 1968 and in its current building since 1973.
D. Indicate the Organization’s corporate status (nonprofit, Municipal Corporation, local
government).
Non-profit agency
Municipality Corporations
Other local government: indicate type ____________________.
Packet Page 13 of 180
3
E. Describe ability and experience in government contract administration. Include
knowledge of federal regulations governing acquisition, procurement, Equal
Employment Opportunity and labor standards.
The City of Edmonds has extensive experience in all of the above areas and has
managed many federal grants including several successful projects at this senior center since
1979.
F. State whether the Organization has written policies and procedures for personnel
and financial management. Include a copy of the Table of Contents to the policies
or a list of policies and procedures.
Yes
G. Non-profit Organizations please complete i through v, public agencies skip to
part H: N/A
i. Date of incorporation____________.
ii. What is the composition of the Board and how are members chosen?
Attach a list of Board Members or other governing body; list must include name,
occupation or affiliation of each member and must identify the principal officers
of the governing body.
iii. What is the Board’s knowledge and level of involvement with the proposed
project?
iv. What are the major sources of support for the Organization?
v. Describe the Organization’s program/development goals for the next two
to three years.
H. Identify all of the Organization’s CDBG funded projects awarded in the past five
years and the status of each:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Project Name Project Number Amount of
Award
Completed in
time originally
specified in
contract?
Yes No
Completed
within original
budget?
Yes No
South County
Senior Center
(AKA: Edmonds Senior
Center)
CDBG-F 2005
#01
$200,000 Yes (fire alarm)
No(front entrance)
Yes (fire alarm)
Yes
Packet Page 14 of 180
4
I. If any answers to (4) or (5) above are no, please explain.
CDBG 2005 Project: The front entrance part of this project was delayed due to changes in
management staff, securing additional state funding, and permit delays. The project was
completed in March 2010.
J. Has the Organization received any audit findings in the past three years? If yes,
what were they and how were they resolved?
Yes – resolution described in question 11
K. Attach a copy of your last audit, or, if you have already submitted a copy to
OHCD, indicate the date of the audit and the date you submitted it.
July 30, 2009 Audit attached.
L. What licenses does the Organization need in order to operate, if any, and are
they current?
N/A
M. State whether the Organization has general liability insurance coverage as well
as professional liability for licensed professionals.
Yes
2. PROJECT SOUNDNESS
A. Specify the approximate size of the project in square feet or lineal feet. Describe all
contemplated actions which logically are either geographically or functionally part of
the project regardless of the source of funding.
The primary objective of the project is to rehabilitate several significant areas of our
building that are exhibiting substantial structural deficiencies.
The area for the proposed project work totals approximately 4,878 SF and encompasses
2,600 SF of siding located along the west side of the building, 528 SF in the bathrooms and
1750 SF in the main lobby & library.
The deteriorated siding on the western wall of approximately 2,600 will be replaced with
cement siding and any problems with framing and insulation that are discovered as part of
this process will be addressed. The project includes new doors and windows to replace the
existing units in this wall.
In the bathrooms on both floors the objective is to remove the floor covering, determine
the extent of the diminished structural integrity, make repairs as needed and replace the
flooring, urinals, sinks, counters and stalls. The existing toilets will remain. Each of the two
upstairs bathrooms is 120 sq. ft. and each of the two main floor bathrooms is 144 sq. ft.
Packet Page 15 of 180
5
In the main lobby and adjacent library (1750 Ss. Ft.) the intent is to remove the floor
covering, assess the structural integrity of the subfloor, address any problems that are likely
to be discovered, apply a filler to level the floor and replace the carpeting.
i. Describe what role the Snohomish County CDBG funds will play in developing
the project. (Do not describe the importance of the project; describe the need
for the CDBG dollars to make the project work financially.)
CDBG funding is essential to this project as it is the largest single source of funding,
upon which the non-profit senior center can secure the necessary additional funding.
ii. Describe other funding sources that have been considered and/or applied for,
and explain why these funds are not being sought or have been denied for the
project.
As the County staff has determined that approximately 40% of the west wall is not
eligible for CDBG as it houses the senior center thrift store (totally staffed by
volunteers) No other funding sources have been applied for at this time. In our planning
five years ago we had hoped to cover the costs of the siding replacement and CMU
waterproofing out of the 2007-09 CTED grant received by the non-profit South County
Senior Center (aka Edmonds Senior Center). However, the costs of refurbishing the
roof and covered breezeway (from the main front entrance to the street sidewalk)
exhausted the CTED funds.
iii. Describe what will happen if the County is unable to provide financing at this
time. Include the impact on any funds committed and on site control.
Without CDBG financial assistance the west exterior wall aspect of the project will
be put on hold again until alternative financing can be arranged. It is unlikely that
additional funds will be available in the near future given the diminished revenues
available for City capital project. In the meantime, the condition of the building
continues to deteriorate which ultimately results in more costly repairs.
In the case of the front entrance, the non-profit senior center will try to locate funds
to re-carpet the area. They would probably not find the funding necessary to re-level the
area. With the bathrooms, the senior center will seek funding to replace the existing
flooring, which is in desperate need and is unsightly.
iv. Can the proposed project be phased? If the answer is yes, please provide a
detailed summary of each phase, in priority order, including the cost of each. If
no, please explain why the project cannot be phased.
All three of the sub-projects can be done separately. Any two (or one) could be done
together. They do not depend on each other in any way.
v. Total CDBG dollars requested $ ___161,248____
Total Dollar value of other resources $ ____70,778____
Total Project cost $ ___232,026____
Packet Page 16 of 180
6
B. Will you hire a consultant to help with this project? Please note that consultants paid
for with CDBG funds must be selected through a competitive process and in
accordance with 24 CFR Part 84 (nonprofit organization) and 24 CFR Part 85 (local
government).
A design consultant will be hired for the project but the project management will be
under the director of the City of Edmonds Engineering and Parks Maintenance Divisions.
We request a waiver from compliance with 24 CFR Part 85. This waiver recognizes that the
City of Edmonds can no longer be relied upon to fulfill this need. Their capacity to assist
with this project is limited due to government reductions in staff and the time of those that
remain is fully committed.
C. Are there any community objections to the project?
No
D. Describe how your project is consistent with each of the following plans:
i. Consistency with the Consolidated Plan for Snohomish County (see
Attachment B):
The project provides for direct benefit to the senior citizen programming and service
needs for south Snohomish County. The provision of programs and services for seniors
is defined in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the Parks, Recreation &
Open space Plan. The Senior Center is supported in the City of Edmonds Waterfront
Plan providing for public recreational services.
The project is consistent with the Consolidated Plan for Snohomish County through
Objective PFO-2: support construction, repair and rehabilitation of up to 7 senior
centers.
ii. Consistent with the County Planning Policies (See attachment C):
This project is consistent with County Planning Policy OD-1: Promote development
within urban growth areas in order to use land efficiently to capital facility planning..”
Rehabilitating the existing senior center is an efficient use of the land, particularly given
that the property functions as a City park with beach access. Although this is not a “new
human services facility” mentioned in UG-12, rehabilitation of the existing senior center
does maintain its location close to a variety of public transportation means including
buses, trains, and ferries.
iii. Consistency with local plans in the vicinity of the project:
There is no change to the existing use and function of the proposed project. The
building is question is already a senior center and has functioned in this capacity since the
senior center rehabilitation in 1980, which created the present building configuration. The
Packet Page 17 of 180
7
senior center came on site in 1968 occupying one of the two buildings that were joined in
1980 to create the present senior center.
E. If the project is within a structure (not a street or sidewalk), please answer the
following i through iv, if not, skip to question #7:
i. Describe how the Organization complies with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements regarding accessibility.
Edmonds Senior Center is compliant with the ADA requirements for access into the
building, 1st floor restrooms and to the 2nd floor using the elevator. The project includes
refurbishing the 2nd floor restrooms to provide ADA access.
ii. Will the facility serve as a house of worship or be will it be used by a religions
organization?
No
iii. Does the project involve the remodeling or demolition of a structure?
The project is to refurbish the exterior walls of the senior center building, the
restrooms and the floor in the main lobby and library.
iv. Was the structure constructed prior to 1978? If yes, will the structure be
occupied by children age six (6) and under?
Yes, the original buildings were constructed prior to 1978 and were reconfigured
1980 into the present form.
No, the structure will not be used by children age six (6) and under.
F. Federally funded projects are subject to the “Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA). Acquisition of
land, structures and easements (both temporary and permanent) trigger compliance
with the URA. Please see page #12 under “Federal Regulatory Requirements” for
further explanation. N/A
Will the project include “acquisition” of a structure, land or easements? If yes,
complete the following i through iv. If no, skip to question G. No
i. Please describe your plan for acquisition.
ii. Are people or businesses currently occupying the site? If yes, will they be
required to move either temporarily or permanently?
iii. For each real property parcel previously acquired for the project, or identified
and intended to be acquired
, provide all of the following:
Packet Page 18 of 180
8
a. Street address and physical description:
b. List the following dates per parcel:
Date Property
Occupied?
By Tenant or
Owner?
Date acquired (title vested):
Closing date stated in
Purchase and Sale Agreement:
Date Purchase and Sale:
Agreement was fully executed:
Date of first formal offer to
Purchase:
Date of first written notice of
interest to owner/seller:
iv. If tenants will be displaced either permanently or temporarily, SUBMIT
WITH THE APPLICATION, a detailed Relocation Plan incorporating:
a. The projected number of persons to be relocated permanently.
b. The projected number of persons to be relocated temporarily.
c. Provide a budget and description of all relocation costs.
G. In the table below, please identify each source and amount of funding to be used
for the project. Indicate whether funds are pending or committed by placing the
amount in the appropriate column. Provide documentation of the commitment.
Development Budget Sources Pending Committed Total
2012 Snohomish County CDBG $ 161,248 $ $ 161,248
$ $ $
Local funds (specify): $ $ $
$ $ $
State funds (specify): $ $ $
$ $ $
Federal funds (specify): $ $ $
$ $ $
Private financing (specify): $ 70,778 $ $ 70,778
$ $ $
Other (specify): $ $ $
Packet Page 19 of 180
9
$ $ $
TOTAL $ 232,026 $ $ 232,026
H. Explain how you arrived at the total cost of the project and why you consider your
costs to be reasonable.
The architectural firm of Calvin Jordon prepared a design study of the west exterior wall
and Lobby flooring sub projects with an opinion of probable construction costs
(attachment). This study was reviewed by City Engineering staff and in their opinion the
estimated costs were reasonable. The bathroom quote was from Wilcox Construction, a
local respected Edmonds firm who has worked with the City and the senior center in the
past.
I. Describe how your agency is prepared to deal with unanticipated project costs
(e.g. cost overruns, change orders, etc.).
The City of Edmonds closely monitors all capital projects with experienced construction
managers on site daily and meeting weekly with contractors to monitor costs and
construction methods.
NOTE: Reconcile this statement with the one made under 2B above.
J. Describe how operation of the project will be supported and maintained over time.
If appropriate, include an operating budget for the project.
Once the project is complete the City Parks Maintenance Division, often supported by
Public Works, will resume maintenance of the interior of the senior center as well as the
exterior walls, as they have since 1973.
K. Complete the Budget Page “Attachment E”
Complete, see Attachment E
L. If your Organization is a Non-profit, please read the following and initial: N/A
Organization understands that if the project is approved for CDBG Capital funding, the
applicant will be required to execute security documents (promissory note, deed of trust or
approved long-term lease) assuring that the use of the facility will be secured for a
specified term (see page #9 under “Overview of CDBG Program Requirements”) based on
the amount of funds awarded, that if a change of use occurs, awarded funds will be repaid
to the CDBG Consortium. Initials __________.
Packet Page 20 of 180
10
3. COMMUNITY NEED, BENEFIT & PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Describe the process your Organization uses to assess community need.
In this case the necessity for the refurbishment of the outside siding, restrooms and main
lobby & library floors has been evident for many years.
The need for replacing the siding on the west (water) side is because it is regularly
subject to leaking. The original siding is now over 30 years old and no additional painting
or waterproofing has been applied to exterior walls in that time span. It is quire porous and
there is moisture penetration whenever there is strong wind and rain.
The need for the refurbishment of the restrooms is apparent by walking into them.
Please examine photos - Attachment F.
The need to assess the structural integrity and needed repairs of the floors in the main
lobby and library are demonstrated by the unevenness of the floor, the bunching of the
carpet, and the sinking of the floor away from the drywall (now about a 3” gap).
The need for the Senior Center is demonstrated by the continuing strong use of its
facility and programs by over 3,500 seniors annually. The community also uses the facility
for meetings, celebrations, non-profit fundraisers, etc.
B. All activities funded with CDBG must meet one of the three broad National
Objectives:
• Benefit to low- and moderate-income persons
• Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or
• Meet Community development needs having a particular urgency
Public facilities and infrastructure projects primarily fall under the National Objective
of benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. Please indicate below how your
proposed project qualifies by checking one of the following i through iv (see page
#7 under “Overview of CDBG Program Requirements”).
i. __X_ Limited Clientele Presumed Benefit Activity
(Project is limited exclusively to low- and moderate-income persons)
ii. ____ Limited Clientele Direct Benefit Activity
(At least 51% of clientele served by project are low- and moderate-
income persons)
iii. ____ Limited Clientele Nature and Location
iv. ____ Area Benefit Activity – Census Tract/Block Group or Income Survey
C. Match your answer from 3(B) above, to the corresponding paragraph below, and
provide the information as indicated.
Packet Page 21 of 180
11
If you checked i above: 1) indicate which category of persons presumed by HUD
to be predominately low- and moderate-income, will the proposed project
exclusively serve, and 2) how your organization will document the presumed
benefit.
1. The senior center benefits elderly persons. Seniors who participate at the center are
drawn from a broad geographic area in South Snohomish County and anecdotal
evidence suggests that they are predominantly low and moderate income persons.
2. Programs, activities and services are all designed for the senior community and
annual reports and membership lists bear this out.
If you checked ii above: 1) indicate the total number of clients served in the past
year; 2) indicate what percentage of those clients were low- and moderate-income;
3) indicate what income eligibility criteria was used to determine the percentages of
low- and moderate-income persons; and 4) describe the process your organization
will use to document income eligibility; and 5) attach a copy of the client intake
form, highlighting the questions regarding family size and income.
If you checked iii above: describe how the proposed project is of such a nature
and location that it may reasonably be concluded that the activity’s clientele will be
primarily low- and moderate-income persons. Please contact our office for
technical assistance before applying under this category.
If you checked iv above: 1) define the boundaries of your claimed service area; 2)
provide the basis for determining the boundaries; 3) attach a map of the service
area and list the census tracts/block groups in your service area; and 4) provide the
percentage of residents in the service area that are low- and moderate-income
based on Census data or OHCD-approved survey. Projects which cannot
document that at least 51% of residents in a service area are low- and moderate-
income (or 46.4% if the exception criteria applies) at the time of application, will not
be considered eligible. Please contact our office for technical assistance regarding
area benefit activities.
D. Describe how the proposed project will improve, enhance and/or contribute to
public safety.
West exterior wall: There is presently (due to the deteriorated condition of the wall)
occasional water seepage into the Thrift Store, Thrift Store sorting room, lounge, lobby
and View Room, which creates potential for slipping and falls These are particularly
dangerous for older persons.
Bathrooms: Deteriorated floors raise potential for falls.
Front Lobby: Deteriorated carpet and un-level floor definitely creates potential for falls.
Of the three sub-projects, this is the one most directly affecting public safety.
Packet Page 22 of 180
12
E. Please describe any special circumstances that would help us better understand
your project and/or the need you’re trying to meet.
West exterior wall: The special circumstance that makes this project so necessary is that
without a weatherproof outer shell, the structure of the building is at risk. Without such a
shell the Senior Center cannot serve its clientele of 3,500 seniors who annually use the
facility. The west wall is open to all of the weather off of Puget Sound, particularly the
driving winter storms. Leaks are showing around the windows. The project would replace
some of the windows and all of the flashing. It would also install new exterior lighting,
which would improve the lighting in the parking lot, which has been an issue for some
years. Its appearance also suffers as can be seen from the enclosed photos. There have been
three CDBG grants (2003, 2004, 2005) to refurbish the senior center, along with a CTED
grant (2007). Most of the projects accomplished with those grants were located within the
interior of the building. The outcome of this grant will protect all of those assets.
Bathrooms: The appearance of the bathrooms is a source of frequent complaint from our
clients, both seniors and younger people. For the men’s rooms we need more modern urinals
which will catch everything
Lobby-Library/Classroom Floors: the Library is our most used classroom as it is an ideal
size. It is busy every morning and afternoon of every weekday, and is frequently used in the
evenings and weekends. The Lobby is the first impression that one gets as they enter the
Center. It does not make a good impression.
F. Attach copies of all data collection tools which will be used to verify achievement of
program goals and objectives. Indicate who will be responsible for monitoring the
progress and reporting data in the Annual Report, required if your project is chosen
for CDBG funding.
These reports are currently being supplied to the County for previous projects and are
compiled and assembled in partnership by both the Senior Center and City staff on an
annual basis.
4. READINESS TO PROCEED
A. Describe any pre-contract obligations pertaining to the project that have been
mitigated or addressed prior to submission of the application. N/A
B. Provide an estimate of the following project milestones (please keep in mind that
2012 funding will not be available until after August 2012):
Projected Date
The Organization provides necessary
information to OHCD to allow staff to
complete the environmental review:
10/15/2012
Packet Page 23 of 180
13
Contract with Snohomish County
Office of Housing, Homelessness and
Community Development:
1/15/2013
Select architect/engineer: 2/15/2013
Obtain all needed permits: 3/15/2013
Complete bid specifications: 5/15/2013
Bid award: 7/31/2013
Project 50% complete: 9/30/2013
Project complete 10/31/2013
C. Explain any possible environmental or land use issues that have the potential to
delay your project and describe steps that have been taken, or will be taken, to
address those issues. (Any “Yes” responses on the Environmental Review
Supplemental Overview may cause project delays and should be described here.)
The City of Edmonds has conducted many projects in this waterfront area of the city and is
well versed in anticipating environmental problems. Careful planning and permitting will
ensure most potential delays will be identified. There is not a change of use and the square
footage of the building and parking lot site remains unchanged. SEPA and Shoreline Permit
application are anticipated to be straightforward.
D. Provide a summary of all sources of funding needed to complete the project
including committed funding and/or funding which has been or will be applied and
provide documentation of committed funding.
The non-profit Edmonds Senior Center will raise 100% of the necessary monies from other
grant sources and public campaigns. These sources include, but are not limited to the Hazel
Miller Foundation, the Boeing Employees Community Fund, WA State Department of
Commerce Capital Programs, corporate donors such as the Microsoft Corporation, and a
public campaign for building refurbishment. The Senior Center has considerable expertise in
this area and a proven track record in working with foundations, business, and individual
donors.
Note: Please Review and complete Attachment A “Application Checklist” which is a
list of documents required to be submitted with this application. Submit
Attachment A with the application.
Packet Page 24 of 180
14
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL OVERVIEW
Federally funded County projects are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and numerous other state and federal environmental laws. All environmental laws
seek to avoid adverse impacts on the environment by mandating careful consideration of
the potential impacts on any development assisted with public funds. Applicants must be
sensitive to any possible environmental impacts and concerns while their projects are first
being planned to avoid problems, which can create uncontrollable delays, add unplanned
construction or pre-development costs or even prevent a project from being funded or
implemented in a timely manner.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit a Supplemental Application that is both
complete and complies with the application specifications and fully discloses any potential
environmental concerns. The Snohomish County Office of Housing and Community
Development (OHCD) is responsible for assuring compliance with state and federal
regulations and seeks to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on the natural and human
environment by mandating careful consideration of the potential impacts of any
development assisted with county managed funds.
All applicants must recognize and document potential environmental issues during the
project planning process. OHCD, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy
Advisory Board (citizen review boards) can make better decisions by fully understanding
and carefully considering the potential environmental consequences. Incomplete
applications that do not include the required information necessary to fully evaluate the
applicant’s project and/or ignore potential environmental issues may result in diminished
project competitiveness, and decreased overall application scoring.
Please contact Dee White at 425-388-3260 or dee.white@co.snohomish.wa.us if you
have any questions related to environmental issues or if you need assistance
completing the Environmental Supplement appropriately.
The Environmental Review Supplemental Application includes a listing of subject areas
relating to potential impacts on the physical or human environment. In most cases,
applicants will be able to simply provide a brief response to the categories listed.
Environmental information and assistance in preparing the environmental section can be
obtained from a wide variety of sources including those listed which are cited as
appropriate. Other possible sources of information include local comprehensive plans,
preliminary engineering studies, state and federal reports, local agencies such as the
planning or environmental health office, federal agencies and the internet.
Packet Page 25 of 180
15
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
PART I
Project Name: Edmonds Senior Center Refurbishment Project
Brief Description of Project / Construction Activities (please limit to space provided):
Refurbish the failing wood siding on the west wall; seal all of the walls of the
cement block 2-story building; renovate the 1st and 2nd floor restrooms; assess the
structural integrity of the subfloor in the main lobby and library and make repairs as
needed.
YOUR SUBMISSION OF THIS APPLICATION TRIGGERS FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
MANDATE THAT THE COUNTY COMPLETE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PRIOR
TO ANY “CHOICE LIMITING ACTIONS” (i.e. contract/agreement execution,
acquisition, demolition, construction) BEING INITIATED ON A PROJECT RECEIVING
FEDERAL FUNDING.
Is your project currently underway?
Yes, acquisition and/or construction has begun.
If yes, was a legally binding contract signed prior to your intent to apply for federal funds?
Yes (If yes, attach a copy of the contract)
No
If you do not have a legally binding contract in place and dated prior to the
submission date of your application, you must cease all choice limiting activities
immediately until environmental compliance has been reviewed and approved by
Snohomish County. If your project is not under contract at the time of application,
no construction or acquisition activities can occur until an environmental review
has been completed and approved by Snohomish County. Failure to comply will
prohibit the use of federal funds for the project.
No, acquisition or construction activities will not begin prior to authorization from
Snohomish County.
Project Location:
Identify location by completing ALL of the following location identifiers:
Township: _____27_______________
Range: _____03______________
Section: 23
Assessor Parcel Number of Project Site: 27032300104200
Packet Page 26 of 180
16
Parcel Size 2.63 acres
Complete Street Address: 220 Railroad Ave
City: Edmonds Zip Code: 98020
Current Zoning Classification: Shoreline Commercial
Proposed land Use: no change
Current Property Owner: City of Edmonds
Is project consistent with current Zoning designation? Yes No
Is project consistent with future Zoning designation? Yes No
Is the proposed project’s land use consistent with the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive
Plan or Area Plan? Yes No
Existing Buildings on Proposed Site
If the site has an existing building, complete the following:
Building(s) Size: 28,000 Square footage
Year building(s) were built: 1980/1950’s/1960’s __ (attach Assessor’s Record)
(To determine, go to http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-
propinq/prpinq01-entry.asp. and provide a copy as documentation).
Current Use: senior center
Proposed Use: no change
Landmark Classification: No
Has this specific project previously received a NEPA environmental clearance from
Snohomish County for CDBG, HOME or ADDI funds? Yes No
If so, what year? ____________________________
PART II
For the following questions, answer by checking box Yes or No. Provide all required
explanations by inserting answers following each question directly in the Supplemental
document. Attach additional requested documentation to the back of the
environmental section, marking the appropriate section and number on the top.
A “Yes” response to any of the following questions may cause additional delays in
the review process and requires careful consideration by the applicant.
A. Historic Preservation
1. Is the proposed site or any project activity listed on, or within a district listed on, the
National Register of Historic Places, or any State or local listing of historic places, or Tribal
land? Attach all documentation used to make the determination. Knowledge
Yes No Unknown of historical sites in Edmonds.
Packet Page 27 of 180
17
Please explain how your response was determined.
2. Is any structure(s) on proposed site of project activity 45 years old or older?
Yes No
a) If yes, list all structure(s) over 45 years, by street address and year of
construction.
The senior center in its present configuration was built in 1980. It includes two older
buildings – the north wing was built in the mid 1950’s and the two story CMU was
constructed in the early 1960’s. The 1935 year of construction mentioned in the
auditor’s report may refer to the old mill that was this site on the location of the two-
story CMU. It was torn down in the early 1960’s to make room for the present CMU.
3. Provide a detailed history of the property use. See attachments.
B. Floodplain Management & Flood Insurance
1. Is the proposed property located in a flood hazard area? Print and attach the
appropriate flood map and indicate the proposed site on the flood map. State
whether any part of the project site is within the flood hazard area. To determine, go to:
http://gis1.msc.fema.gov/Website/newstore/Viewer.htm. For step-by-step directions on
how to download the correct map, please refer to Attachment E-1 at the end of this
environmental supplement.
Yes No
a) If Yes, is the local general government jurisdiction in which each project site is
situated currently participating in, and in good standing with FEMA under, the
National Flood Insurance Program? To determine, consult each local
Planning/Building Department and attach all correspondence. Attach
documentation used to make determination.
Yes No
2. Provide the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number: 53061C292 E
C. Wetlands Protection
1. Are there any wetlands on any part of the project site, or within 300 feet of the
proposed project site and, if so, will the proposed project activity encroach or impact in any
way upon any such on-site or adjacent wetland? Describe how your determination was
made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
D. Air Quality
1. Is the ambient air quality at proposed project site presently degraded by proximity to
significant pollution generators or conditions (e.g. heavy motor traffic; dusty or noxious
odor producing commercial or industrial operations; etc?) Describe how your
determination was made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
Packet Page 28 of 180
18
2. Will the project contribute any pollution to the ambient air at project site?
a) During project development? Yes No
b) By its use or operation after completion? Yes No
c) If yes to either or both, describe how your determination was made.
General knowledge of the location.
E. Noise
1. Is the proposed project within 1,000 feet of a major roadway? Yes No
2. Is the proposed project within 3,000 feet of a railway? Yes No
3. Is the proposed project within 15 miles of a civil airport or military airfield?
Yes No
4. Are there any other potential noise sources in the project vicinity that could produce a
noise level above HUD’s acceptable range including but not limited to concert halls, night
clubs, event facilities, etc.? Describe how your determination was made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
F. Hazardous Conditions
1. Thermal & Explosive Hazards: Are there any visible above ground storage vessels, of
more than approximately 200 gallons volume, with the exception of household propane
storage tanks within a six block radius of proposed project site? Describe how your
determination was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
a) If yes, describe and list location(s):
2. Toxic Chemicals and Radioactive Materials: Is the property or surrounding
neighborhood listed on an EPA Superfund National Priorities or CERCLA List, or
equivalent State list? Attach a copy of the each of the two maps found at:
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ and http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/ust-lust/tanks.html.
For step-by-step directions on how to download the correct maps, please refer to
Attachment E-1 at the end of this environmental supplement.
Yes No
a) If Yes, list and describe location(s) physical proximity to project site.
3. Are there any commercial or industrial facilities with large above-ground storage of any
hazardous materials, (such as a petroleum tank farm or wholesale facility, or a factory
producing or using hazardous materials within a 1/2 mile radius of project site? Describe
how your determination was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
4. Airport Hazard Zones: Is proposed project site within 1/4 mile of the perimeter or
boundary of any military or civil airport or air field? Describe how your determination
was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
a) If yes, identify the airport; and attach a copy of an accurate, scaled map
delineating the airport fly zone and the proposed project location.
Packet Page 29 of 180
19
G. Other Environmental Resources
1. Farmland Preservation: Will proposed project site involve conversion of any existing
farmland to another use? Describe how your determination was made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
2. Coastal Zone Management: Is proposed project site situated within a shoreline zone
regulated under the Snohomish County Shoreline Management Master Program, or a
municipality’s shoreline regulations under the State Shorelines Management Act?
Describe how your determination was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
a) If yes, is the project permitted under those regulations? Yes No
PART III
Attach the following documents with the application FOR ALL PROJECTS:
♦ Copy of the Thomas Brothers Guide page, with the site location marked.
♦ Site plans and drawings (no larger than 11 x 17). If the project consists of new
construction or rehabilitation include the original total square footage of the site plus
square footage of new impervious surface to be added.
♦ If the project requires a zoning change, attach a signed zoning confirmation letter
from the project site jurisdiction’s planning department. The letter must include sufficient
detail to confirm the approval is for the specific proposed use of the site.
♦ A detailed history of the property use of the proposed project location.
♦ Attach all available environmental project and site studies, investigations, reports, and
project plans; including Environmental Site Assessments, wetlands or other biological
investigations, hazardous materials investigations, soils and other geotechnical studies,
planning reports, engineering reports, noise studies, traffic studies, etc.
♦ Submit one or more photos or aerial map identifying the location of the project site with
the original application.
Packet Page 30 of 180
20
PART IV N/A
Acquisition of land, whether vacant or occupied by buildings, new construction or
substantial rehabilitation projects require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a professionally written assessment evaluating
any hazards that may be on the land or in buildings (asbestos, lead based paint), historical
use of the property or building, and any other possible hazards in the vicinity of the
property. In order to meet the all appropriate inquiry standard, the Phase I must be
conducted or updated within one year prior to date of acquisition and the
interviews, record reviews, site inspection, and lien search must be conducted or
updated within 180 days prior to the date of acquisition. This assessment is helpful
at application time, but is not required until funding is approved.
Packet Page 31 of 180
21
ATTACHMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
PROJECT SUMMARY
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 212,917 151,854 61,063 See below
Permits 910 910 0
Other Construction Costs 8,484 8,484 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 222,311 161,248 61,063 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 9,715 0 9,715 See below
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 222,311 161,248 61,063 See below
IV. Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 232,026 161,248 70,778 See below
Packet Page 32 of 180
22
ATTACHMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
WEST EXTERIOR SIDING
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 80,891 50,606 30,285 See below
Permits 910 910 0
Other Construction Costs 8,484 8,484 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 90,285 60,000 30,285 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 9,715 0 9,715 See below
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 90,285 60,000 30,285 See below
IV. Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 100,000 60,000 40,000 See below
Packet Page 33 of 180
23
ATTACHMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
RESTROOMS
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
Permits 0 0 0
Other Construction Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 0 0 0
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
IV. Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
Packet Page 34 of 180
24
ATTAC HMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
LOBBY/LIBRARY FLOOR
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
Permits 0 0 0
Other Construction Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 0 0 0
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
IV. Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
Packet Page 35 of 180
25
The non-profit Edmonds Senior Center will raise 100% of the necessary monies from other
grant sources and public campaigns. These sources include, but are not limited to the Hazel
Miller Foundation, the Boeing Employees Community Fund, WA State Department of
Commerce Capital Programs, corporate donors such as the Microsoft Corporation, and a
public campaign for building refurbishment. The Senior Center has considerable expertise in
this area and a proven track record in working with foundations, business, and individual
donors.
As soon as there is a positive response from the County Council, acting on a
recommendation from the PAB, the non-profit Edmonds Senior Center will begin a
vigorous campaign to secure the necessary matching funds.
Packet Page 36 of 180
26
ATTACHMENT A
Application Checklist (this document is required as part of a complete PF&I
application for funding)
1. Applicant Authorization and completed application for funding.
2. Project Budget Form Attachment E.
3. Copy of Board/City Council minutes or Board/City Council Resolution
approving the application for funding and designating authorized individual
to negotiate and contractually bind agency.
4. Copy of Articles of Incorporation (For non-profits only)
5. Proof of 501(c) (3) status with IRS (non-profits only)
6. Current Copy of By-Laws
7. List of Current Board of Directors or other governing body; include name,
occupation or affiliation of each member and identify the principal officers
of the governing body (non-profits only)
8. Current Organizational chart (non-profits only)
9. Resumes of Executive Director, Chief Fiscal Officer and Chief Program
Administrator (non-profits only)
10. Most recent audit with management letter
11. Service Area Map (for area benefit projects)
12. Evidence of site control (if applicable)
13. Client intake form (applicable to direct benefit projects)
14. Letters of funding commitment (if applicable)
15. Architectural drawings (if available)
16. Construction specifications (if available)
17. Title Report (if applicable)
18. Appraisals (if applicable and available)
Packet Page 37 of 180
27
19. Letters of support (if applicable)
20. Relocation Plan (if applicable)
Environmental Assessment Attachments
20. Copy of Thomas Brother’s Guide page with site location marked
21. County Assessor Property Record
(http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/)
22. FEMA Flood Map
(http://www.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeId=10001&catal
ogId=10001&langId=-
1&content=firmHelp_1&title=How%20to%20Find%20Your%20Flood%20Map)
23. Environmental Protection Agency Map
(www.epa.gov/enviro/)
24. Department of Ecology Map
(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/ust-lust/tanks.html)
25. Site Plans and drawings (no larger than 11 x 17). If the project consists of
new construction or rehabilitation, include the original total square footage
of the site plus square footage of new impervious surface to be added
26. Signed zoning confirmation letter (if the project requires a zoning change)
27. Detailed history of the property use
28. All available project and site studies
29. Photographs or aerial photos of existing site
30. If available, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for acquisition of land,
new construction, or substantial rehabilitation. If not available, OHCD staff
will advise if required.
31. Completed Environmental Review Supplemental Application with the
supporting documentation for questions in sections A through G.
32. Hazardous materials survey/assessment summary (if applicable)
Packet Page 38 of 180
AM-4420 Item #: 1. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Jen Machuga Submitted By:Jen Machuga
Department:Planning
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding draft revisions to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and addition of a definition of outdoor
dining to ECDC 21.75. (File No. AMD20110005)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward to full Council for a public hearing.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on July 13, 2011, which was continued to August 10, 2011, regarding draft
revisions to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and the addition of a new definition of "outdoor dining" to ECDC
21.75. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Board recommended that the proposed ordinance be forwarded
to the Council for recommended approval. Refer to staff's memorandum to the CS/DS Council Committee for further
discussion on this item:
Attachments are as follows:
1. Memorandum to CS/DS Council Committee
2. Draft Revisions to ECDC 17.75 and Definition Addition to ECDC 21.75
3. Comment Letter from Pam Stuller Received 8/5/11
4. Planning Board Minutes 8/10/11
5. PowerPoint Presentation to Planning Board 8/10/11
6. Planning Board Minutes 7/13/11
7. PowerPoint Presentation to Planning Board 7/13/11
8. Supplemental Materials Provided to Planning Board 7/13/11
9. Planning Board Minutes 5/25/11
Attachments
Attachment 1: Memo to CS/DS Council Committee
Attachment 2: Draft Revisions to ECDC 17.75 and Definition Addition to ECDC 21.75
Attachment 3: Comment Letter from Pam Stuller Received 8/5/11
Attachment 4: Planning Board Minutes 8/10/11
Attachment 5: PowerPoint Presentation to Planning Board 8/10/11
Attachment 6: Planning Board Minutes 7/13/11
Attachment 7: PowerPoint Presentation to Planning Board 7/13/11
Attachment 8: Supplemental Materials Provided to Planning Board 7/13/11
Attachment 9: Planning Board Minutes 5/25/11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:30 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:39 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Jen Machuga Started On: 12/07/2011 04:18 PM
Packet Page 39 of 180
Form Started By: Jen Machuga Started On: 12/07/2011 04:18 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 40 of 180
Item # 1.D
CS/DS Council Committee
Agenda Memo
Meeting Date: December 13, 2011
Agenda Subject: Discussion regarding draft revisions to the outdoor dining
regulations of ECDC 17.75 and addition of a definition of outdoor
dining to ECDC 21.75. (File No. AMD20110005)
Staff Lead /
Author:
Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
Initiated By: City Council Planning Board City Staff
Citizen Request Other:
At the May 25, 2011 Planning Board meeting, staff brought it to the Board’s attention
that several inquiries had recently been received by the Development Services
Department for the establishment and/or expansion of outdoor dining areas. Under the
current outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75, outdoor dining is permitted outright
as a secondary use for an additional 10 percent of the interior seating or eight seats,
whichever is greater. However, a conditional use permit is required for businesses that
wish to provide outdoor dining in excess of the 10 percent or eight seats. A conditional
use permit for outdoor dining is currently reviewed by the Hearing Examiner as a Type
III‐A decision, which has a total application fee of approximately $1,500.
The Planning Board discussed particular impacts associated with outdoor dining as well
as various options for updates to the outdoor dining regulations during the May 25,
2011 meeting. A public hearing was held by the Planning Board on July 13, 2011, which
was continued to August 10, 2011. Following the close of the hearing and further
discussion, the Planning Board agreed on a few additional revisions to the draft outdoor
dining regulations and then voted to forward the proposed outdoor dining language to
the City Council with a recommendation that the Council approve the amendments to
the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and add the definition of “outdoor dining”
to ECDC 21.75.
Staff has incorporated the Planning Board’s final amendments from the August 10th
meeting to the draft outdoor dining regulations and the draft definition of “outdoor
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Attachment 1
Packet Page 41 of 180
dining.” The revised provisions would allow outdoor dining as a permitted secondary
use within the BN, BC, BP, BD, CW, CG, MU, and FVMU zones if the outdoor dining area
complies with at least one of the following criteria:
1. The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially‐zoned property(ies).
2. The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13
along the property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially‐zoned propery(ies).
3. The dining area is screened from adjoining residential property(ies) by a building
and/or a 4‐foot wall, hedge, or solid fence.
4. Seating is limited to an additional 10 percent of the existing interior seating of
the establishment or 12 seats, whichever is greater.
If the outdoor dining area does not comply with one of the above criteria, then a
conditional use permit would be required. This would be a Type III‐A decision to be
made by the Hearing Examiner.
The proposed code revisions also establish a limit on hours of operation of outdoor
dining area for sites that are directly adjacent to residentially‐zoned properties. In these
cases, the outdoor dining area must be closed between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Please refer to the attached draft code language for all proposed revisions to the
outdoor dining chapter (ECDC 17.75) as well as the proposed definition of “outdoor
dining” (Attachment 2). A letter commenting on the potential code revisions received
from Pam Stuller on August 5, 2011 is included as Attachment 3. The meeting minutes
from the continued Planning Board hearing on August 10, 2011 are included as
Attachment 4, and a copy of staff’s PowerPoint presentation to the Board from the
August 10th meeting is included as Attachment 5. The meeting minutes from the
opening of the Planning Board hearing on July 13, 2011 are included as Attachment 6
and staff’s PowerPoint presentation to the Board as well as supplemental materials
provided to the Board at the July 13th meeting are included as Attachments 7 and 8
respectively. Finally, the minutes from the Planning Board meeting on May 25, 2011 are
included as Attachment 9.
Staff recommends that the CS/DS Committee forward this item to the full Council for a
public hearing.
Packet Page 42 of 180
Chapter 17.75
OUTDOOR DINING
Sections:
17.75.010 Outdoor dining – Permitted secondary use.
17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
17.75.040 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
17.75.010 Outdoor dining – Permitted secondary use.
A. Limited outdoor seating for outdoor dining is allowed as a permitted secondary use in the BN –
neighborhood business zone, BC – community business zone, BP-planned business zone, BD –
downtown business zone, CW – commercial waterfront zone, CG – general commercial zone,
MU – medical use zone, and FVMU – firdale village mixed use zone. When established as a
permitted secondary use, the outdoor dining area shall currently comply or be proposed to
comply with at least one of the following criteria:
(1) The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially-zoned property(ies).
(2) The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 along the
property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially-zoned propery(ies).
(3) The dining area is screened from adjoining residential property(ies) by a building
and/or a 4-foot wall, hedge, or solid fence.
(4) Seating is limited to an additional 10 percent of the existing interior seating of the
establishment or 12 seats, whichever is greater.
B. For sites directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the outdoor dining area shall be
closed between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
C. Areas utilized for outdoor dining shall comply with setback requirements applicable to the site.
D. Seating shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. Seating within public rights-of-way is
reviewed as bistro dining pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 18.70.030.
E. No additional parking stalls shall be required for outdoor dining usage. [Ord. 3628 § 3, 2007;
Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000].
17.75.020 Outdoor dining - Secondary use requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 17.75.010 shall be a secondary use
requiring a conditional use permit within the zones stated in 17.75.010(A). This use shall be
established and maintained only in accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit
approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision under the procedural requirements
contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for imposition by the
hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating,
and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All seating
Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt
Deleted: 17.75.030 Reduction of
outdoor seating by existing
nonconforming seating.¶
Deleted: hereby
Deleted: and
Deleted: shall be
Deleted: eight
Deleted: , and
Deleted: Primary
Deleted: s
Deleted: primary
Deleted: in the BN – neighborhood
business zone, BC – community
business zone, BD – downtown
business zone, CW – commercial
waterfront zone, and CG – general
commercial zone, for outdoor seating
which exceeds 10 percent of the
existing interior seating in the
establishment or more than eight
seats, whichever is greater.
Attachment 2
Packet Page 43 of 180
permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. If
outdoor seating is approved under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required
for the outdoor dining. [Ord. 3783 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 19, 2009; Ord.
3628 § 4, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000].
17.75.040 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
Any building or structure such as a service stand, fence, planter, kiosk, awning or other shelter
utilized in serving outdoor diners shall fully comply with all provisions of the State Building Code
and this community development code, including but not limited to design review. [Ord. 3312 § 1,
2000].
Chapter 21.75
DEFINITIONS - “O” TERMS
21.75.120
An outdoor dining area is a portion of a property utilized by a licensed food or beverage
establishment for the seating of customers for their consumption of food or beverages served by
the establishment. An outdoor dining area is not located within a completely enclosed building,
but is instead located outside the building, such as on an outdoor patio or deck. The area may be
open to the elements or may be covered by a roof or awning or partially enclosed. A portion of a
dining area within an enclosed building that is temporarily opened to the outdoors (such as by
opening windows, doors, or walls) is not considered to be an outdoor dining area. An outdoor
dining area must be located on property outside of the City right-of-way.
Formatted: Centered
Deleted: 17.75.030 Reduction of
outdoor seating by existing
nonconforming seating.¶
An existing eating establishment with
nonconforming seating which
exceeds the current standards of the
city zoning ordinance may utilize
outdoor dining as a permitted
secondary use or as a primary use
requiring conditional use permit;
provided, however, that the outdoor
seating shall not increase the
nonconformity of the establishment.
For example, an existing
establishment whose interior seating
exceeds the normally permitted
seating requirement for the zone by
four seats, outdoor dining permitted
as a secondary use shall be reduced
by four seats. Any additional seating
shall require a conditional use permit
pursuant to the provisions of ECDC
17.75.020. [Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000].¶
Deleted: architectural
Deleted: approval
Packet Page 44 of 180
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
5
o
f
1
8
0
APPROVED AUGUST 24th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 10, 2011
Vice Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Chair (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jen Machuga, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave referred to the July 13th Planning Board Minutes. He noted that during her report on parks, Carrie Hite, Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Director, inadvertently mentioned that impact fees could add $600,000 to the parks
maintenance budget. However, impact fees cannot technically be used for maintenance. They can only be used for park
improvements associated with new development.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
A discussion about how the Board could improve their communications with the public was scheduled as new business. The
remainder of the agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS OF
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 17.75
Ms. Machuga reviewed that, as per the current code, outdoor dining is permitted outright for an additional 10% of interior
seating or 8 seats, whichever is greater. If an applicant is proposing more than 10% of the interior or 8 seats, a Type III-A
Conditional Use Permit is required, which includes review by the Hearing Examiner. The current code allows outdoor
dining in the Neighborhood Business (BN), Commercial Business (BC), Downtown Business (BD), Commercial Waterfront
(CW) and General Commercial (CG) zones. She reminded the Board that a public hearing was held on July 13th. At that
Attachment 4
Packet Page 46 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2011 Page 2
time, the Board discussed several changes and decided to continue the public hearing so that staff could return with updated
code language and a definition of “outdoor dining” for further review and discussion. She referred to the latest draft code
language, which implements the Board’s direction. As currently proposed, outdoor dining would be closed between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In addition, outdoor dining would be an outright permitted use if it can meet one or more of the
following conditions:
Site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties, or
Dining area contains no more than 8 seats or 10% of interior seating, whichever is greater, or
Site complies with landscaping requirements along property lines adjacent to residentially-zoned properties, or
Dining area will be screened by a 6-foot wall, hedge or fence.
She explained that, as proposed, if none of the above conditions are met or if the outdoor dining area is proposed to be open
to the public between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the Board suggested that a Type III-A Conditional Use Permit
should be required, which would be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. In addition, the proposed language would expand
the zones where outdoor dining is permitted to include the Medical Use (MU), Planned Business (BP) and Firdale Village
Mixed Use (FVMU) zones.
Ms. Machuga provided illustrations of how the proposed screening requirements would be applied when outdoor dining is
located on properties adjacent to residential zones. She emphasized that no screening would be required for outdoor dining
if the subject property is not located adjacent to a residential zone. She also provided photographs of existing outdoor dining
located throughout the City to illustrate the various methods that can be used for screening such as fences and hedges. She
noted that the proposed language would require a 6-foot solid hedge, wall or fence, but the Board could decide to reduce the
height. For example, they could change the language to require a 4-foot solid fence, but then allow the property owner to
place a lattice on top.
Board Member Ellis asked if a residential property located across the street from an outdoor dining area would be considered
adjacent. Ms. Machuga answered that if the residential property is separated from the subject property by a road or alley, it
would not be considered “adjacent.” She noted there are not a lot of commercial properties in the City that share property
lines with a residential zone. They are typically separated from the residential zones by alleys or rights-of-way. In most
cases, outdoor dining would be an outright permitted use as long as the establishment can meet the limits related to hours of
operation.
Board Member Clarke referred to the example of an outdoor dining area at Five Corners, and pointed out that while the
subject property is located adjacent to a residential zone, the business with the outdoor dining area is actually separated from
the residential zone by a strip mall development (buildings). He suggested the language be changed to state that if the parcel
or property lies adjacent to a residential zone and a building is located between the residential zone and the proposed outdoor
dining area, no screening or landscaping buffer would be required. Mr. Chave agreed this would be an appropriate change
and could be implemented by simply amending Section 17.75.010.A.3 to add the words “building or” before “6-foot.”
If a hedge would qualify as screening even though it is not solid material, Board Member Clarke suggested that perhaps the
fence should not be required to be solid, either. He noted that other attractive materials could be used to serve the same
purpose. Vice Chair Reed observed that the purpose of the wall, fence or hedge is to buffer noise. Mr. Chave pointed out
that, sometimes, hedges around outdoor dining areas are lower in height because people in the area are typically seated. He
agreed that six feet may not be necessary to buffer for noise. Perhaps they could require a wall, fence or hedge up to four
feet in height. Beyond that, a propery owner could place a trellis, arbor, etc. Board Member Clarke felt this change would
allow more architectural design options to make the space attractive from both sides. Mr. Chave agreed it would accomplish
the purpose while allowing more design flexibility.
Board Member Ellis reminded the Board that the proposed screening requirement was tied to other sections of the code in
which screening is required. Board Member Cloutier agreed that the intent was to make the screening requirement consistent
with other screening requirements that already exist in the code. Mr. Chave advised that there is some latitude to gear the
screening language to meet a specific purpose.
Packet Page 47 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2011 Page 3
Board Member Clarke observed that based on the area’s climate, the outdoor dining areas are not used that many days each
year. He suggested it may be overkill to require a business to build a “fortress” type screening that ends up being
unattractive. It is important to create an environment that provides adequate screening, but also allows the eatery to provide
a pleasant atmosphere for their clients to enjoy.
Board Member Stewart referred to other jurisdictions that do not require screening around their outdoor dining areas. She
expressed her belief that outdoor dining brings life to the community. She cautioned against making the screening
requirements too stringent. They should allow flexibility for restaurants to create some life in their business area, and this
would be good for the overall community, as well.
Board Member Ellis reminded the Board that the screening requirement would only be applicable if a property is located
adjacent to a residential zone. The point of the proposed code language is to make it easier for businesses to have outdoor
dining, but also to protect residentially-zoned properties.
Vice Chair Reed questioned if the code language should address the issue of safety, particularly when an outdoor dining area
is located next to a parking area. Ms. Machuga pointed out that safety is addressed during the Engineering Division’s review
of a proposal.
Vice Chair Reed opened the public hearing. There was no one in the audience, but he referred to a letter the Board received
from Pam Stuller, the owner of Walnut Street Coffee, voicing support for the proposed changes so it is easier and less costly
for small businesses to establish outdoor dining areas. He closed the public hearing.
Board Member Clarke referred to staff’s suggestion that Section 17.75.010.A.4 be amended to raise the number of seats from
8 to 16. Ms. Machuga explained that, as currently proposed, most small businesses would be limited to just eight seats,
which is just two tables. Board Member Johnson inquired how the current seating number was selected. Mr. Chave
suggested it was likely an arbitrary number. Board Member Clarke pointed out that allowing 16 seats would only require
four tables. Mr. Chave suggested the Board stick with some number that is a multiple of four, since tables usually are
designed to seat four people. Board Member Johnson said she would prefer to allow 12 seats or three tables; from an
aesthetic standpoint, three is usually a more attractive number than four.
Board Member Clarke said he drove around the City to find good examples of outdoor dining. He noted that if the City does
not require additional parking space for outdoor dining and circulation works well throughout the site, entrepreneurs should
have an opportunity to provide this unique experience on nice days. Mr. Chave pointed out that, in most cases, outdoor
dining is not in addition to what is going on inside an establishment. It is largely in place of what would typically occur
inside. Only in unique situations are businesses so busy that they use their outdoor dining area as overflow. Again, Board
Member Ellis pointed out that the seating limit would only apply if a property is adjacent to a residential zone and cannot
meet the landscaping and screening requirements.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE IN ECDC 17.75.010.A.4 BY CHANGING
“8” TO “12.” BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE IN ECDC 17.75.010.A.3 TO READ,
“THE DINING AREA IS SCREENED FROM ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY(IES) BY A BUILDING
AND/OR 4-FOOT WALL, HEDGE OR SOLID FENCE.” BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Board Member Johnson referred to Demetri’s Woodstone Taverna located on Main Street near the railroad tracks and
questioned whether the restaurant’s outdoor dining area was new. Ms. Machuga pointed out that an outdoor dining area has
been located on the property for quite some time. Mr. Chave explained that as long as the outdoor dining use was legally
established, any new business located on the site would be allowed to continue the use. Ms. Machuga reminded the Board
that the goal is to screen the outdoor dining and not the property. Therefore, the 4-foot fence, hedge or wall should be
Packet Page 48 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2011 Page 4
measured from the floor of the outdoor dining area. Mr. Chave noted that the language calls for screening the actual outdoor
dining area, which addresses this concern adequately.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Johnson suggested it would be helpful if the code provided a clear definition for “adjacent,” since the term
can mean different things. She asked if the term “adjacent” applies to adjacent properties or adjacent buildings. Ms.
Machuga said it was her understanding that Section 17.75.010.A.1 would apply to the property, itself, and not to just that
portion of the property where the outdoor dining is located. Mr. Chave noted that the term “site” is defined in the code as
“the property which is the subject of the approval or permit application.” Therefore, “site” is synonymous with “property.”
Mr. Chave acknowledged that the term “adjacent” is not defined in the code. Therefore, the dictionary’s definition would be
applied. He said the common definition for “adjacent” is “sharing a property line.” Again, Board Member Johnson felt it
would be helpful to specifically make it clear that properties that are separated by a street or alley are not considered
adjacent. Member Clarke suggested that including some of the illustrations provided by staff would also help to further
clarify the issue.
Board Member Clarke voiced concern about the potential of allowing bars to stay open beyond 2:00 a.m. with the thought
that this would allow patrons to trickle out rather than congregate at closing time. He said he does not want the City to
encourage all-night bars. Ms. Machuga noted that when Rory’s remodeled, two decks were created. As per the conditional
use permit, the deck hours are until 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. She said
she searched other conditional use permits for outdoor dining since 2000 and found that they typically limited the hours of
operation to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.
Board Member Johnson suggested the Board move on since they had a lengthy discussion about hours of operation at their
last meeting. Board Member Tibbott recalled that the proposed language is intended to be consistent with the City’s noise
ordinance. Board Member Ellis reminded the Board that if a business wants to extend the hours of operation for their
outdoor dining area, they can do so through a conditional use permit. Board Member Johnson recalled that staff asked if the
hours of operation should be different, depending on the zone. The Board agreed that because the noise ordinance is
consistent throughout the City, the outdoor dining hours of operation should be consistent, as well.
Ms. Machuga asked the Board to provide feedback about whether the proposed regulation would adequately cover rooftop
dining areas or dining areas on upper floor decks, particularly when adjacent to residentially-zoned properties. She noted
that the current building code requires a 42-inch guard rail around rooftop dining areas and upper floor decks, and a height
extension of 42 inches is allowed in some zones for this feature. The proposed language could limit properties that are
constructed to the maximum height limit because there would not be sufficient height available to provide a 4-foot fence,
wall or hedge. She reminded the Board that the BD zone guidelines encourage a clear guard for roof top areas to limit view
obstruction. Board Member Tibbott pointed out that the proposed requirement would require a solid, not opaque screen.
Therefore a clear guard would meet the proposed code requirement. Board Member Johnson expressed her belief that
rooftop dining should comply with the height restrictions of the underlying zone.
Mr. Chave suggested the Board not adjust the language to specifically accommodate rooftop outdoor dining because the
required railings are intended to provide a safety feature, and screening is intended to create a noise barrier. Board Member
Ellis pointed out that if an applicant does not have sufficient height to meet the screening requirements, he/she could request
a conditional use permit. Board Member Johnson observed that this is just one situation in which the development
agreement concept would be a useful tool to provide flexibility.
Board Member Stewart expressed concern that any eating establishment that wants to extend their outdoor dining hours
beyond 10:00 p.m. would be required to obtain a conditional use permit. This would result in a significant hurdle for
establishments that are trying to attract a younger crowd. It would be too costly for small business owners to pursue a
conditional use permit to extend the hours of operation. Board Member Clarke agreed that requiring a conditional use permit
to extend the operating hours of an outdoor dining area is too onerous. Board Member Cloutier suggested that if the concern
is related to impacts to adjacent residential properties, perhaps they could amend the language to extend the hours of
Packet Page 49 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2011 Page 5
operation for outdoor dining areas that are not located adjacent to residential properties. Mr. Chave pointed out that the BN
and BP zones require a conditional use permit from the hearing examiner for businesses that want to stay open past 11:00
p.m. He noted that these two zones are typically located adjacent to residential properties. Board Member Stewart voiced
her desire to encourage outdoor dining, particularly in the areas around the fountain, to bring more life to the area. Ms.
Machuga pointed out that regardless of the hours of operation allowed for outdoor dining, the use would still be subject to
the noise ordinance.
Board Member Cloutier reviewed that the proposed amendments would remove a lot of the barriers to encourage outdoor
dining. However, they must also be cognizant of the impacts that outdoor dining could have on adjacent residential
properties. He said he would support the currently proposed hours of operation. If a business owner wants to expand the
hours of operation, they could apply for a conditional use permit. Board Member Clarke said he would also support the
proposed hours of operation for properties located adjacent to residential zones. Board Member Cloutier expressed concern
that if an outdoor dining area is separated from a residential zone by an alley it would not be considered adjacent, but there
could still be significant impacts if the hours of operation are allowed to extend past 10:00 p.m. He suggested that perhaps
the language could include a provision that allows extended operating hours for properties that are not located within 100
feet of a residential zone.
Board Member Johnson recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board talked about establishing hours of operation that are
consistent with recent conditional use permits approved by the hearing examiner. She asked why the hearing examiner felt it
necessary to limit the hours of operation. Ms. Machuga answered that noise was likely one of the hearing examiner’s
concerns. Board Member Tibbott questioned the need to limit the hours of operation given that outdoor dining must comply
with the existing noise ordinance. Board Member Clarke agreed that the noise ordinance would be the governing factor of
noise. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the noise ordinance is enforced on a compliant basis, and he cautioned
against removing the hours of operation restriction and relying on a complaint driven system to handle problems that come
up. They need to protect the neighborhoods, and he felt that a restriction on the hours of operation would be appropriate for
properties located within 100 feet of a residential zone. He proposed that there be no hours of operation restriction for
outdoor dining that is located more than 100 feet from a residential zone.
Board Member Ellis said that while he is in favor of making it as easy as possible to obtain permits for outdoor dining, he is
satisfied with the hours of operation proposed in the current draft language. He reminded the Board that they discussed this
issue at length at their last meeting and provided solid reasoning for the restriction. He recalled that the original draft did not
have a time restriction. The restriction was added by the Board based on recent conditional use permits issued by the hearing
examiner. He suggested the Board either decide to include the restriction as currently written or leave it out and let the noise
ordinance take care of the issue. If hours of operation are restricted, a person would still have the option of obtaining a
conditional use permit to exceed the limitation. He summarized that the goal is to make the ordinance inclusive so it can be
applied to as many situations as possible, and then allow the hearing examiner to address the unusual situations. He
cautioned against rewriting the language to serve just a few potential properties. He said he supports the current language
that limits the hours of operation for all outdoor dining unless a conditional use permit is obtained.
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE BOARD STRIKE ECDC 17.75.010.B. BOARD MEMBER
CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Chave suggested that rather than eliminating the hours of operation entirely, the language could be changed so it is only
applicable to outdoor dining that is located adjacent to residential zones. All other outdoor dining would be governed by the
noise ordinance.
Board Member Johnson expressed concern that eliminating the hours of operation would be inconsistent with recent hearing
examiner decisions related to outdoor dining. Because the hearing examiner only considers a limited number of cases, Mr.
Chave cautioned against applying the hearing examiner record for all outdoor dining situations. Most of the other discussion
has been focused on outdoor dining areas on sites adjacent to residential zones, so it seems reasonable to limit the hours of
operation for these sites, as well. Longer operating hours could be allowed on sites that are not adjacent to residential zones.
Packet Page 50 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2011 Page 6
Board Member Johnson asked if Scott’s Bar and Grill would be required to maintain the hours of operation identified in their
conditional use permit if the City were to change the code to eliminate the restriction. Ms. Machuga answered that if the new
code language is less restrictive and the property owner can meet all of the requirements of the new code, the property would
be subject to the new code language and the conditional use permit would no longer be applicable.
BOARD MEMBERS STEWART AND CLARKE WITHDREW THEIR MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT ECDC 17.75.010.B BE CHANGED TO READ, “FOR SITES
DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY-ZONED PROPERTY, THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA SHALL
BE CLOSED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 7:00 A.M. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Machuga requested feedback regarding the proposed definition for outdoor dining (ECDC 21.75.120). Board Member
Clarke referred to the last sentence of the proposed definition and suggested that the last sentence should be changed to read,
“An outdoor dining area must be located on property outside of the City right-of-way.” The Board concurred. They
accepted the remainder of the definition as written.
Ms. Machuga asked the Board to provide direction about staff’s proposal to allow outdoor dining in the MU, BP and FVMU
zones. The board agreed that would be appropriate.
THE BOARD TOOK A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTDOOR
DINING REGULATIONS FOUND IN ECDC 17.75 (FILE NUMBER AMD20110005) TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS DISCUSSED AND AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER
STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that the motion includes the proposed modification to the definition for outdoor dining
(ECDC 21.75.120).
DISCUSSION ON HOW THE BOARD CAN IMPROVE THEIR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC
Vice Chair Reed recalled that the Commission discussed the need to improve their communications with the public at their
last meeting. In addition, Chair Lovell sent out a memorandum to the Board following his participation in a meeting of the
Citizen’s Economic Development Commission’s (ECDC) Communications Subcommittee. A goal of the Communications
Subcommittee is to better inform the public about what is going on before any given issue or question gets to the formal
public hearing stage before either the Planning Board or the City Council. It is important for the public to be aware of what
the Board and City Council is doing and how they can participate in the process. After the Board and City Council has taken
action, they should provide some type of notice to explain to the public what was done and why.
Vice Chair Reed further recalled that the Board discussed the idea of using press releases to inform the public of major topics
that are coming up, to provide more detailed information, and to explain how the public can participate in the process. The
Board discussed that while the City pays for the Planning Board agendas to be published in the local newspapers, there is
typically no charge for press releases.
Vice Chair Reed requested feedback on whether or not the Board is in favor of having a City Council member participate on
the Planning Board. Mr. Chave cautioned that this could present a problem when the Planning Board deals with quasi-
judicial items. The Board agreed that it was not necessary to have a City Council Member on the Board. Instead, they
agreed it would be appropriate to continue the quarterly meetings between the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board and the
Mayor. It might also be appropriate to include the City Council President in the quarterly meetings. Mr. Chave pointed out
that the City Council receives a copy of the Planning Board’s agendas and minutes.
Packet Page 51 of 180
1
Outdoor Dining RegulationsOutdoor Dining Regulations
ECDC 17.75ECDC 17.75
Continued Public HearingContinued Public Hearing
Planning BoardPlanning Board
August 10, 2011August 10, 2011
Current Outdoor Dining Current Outdoor Dining
RegulationsRegulations
Permitted outright for an additional 10% of Permitted outright for an additional 10% of
interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is
greater.greater.
Requires a Type IIIRequires a Type III --A Conditional Use A Conditional Use
Permit if proposing over 10% of interior Permit if proposing over 10% of interior
seating or 8 seats. Reviewed by Hearing seating or 8 seats. Reviewed by Hearing
Examiner.Examiner.
Allowed in BN, BC, BD, CW, and CG.Allowed in BN, BC, BD, CW, and CG.
Attachment 5
Packet Page 52 of 180
2
Planning Board SuggestionsPlanning Board Suggestions
Permitted outright if closed 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, and if:Permitted outright if closed 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, and if:
––Site is not directly adjacent to residentiallySite is not directly adjacent to residentially --zoned properties; orzoned properties; or
––Dining area contains no more than 8 seats or 10% of interior Dining area contains no more than 8 seats or 10% of interior seating, whichever is greater; orseating, whichever is greater; or
––Site complies with landscaping requirements along property linesSite complies with landscaping requirements along property linesadjacent to residentiallyadjacent to residentially --zoned properties; orzoned properties; or
––Dining area will be screened by 6Dining area will be screened by 6 --foot wall, hedge, or fence.foot wall, hedge, or fence.
Requires a Type IIIRequires a Type III--A Conditional Use Permit if open A Conditional Use Permit if open 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, or if requesting exemption from the 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, or if requesting exemption from the above. Reviewed by Hearing Examiner.above. Reviewed by Hearing Examiner.
Allowed in BN, BC, BP, BD, CW, CG, MU, and FVMU.Allowed in BN, BC, BP, BD, CW, CG, MU, and FVMU.
Packet Page 53 of 180
3
Packet Page 54 of 180
4
Packet Page 55 of 180
5
Packet Page 56 of 180
6
Packet Page 57 of 180
7
Packet Page 58 of 180
8
Packet Page 59 of 180
9
Packet Page 60 of 180
10
Packet Page 61 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2011 Page 8
City operations, he did not have a clear understanding of the Parks Department’s maintenance responsibilities. He suggested
that requesting a levy to maintain parks is a lot different than requesting a levy to perform functions that are unrelated to the
parks.
Board Member Clarke asked Ms. Hite to thank the City’s two horticulturists who do such a great job maintaining the City’s
flower beds. Even in inclement weather, they care for the beds as if they were their own.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 8:53 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS OF ECDC
17.75 (File Number AMD20110005)
Ms. Machuga reminded the Board that they discussed preliminary ideas for updating the outdoor dining regulations at their
May 25th meeting. She explained that under the current code, outdoor dining is permitted outright as a secondary use for an
additional 10% of the interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is greater. However, a conditional use permit is required for
businesses that wish to provide outdoor dining in excess of the 10% or 8 seats. A conditional use permit for outdoor dining
is currently reviewed by the Hearing Examiner as a Type III-A decision. She recalled that on May 25th the Board and staff
discussed the possibility of revising the review process for outdoor dining. They specifically discussed hours of operation,
noise, parking and screening. Following their discussion, the Board asked staff to return for a public hearing with draft
language allowing outdoor dining outright unless the outdoor dining area is adjacent to a residentially-zoned property in
which case a Type II administrative conditional use permit would be required. The Board suggested that outdoor dining be
allowed within all zones that are currently specified within ECDC 17.75, as well as adding the Planned Business (BP) zone.
While not discussed on May 25th, upon further review of the City’s regulations, staff found it would also be appropriate to
add the Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU) zone to the outdoor dining regulations. She said the Board also asked staff to
compile a list of zoning restrictions applicable to outdoor dining within each business and commercial zone so the Board
could determine whether additional standards or limitations are necessary to be placed within the outdoor dining regulations
to address concerns over noise, screening, etc.
Ms. Machuga referred the Board to the draft revisions to the outdoor dining regulations (Attachment 2) as well as a summary
of their research on current zoning restrictions related to outdoor dining such as restrictions on hours of operation and
setback/buffer requirements from adjacent residentially-zoned properties (Attachment 3). A table of recently approved
conditional use permits for outdoor dining was included in the Staff Report as Attachment 4, and the minutes of the May 25th
Planning Board meeting were included as Attachment 5.
Ms. Machuga reminded the Board that the main purpose for revising the outdoor dining regulations was to address property
owners’ concerns about being required to go before the Hearing Examiner for a conditional use permit at a cost of
approximately $1,500. As currently proposed in Attachment 2, outdoor dining would be permitted outright if located no
closer to residential property lines than the closest portion of the building and if closed between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. A Type II Conditional Use Permit (administrative review) would be required if the outdoor dining is located closer
to a residential property line than the closest portion of the building and if the outdoor dining would be open between the
hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Board Member Ellis pointed out that recent conditional use permits for outdoor dining have restricted the hours to 10:00 p.m.
Ms. Machuga agreed that two of the conditional use permits restricted the hours of operation to between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. The other permit allowed clean up to take place until 11:00 p.m. While the proposed language would restrict outdoor
dining after 11:00 p.m., the Board could change the time as appropriate. She said if the language is adopted as drafted, then
the three businesses that obtained conditional use permits would be allowed to keep their outdoor dining open until 11:00
p.m. Ms. Machuga explained that the time restriction was set by the Hearing Examiner as part of the conditional use permit.
Board Member Johnson said she noted this inconsistency between the recent conditional use permits and the proposed
language, as well. She suggested that the proposed language be changed to be consistent with the recent conditional use
permits. She said she would support language that would allow service until 10:00 p.m. and clean up until 11:00 p.m. Board
Member Ellis concurred.
Attachment 6
Packet Page 62 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2011 Page 9
Ms. Machuga referred to Attachment 3 and noted that the zoning code requires a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood
Business (BN) and Planned Business (BP) zones for businesses that are opened between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. The Five Restaurant and Bistro is located in the BN zone, and this is likely why the Hearing Examiner placed the time
limit on the conditional use permit. She noted that the conditional use permit application for outdoor dining was
accompanied by an application for later hours on Friday and Saturday nights. They received a conditional use permit to be
open until 2 a.m. inside the restaurant, but the outdoor dining area is required to close at 10:00 p.m., with cleanup being
completed by 11:00 p.m.
Board Member Tibbott inquired if the proposed language would address the issue of noise associated with outdoor dining.
Ms. Machuga answered that it would not. If a conditional use permit is required, the Board should provide specific standards
related to noise if they do not believe the noise ordinance adequately addresses the issue. She emphasized that, regardless of
the permitted hours of operation, the outdoor dining use would still be required to meet the noise ordinance.
Ms. Machuga advised that since the last meeting, ECDC 17.75.030, which talked about requirements for restaurants with
non-conforming seating, was removed from the proposed language. She noted that the zoning code no longer limits the
number of seats a restaurant can have, so this language is unnecessary. She also referenced Attachment 3, which provides
information about the landscaping and setback requirements for the commercial zones. She noted that a 15-foot setback is
required when a commercial zone abuts a residential zone. However, the level of landscaping required varies depending on
the zone.
Ms. Machuga provided four examples of how the proposed language would be applied to commercial properties that abut
residential zones. She identified the required 15-foot setback area where no outdoor dining would be allowed, clarifying that
some commercial zones require a larger setback from adjacent residential properties. She also identified the portions of
property located between the building and the setback area where a conditional use permit would be required for outdoor
dining. She pointed out that buildings developed closer to the street front would have less opportunity for outdoor dining as
an outright permitted use than buildings that are setback from the street front. She questioned if it is fair to require a
conditional use permit if a property has been developed to comply with the current design standards rather than setting the
building further back on the lot. She emphasized that no conditional use permit would be required for outdoor dining on
properties that are not located adjacent to residential zones.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE SO
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
At the request of Chair Lovell, Ms. Machuga clarified that, as currently proposed, an outdoor dining area would be permitted
outright as long as it is no closer to the adjacent residentially-zoned property line than the existing building. Board Member
Cloutier said that requiring a conditional use permit for outdoor dining to extend to the setback line does not make sense
given that the code already allows a building to be constructed up to the setback line in a commercial zone. He suggested
that as long as the setback and landscape buffer requirements can be met, the outdoor dining should be permitted.
Ms. Machuga clarified that, as currently proposed, no conditional use permit would be required for outdoor dining on
properties that are completely surrounded by commercial zoning. Requiring a conditional use permit when a commercial
property is located adjacent to a residential property would allow staff to address issues such as noise and screening as part
of their administrative review. She pointed out that while new construction is required to meet the landscape requirements
outlined in the code for the setback areas, existing construction may not provide adequate landscaping to screen the outdoor
dining from residential uses. The Board may want to require some type of additional screening requirement for these
situations.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that when a commercial property is located adjacent to a residential property, outdoor
dining could be a permitted use as long as the property owner upgrades the landscaping to meet the current landscaping
requirement. Ms. Machuga pointed out that the landscape requirements are different, depending on the types of zones (See
ECDC 20.13.030). Board Member Cloutier suggested that a landscape buffer should be required between a commercial
property with outdoor dining and an abutting residential property, but that no additional landscaping should be required
between two commercially-zoned properties without outdoor dining.
Packet Page 63 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2011 Page 10
Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that the City Council has stated their desire to encourage outdoor dining
because it supports economic development and makes the City livelier. As long as the outdoor dining use does not impact
neighboring properties, it should be allowed as an outright use.
Board Member Clarke observed that requiring a landscape buffer that is not necessary could place an undue burden on
commercial property owners. Ms. Machuga agreed that Board Member Cloutier’s recommendation would require a property
owner located adjacent to a residential zone to update the landscaping to be consistent with the current code requirements in
order to obtain a permit for outdoor dining. Board Member Clarke questioned if it would be necessary to bring the
landscaping along the entire setback up to code standards or just that portion that separates the outdoor dining from the
residential property. Board Member Cloutier agreed that staff should have some discretion when deciding the appropriate
amount of landscaping that should be required when a property is located adjacent to a residential zone. Ms. Machuga
cautioned that if the code language states that the entire landscape buffer must be brought into compliance with the code;
staff would not have the latitude to modify the requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Board Member Clarke asked if the recent conditional use permits for outdoor dining required the property owners to bring
the landscaping into compliance with the current code. Ms. Machuga answered that Five Restaurant and Bistro was required
to provide additional landscaping, but they were not required to bring it into full compliance with the code. They have
constructed an enclosure around their outdoor dining area to screen it from adjacent properties. Scotts Bar and Grill
constructed a covered outdoor dining area and changed the parking areas so they were required to meet the current landscape
standards. Panera Bread is new construction that is required to meet all of the current landscape requirements. Board
Member Johnson asked if any of the three businesses are located adjacent to a residential zone. Ms. Machuga answered that
neither Panera nor Scotts Bar and Grill are located adjacent to residential zones. Mr. Lien added that the Five Restaurant and
Bistro has screened their outdoor dining area from a residential use that is located on a commercially-zoned lot. None of the
properties are located adjacent to residential zones.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to simplify the conditional use permit
process by making it a staff decision rather than a hearing examiner decision. The Board previously discussed that it would
be appropriate for staff to review applications that require a conditional use permit, which would only occur when a
commercial property is located adjacent to a residential property. He said it appears the Board is supportive of allowing staff
to make a judgment as to what degree of landscaping should be required. Board Member Johnson added that the purpose of
the landscaping is to provide a buffer between the outdoor dining and the residentially-zoned properties, and staff should be
allowed some discretion when reviewing applications.
Board Member Ellis cautioned that the intent is to simplify the process so staff can review applications based on the current
code requirements without the responsibility of having to place conditions on the permit. As proposed, a staff review would
replace the Hearing Examiner review when a conditional use permit is required. He questioned if the proposed change
would allow staff the same discretion as the Hearing Examiner to alter the landscape requirements and/or place conditions on
the use. Ms. Machuga explained that the code specifically gives the Architectural Design Board and the Hearing Examiner
the discretion to change the landscaping requirements, but staff does not have this same discretion.
Board Member Cloutier suggested the code be amended to allow outdoor dining in all commercial zones that are adjacent to
residential zones outright as long as the current landscape requirements can be met. If the landscape buffer is insufficient,
the property owner must either meet the landscape requirement or screen the outdoor dining area. This would result in some
type of barrier between the outdoor dining and the adjacent residential uses. Ms. Machuga pointed out that the Board would
need to provide additional direction to staff as to what would be considered appropriate screening for an outdoor dining area.
Board Member Ellis pointed out that the current code allows outdoor dining of up to 10% of the interior seating or 8 seats,
whichever is greater, as a permitted use, and no screening would be required. Board Member Johnson observed that
screening may not be appropriate in all outdoor dining situations. For example, screening may not be desirable where a
scenic view is an amenity. However, if they want to allow staff discretion, they must provide sufficient direction to enable
staff to make appropriate decisions based on the circumstances.
Packet Page 64 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2011 Page 11
Ms. Machuga suggested it would be helpful to provide a definition for “outdoor dining.” This would provide a clear
distinction between public plaza or gathering areas and outdoor dining areas that are used exclusively by a restaurant.
Again, Board Member Ellis reminded the Board that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to make outdoor dining a
permitted use without a conditional use permit. He pointed out that most outdoor dining uses will not be located adjacent to
residential zones. He suggested they adjust the code to address the majority of the situations and then deal separately with
the unusual situations where a commercial property is adjacent to a residential property. The Board agreed that if a site
complies with the current landscaping requirements along the full property line when adjacent to a residentially-zoned
property, outdoor dining would be a permitted use regardless of the number of seats. Outdoor dining would be allowed in all
commercial zones that do not border residential zones, and no additional landscaping would be required. When a
commercial property is adjacent to a residential property and does not meet the landscape requirements, outdoor dining
would be limited to 10% of the interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is greater. An alternative to the landscape requirement
would be to screen the outdoor dining area.
The Board discussed the hours of operation. Again, Ms. Machuga pointed out that regardless of the hours of operation,
outdoor dining would still be subject to the noise ordinance. Board Member Johnson suggested that the hours of operation
should be consistent with the previously issued conditional use permits, as well as the City’s current noise ordinance. The
Board agreed that outdoor dining should not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. However, they
agreed it would be appropriate to allow a restaurant to clean the outdoor dining area until 11:00 p.m.
The Board directed staff to update the draft code language to provide a definition for the term “outdoor dining.” They
further directed staff to change the language as follows:
If a commercial property is completely surrounded by commercially-zoned properties or right-of-way, outdoor
dining for any number of people would be permitted out right.
If a commercial property is adjacent to a residentially-zoned property and complies with all the current landscape
requirements for the setback along the shared property line between the commercial and residential zones, outdoor
dining would be permitted outright.
If a commercial property that is adjacent to a residentially-zoned property does not comply with the current
landscape requirements for the setback along the shared property line, the outdoor dining area would need to be
screened with a six-foot tall hedge or fence. If properly screened, the use would still be permitted out right without
a conditional use permit.
If a commercial property that is adjacent to a residentially-zoned property does not comply with the current
landscape requirements, does not provide adequate screening around the outdoor dining area, or wants to extend the
hours of operation, a conditional use permit would be required from the Hearing Examiner.
Outdoor dining of up to 10% of the interior seating or 8 seats would be an outright permitted use without bringing
the landscaping up to the current code standards or screening the outdoor seating area.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS TO THE OUTDOOR DINING REGULATIONS OF ECDC 17.75 (File Number AMD20110005)
TO AUGUST 10, 2011. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Due to the lateness of the hour, this discussion was postponed until July 27th.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board did not comment on the extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Packet Page 65 of 180
1
Outdoor Dining RegulationsOutdoor Dining Regulations
ECDC 17.75ECDC 17.75
Public HearingPublic Hearing
Planning BoardPlanning Board
July 13, 2011July 13, 2011
Current Outdoor Dining Current Outdoor Dining
RegulationsRegulations
Permitted outright for an additional 10% of Permitted outright for an additional 10% of
interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is
greater.greater.
Requires a Type IIIRequires a Type III --A Conditional Use A Conditional Use
Permit if proposing over 10% of interior Permit if proposing over 10% of interior
seating or 8 seats. Reviewed by Hearing seating or 8 seats. Reviewed by Hearing
Examiner.Examiner.
Allowed in BN, BC, BD, CW, and CG.Allowed in BN, BC, BD, CW, and CG.
Attachment 7
Packet Page 66 of 180
2
Proposed Outdoor Dining Proposed Outdoor Dining
RegulationsRegulations
Permitted outright if no closer to residential Permitted outright if no closer to residential
property lines than closest portion of building property lines than closest portion of building
and if closed between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am.and if closed between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Requires a Type II Conditional Use Permit if Requires a Type II Conditional Use Permit if
located closer to residential property lines than located closer to residential property lines than
closest portion of building and if open between closest portion of building and if open between
11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Reviewed by Staff.11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Reviewed by Staff.
Allowed in BN, BC, BP, BD, CW, CG, and Allowed in BN, BC, BP, BD, CW, CG, and
FVMU.FVMU.
Major Concerns Related to Outdoor Major Concerns Related to Outdoor
Dining AreasDining Areas
Hours of operationHours of operation
NoiseNoise
Proximity to residential usesProximity to residential uses
ScreeningScreening
Packet Page 67 of 180
3
Packet Page 68 of 180
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Z
o
n
e
s
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
e
s
Is
a
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
s
a
pr
i
m
a
r
y
u
s
e
?
Ar
e
d
r
i
v
e
-
i
n
o
r
d
r
i
v
e
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
?
Do
e
s
t
h
e
z
o
n
e
h
a
v
e
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
?
Is
t
h
e
z
o
n
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
ou
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
re
g
s
?
Is
t
h
e
z
o
n
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ou
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
re
g
s
?
Do
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
r
e
g
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
ou
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
?
BD
–
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Ye
s
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
al
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
B
D
3
;
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
CU
P
i
n
B
D
1
,
B
D
2
,
a
n
d
BD
4
;
a
n
d
a
r
e
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
in
B
D
5
.
No
Ye
s
Ye
s
Ye
s
BN
–
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Ye
s
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
a
C
U
P
.
CU
P
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
p
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
pu
b
l
i
c
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
11
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
a
n
d
6
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
Ye
s
Ye
s
No
(
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
)
BC
–
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Ye
s
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
a
C
U
P
.
No
Ye
s
Ye
s
No
(
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
)
BP
–
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
CU
P
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
o
n
-
pr
e
m
i
s
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
to
s
e
a
t
e
d
o
r
w
a
l
k
-
in
p
a
t
r
o
n
s
.
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
/
D
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
CU
P
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
p
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
pu
b
l
i
c
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
11
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
a
n
d
6
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
No
Ye
s
(
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
to
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
ou
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
re
g
s
)
N/
A
.
T
h
e
B
P
z
o
n
e
d
o
e
s
no
t
h
a
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
CW
–
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
Ye
s
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
No
Ye
s
Ye
s
No
(
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
)
CG
–
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Ye
s
No
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
d
r
i
v
e
-
in
/
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
.
No
Ye
s
Ye
s
Ye
s
MU
–
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Us
e
Ye
s
On
l
y
u
s
e
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
to
s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
m
a
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
dr
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
No
No
No
N/
A
.
T
h
e
M
U
z
o
n
e
d
o
e
s
no
t
h
a
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
MP
–
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
H
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
Ye
s
,
w
i
t
h
a
ma
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
.
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
No
No
No
N/
A
.
T
h
e
M
P
z
o
n
e
d
o
e
s
no
t
h
a
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
OR
–
O
f
f
i
c
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
No
N/
A
N/
A
No
No
N/
A
FV
M
U
–
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Ye
s
Dr
i
v
e
-
i
n
a
n
d
d
r
i
v
e
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
No
No
Ye
s
N/
A
.
T
h
e
F
V
M
U
z
o
n
e
do
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Attachment 8
Packet Page 69 of 180
Se
t
b
a
c
k
a
n
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
R
e
s
i
d
e
nt
i
a
l
l
y
-
Z
o
n
e
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
N
e
w
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
B
D
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
o
r
b
u
il
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
or
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
(
e
x
e
m
p
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
of
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
)
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
(
R
)
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
O
t
h
e
r
wi
s
e
,
n
o
si
d
e
o
r
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
4
3
.
0
3
0
)
.
N
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d.
P
e
r
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
4
3
.
0
3
0
.
H
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
fr
o
m
R
-
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
w
it
h
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
m
a
in
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
B
D
l
o
t
.
A
si
x
-
f
o
o
t
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
e
n
c
e
,
w
a
l
l
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
h
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
he
B
D
zo
n
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
.
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
B
N
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
(
R
)
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,
n
o
si
d
e
o
r
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
4
5
.
0
2
0
)
.
A
2
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
P
e
r
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
4
5
.
0
2
0
.
C
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
R
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
rm
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
co
v
e
r
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
ow
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
B
N
l
o
t
.
A
s
i
x
-
f
o
o
t
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
f
e
n
c
e
,
w
a
l
l
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
h
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
B
C
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
o
r
b
u
il
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
or
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
(
e
x
e
m
p
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
an
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
of
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
)
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
(
R
)
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
O
t
h
e
r
wi
s
e
,
n
o
si
d
e
o
r
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
5
0
.
0
2
0
)
.
N
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d.
P
e
r
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
E
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
fr
o
m
R
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
BC
l
o
t
.
A
s
i
x
-
f
o
o
t
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
e
nc
e
,
w
a
l
l
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
h
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
ov
i
d
e
d
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
.
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
B
P
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
l
o
t
li
n
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
(
R
)
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,
n
o
s
i
d
e
o
r
re
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
5
3
.
0
2
0
)
.
A
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
P
e
r
E
C
D
C
16
.
5
3
.
0
2
0
.
C
,
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
R-
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
tr
e
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
m
a
i
n
t
a
in
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
B
P
l
o
t
.
A
s
i
x
-
fo
o
t
mi
n
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
e
n
c
e
,
w
a
l
l
o
r
d
e
n
s
e
,
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
h
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
(
C
W
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
(
R
)
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
1
5
f
e
e
t
l
a
n
d
w
a
r
d
o
f
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
6
0
f
e
e
t
l
a
n
d
w
ar
d
o
f
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
5
5
.
0
2
0
).
No
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
om
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
z
o
n
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
t
h
e
C
W
z
o
n
e
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
me
n
t
s
o
f
E
C
D
C
2
0
.
1
3
w
o
u
l
d
a
p
p
l
y
.
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(
C
G
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
(
R
)
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,
n
o
si
d
e
o
r
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
6
0
.
0
2
0
)
.
A
4
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
P
e
r
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
6
0
.
0
3
0
.
A
.
1
.
f
,
T
y
p
e
I
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
us
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
z
o
n
e
s
.
T
h
e
b
u
ff
e
r
sh
a
l
l
b
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
1
0
f
e
e
t
i
n
w
i
d
t
h
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
n
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
Packet Page 70 of 180
Me
d
i
c
a
l
U
s
e
(
M
U
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
a
l
l
l
o
t
li
n
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
a
t
le
a
s
t
o
n
e
f
o
o
t
o
f
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
ur
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
t
w
o
f
e
e
t
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
,
m
e
as
u
r
e
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
g
r
a
d
e
.
O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,
1
5
-
f
oo
t
s
i
d
e
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
re
d
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
6
2
.
0
2
0
)
.
A
1
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
tr
e
e
t
se
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
N
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g/
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
z
on
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
ic
t
o
th
e
M
U
z
o
n
e
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
E
C
D
C
2
0
.
1
3
w
o
u
l
d
a
p
p
l
y
.
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
H
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
(
M
P
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
e
t
b
ac
k
,
1
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
i
d
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
,
a
n
d
1
5
-
f
oo
t
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
(
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
7
5
.
0
2
0
)
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
.
N
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
z
o
n
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
t
h
e
M
P
z
o
n
e
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
E
C
D
C
2
0
.
1
3
w
o
u
l
d
a
p
p
l
y
.
Of
f
i
c
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
O
R
)
–
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
s
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
O
R
z
o
n
e
.
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
(
F
V
M
U
)
–
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
v
a
r
y
a
r
o
u
n
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
si
t
e
(
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
d
i
s
t
r
i
ct
m
a
p
i
n
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
1
0
0
.
0
4
0
)
,
bu
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
a
15
-
f
o
o
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
a
n
d
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
F
V
M
U
-
z
o
n
e
d
s
i
t
e
.
N
o
s
t
re
e
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
.
E
C
D
C
1
6
.
1
0
0
.
0
4
0
.
D
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
er
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
o
b
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
pe
d
an
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
b
u
f
f
e
r
t
o
a
d
j
o
i
n
in
g
R
-
z
o
n
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
nd
a
r
d
s
o
f
E
C
D
C
2
2
.
1
0
0
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
r
e
f
or
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
r
i
e
nt
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
s
,
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
th
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
l
a
c
e
s
fo
r
ga
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
.
Packet Page 71 of 180
Re
c
e
n
t
l
y
R
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
D
i
n
i
n
g
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Zo
n
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
?
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
e
a
t
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
C
U
P
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
Fi
v
e
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
&
B
i
s
t
r
o
65
0
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Fi
l
e
N
o
.
P
L
N
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
8
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
(B
N
)
Ye
s
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
(
C
U
P
re
q
u
e
s
t
w
a
s
a
l
s
o
f
o
r
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
in
d
o
o
r
h
o
u
r
s
,
t
o
b
e
o
p
e
n
u
n
t
i
l
2:
0
0
a
m
o
n
F
r
i
d
a
y
s
a
n
d
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
s
)
In
s
i
d
e
=
9
8
s
e
a
t
s
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
=
4
0
s
e
a
t
s
(4
1
%
o
f
i
n
d
o
o
r
se
a
t
i
n
g
)
-
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
t
h
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
d
a
t
10
:
0
0
p
m
a
n
d
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
11
:
0
0
p
m
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
t
h
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
t
h
a
t
a
n
y
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
ou
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
m
a
y
o
c
c
u
r
.
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
m
u
s
t
o
b
t
a
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
l
o
a
d
o
f
t
h
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
,
an
d
m
u
s
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
s
i
d
e
ac
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
2
2
6
th
S
t
.
S
W
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
r
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
r
a
s
h
e
n
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
,
a
n
d
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
t
o
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
p
a
t
r
o
n
s
.
Sc
o
t
t
’
s
B
a
r
&
G
r
i
l
l
81
1
5
2
4
4
th
S
t
.
S
W
/
L
a
k
e
Ba
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
W
a
y
Fi
l
e
N
o
.
P
L
N
2
0
1
0
0
0
6
6
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(C
G
)
Ye
s
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
In
s
i
d
e
=
2
9
0
s
e
a
t
s
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
=
6
4
s
e
a
t
s
(2
2
%
o
f
i
n
d
o
o
r
se
a
t
i
n
g
)
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
l
a
y
o
u
t
a
n
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
e
a
t
s
m
a
y
ch
a
n
g
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
ma
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
6
4
s
e
a
t
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
re
v
i
e
w
.
-
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
ev
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
o
w
n
e
r
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
o
e
x
p
a
n
d
h
o
u
r
s
of
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1
0
:
0
0
pm
a
n
d
7
:
0
0
a
m
Pa
n
e
r
a
B
r
e
a
d
76
2
9
2
4
4
th
S
t
.
S
W
/
L
a
k
e
Ba
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
W
a
y
Fi
l
e
N
o
.
P
L
N
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(C
G
)
Ye
s
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
In
s
i
d
e
=
1
0
4
s
e
a
t
s
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
=
3
9
s
e
a
t
s
(3
8
%
o
f
i
n
d
o
o
r
se
a
t
i
n
g
)
-
H
o
u
r
s
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
m
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
m
.
Packet Page 72 of 180
APPROVED JUNE 8TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 25, 2011
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jen Machuga, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Neil Tibbott
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2011 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
REVIEW OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75 –OUTDOOR DINING
Ms. Machuga said staff has recently received inquiries from a few small downtown businesses regarding establishing or
expanding outdoor dining areas. She explained that, under the current code (ECDC 17.75), outdoor dining is permitted
outright as a secondary use for an additional 10% of the existing interior seating of the establishment or 8 seats, whichever is
greater. However, a conditional use permit is required for businesses that wish to provide outdoor dining in excess of the
10% or 8 seats. She reminded the Board that a conditional use permit is a Type III-A decision, which is reviewed by the
Hearing Examiner. The total fee for such a review is over $1,500, which makes it cost prohibitive for many small businesses
who only want a few seats over the number that triggers the requirement. In addition, staff believes the process is
counterproductive if the City’s goal is to encourage an active street life in downtown Edmonds.
Ms. Machuga pointed out that there are some potential issues related to outdoor dining including noise, hours of operation,
screening, and proximity of the dining area to residential properties. She advised that concerns about noise and hours of
operation can be addressed through the City’s noise ordinance and though limiting the hours of operation. If the location of
outdoor dining is of concern, conditions or design standards can be built into the code to address the impacts, such as
Attachment 9
Packet Page 73 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 25, 2011 Page 2
limiting outdoor dining when directly adjacent to residential zones. Another alternative would be a simple review process
such as an administrative conditional use permit, which would be a Type II decision that includes public notice and a total
fee of under $600. She suggested the Board consider the following questions when discussing revisions to the outdoor
dining provisions:
1. Should outdoor dining be permitted outright as an allowed use or should outdoor dining be reviewed through the
conditional use permit process?
2. If the conditional use permit process is utilized to permit outdoor dining, should applications be reviewed by the
Hearing Examiner as a Type III-A decision, or should they be reviewed administratively as a Type II decision?
3. Should a conditional use permit be required if a proposed outdoor dining area has certain characteristics such as
being located directly adjacent to a residential zone or being open past a specified time?
4. Should outdoor dining be allowed within all zones that allow for service uses or should outdoor dining be
prohibited in certain zones? For example, the Planned Business (BP) zone is not currently listed within ECDC
17.75 as allowing outdoor dining.
Ms. Machuga said an additional item for the Board to consider is that Section 17.75.030 addresses requirements for
establishments with nonconforming seating. However, due to changes elsewhere in the zoning code over the years, there are
no longer limits within the zoning code to the number of seats allowed within an eating establishment. Staff is
recommending that this section be removed as it appears to no longer be applicable.
Mr. Chave explained that the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to solicit feedback from the Board so that staff can prepare
draft language for a public hearing. He said the City has received inquiries recently from business owners who want to
expand or establish outdoor dining, and the current conditional use requirement is a significant hindrance. Not only is it a
multi-month process, but the cost is significant, as well. He suggested the conditional use requirement is an outdated
provision. He said one option is to permit outdoor dining outright, except those that are located adjacent to residential zones.
In these situations, a conditional use permit could be required. Another option would be to require a fence or small wall to
separate the outdoor dining from residential zones. This would help buffer impacts such as noise.
Mr. Chave pointed out that the isolated BP zones along Edmonds Way are unique because they typically back up against
residential properties. He reminded them, that at this time, Section 17.75 does not list the BP zone as a place where outdoor
dining is allowed. He questioned if small restaurants or cafes would even locate in the BP zones; and if so, would there be
sufficient space for outdoor dining. He noted that no one has approached the City for this type of use in the BP zone, so it
might not be necessary for the change to apply to the BP zones, as well.
Chair Lovell asked if the current language in Section 17.75 is congruent with other sections of the code. Mr. Chave said the
language works to the degree that it provides guidance for reviewing outdoor dining applications. However, the question
currently before the Board is whether or not a conditional use permit is necessary in most situations. He said staff’s logic is
that because there are no parking and side and front setback requirements in the downtown zones, the conditional use permit
requirement would not really serve a purpose. However, he acknowledged there could be impacts when outdoor dining is
located at the rear of a property that is adjacent to a residential zone. He explained that there is already code language to
address noise, hours of operation, etc. If the Board believes these impacts can be addressed based on the existing code
requirements, they could merely insert a requirement for screening without an additional review process. He pointed out that
a buffer area is already required when a commercial zone abuts a residential zone, and no outdoor dining uses would be
permitted in this setback (buffer) area.
Board Member Ellis asked how many businesses in Edmonds already have outdoor seating and how many of them were
required to obtain a conditional use permit. Ms. Machuga said she has not collected this information, but the City has
recently approved conditional use permits for Five Restaurant and Bistro, Scotts Bar and Grill and Panera Bread. Board
Member Ellis asked how much outdoor seating each of these applicants were permitted. Ms. Machuga said the Five
Restaurant and Bistro had 98 seats inside and they were permitted 40 outdoor dining seats for a total seating increase of 41
percent. Scotts Bar and Grill has 290 inside seats, and the conditional use permit allowed 64 seats outside for a total increase
of 36 percent. Panera Bread has been permitted 104 seats inside, and the conditional use permit allows an additional 39 seats
outside for a total increase of 38 percent. Board Member Ellis observed that the increases associated with each of these
Packet Page 74 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 25, 2011 Page 3
conditional use permits are substantial. Ms. Machuga noted that none of the outdoor seating associated with the three
businesses is located adjacent to residential zoning. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that outdoor seating is a seasonal use.
Chair Lovell observed that the current code language in Section 17.75 does not address the need to preserve enough sidewalk
width to provide pedestrian access. He questioned how the City would prevent outdoor dining from encroaching into the
sidewalk areas. Mr. Chave explained that outdoor dining must be located on private property. Bistro dining, which occurs
within the public rights-of-way, is addressed in another section of the code.
Board Member Tibbott asked if there is anything in the code that addresses the issue of safety. Ms. Machuga answered that
the current code language does not address the issue of safety, and neither would a conditional use permit. However, when
buildings are constructed, developers must meet all building and fire code requirements. Board Member Tibbott pointed out
that there could be safety issues if outdoor dining is placed in parking areas. Mr. Chave said it is not likely a business would
locate outdoor dining in parking lots because their servers must have easy access to the tables from the kitchen. The outdoor
dining is almost always located next to the building. He said any changes of this type would also require review to consider
the impacts to traffic circulation, etc., and safety would be one element of the review. He noted that business owners do not
typically make changes that will create traffic and circulation problems that make it difficult for their customers to access
their business.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the existing code language includes numerous provisions to address impacts when
commercial zones are located adjacent to residential zones. He suggested staff identify these provisions for the record so the
Board does not spend unnecessary time trying to address impacts that are already covered in other chapters of the code.
Board Member Cloutier said he is not a fan of using the Hearing Examiner to conduct reviews of this type. He said he would
support an amendment that makes outdoor dining a Type II review.
Board Member Clarke asked if the current code language addresses noise and music when outdoor dining is located adjacent
to residential zones. The residential property owners should not have to listen to an unreasonable amount of noise coming
from the outdoor dining areas. Ms. Machuga said the City’s noise ordinance limits the amount of noise to a certain level. In
the past, outdoor dining has been limited to certain hours of operation via a conditional use permit.
Board Member Clarke questioned how the City would ensure there is adequate parking when a business increases their
seating by a substantial amount via outdoor seating. Ms. Machuga reminded the Board that the BD zones do not require
parking for the commercial uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that it behooves a business to provide adequate parking in the
General Commercial zones because there is not a lot of pedestrian activity. It is not practical for them to create more seating
than they can accommodate in their parking areas. He noted that outdoor seating does not necessarily increase the patronage
significantly. During nice weather, people want to sit outside rather than inside. Chair Lovell agreed that when considering
outdoor dining opportunities, businesses would likely consider parking as an important element.
Board Member Clarke suggested that outdoor dining should be allowed outright on commercial properties that are not
adjacent to residential zones. That would mean no additional review of any kind would be required. Rather than a
conditional use permit, it would be appropriate to require a staff review for outdoor dining on commercial properties located
adjacent to residential zones. He expressed his belief that outdoor dining should be encouraged in the commercial zones.
Board Member Ellis asked where the current limit of 10 percent or 8 seats came from. He questioned if it would be
productive to adjust the limits to deal with smaller business that want a little more seating and require some type of hearing
process and review for larger expansions. Mr. Chave said this approach would still be a problem for smaller businesses. The
idea is to allow small businesses to provide outdoor seating without requiring a lengthy and costly review process.
Typically, the impacts are minimal. In his experience, even the larger proposals that have gone before the Hearing Examiner
for a conditional use permit have not been an issue. Ms. Machuga added that the City has received inquiries from several
small businesses that have between 20 and 30 indoor seats and want to add approximately 15 outdoor seats. While the
percentage increase would be large, the number of outdoor seats would not likely have a significant impact. Mr. Chave
suggested the numbers are less important than location. For example, the code should provide specific guidance for outdoor
dining that is located adjacent to residential zones.
Packet Page 75 of 180
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 25, 2011 Page 4
Mr. Chave agreed with Board Member Clarke’s recommendation. However, he suggested that no additional review be
required for properties adjacent to residential zones as long as the outdoor dining is located in front or to the side of the
business and not directly adjacent to the residential uses. Vice Chair Reed reminded the Board that whenever a commercial
zone abuts a residential zone, a 15-foot setback is required. Mr. Chave agreed and said the setback requirement is even
greater in some cases. The setback area must be maintained and outdoor dining would not be allowed.
Vice Chair Reed questioned if it would be appropriate for the Board to also review the bistro dining provisions. Mr. Chave
responded that the bistro dining provisions are fairly well defined right now, in that the use is allowed with minimal review.
A street use permit is required, and adequate space on the sidewalk must be maintained for pedestrian access.
Board Member Ellis voiced concern about allowing outdoor dining outright in all commercial zones without tying it to a
percentage of the indoor seating. Board Member Clarke said he has done numerous economic analyses for restaurants and
he has learned that a high ratio of outdoor seats to indoor seats is not feasible in the Puget Sound climate. He suggested the
free market would regulate the number of outdoor dining seats. In addition, if there is not sufficient parking for their
patrons, restaurants would likely reduce the number of outdoor spaces, recognizing that the indoor spaces provide more
revenue because they can be used year round.
Board Member Clarke asked if it would be possible to consider the use of sidewalk space for outdoor dining as part of their
discussion about development agreements in the BD zones. Perhaps outdoor dining could be recognized as a potential
incentive of a development agreement. Mr. Chave replied that nothing would prevent the City from integrating outdoor
dining into the development agreement option. However, he questioned whether this would really be an incentive since the
current code already allows for outdoor dining and for bistro dining if there is space available. He explained that because
bistro dining involves the public rights-of-way, the City would not have the ability to waive the review requirement.
However, the review could run concurrently with the development agreement process.
Mr. Chave asked for feedback from the Board about whether the proposed changes should apply to the BP zones, as well.
He reminded the Board that most of the business zones require that all uses be contained within the building, and outdoor
dining is one exception. He explained that many of the BP-zoned properties are adjacent to residential zones, but including a
provision that requires a more thorough review process would allow the City to address impacts associated with outdoor
dining in these situations. He suggested that the BP zone not be excluded from the outdoor dining provision, and the Board
concurred.
The Board directed staff to prepare draft code language that would amend Section 17.75 to make outdoor dining in all
commercial zones a Type II decision, unless the proposed outdoor seating is located adjacent to a residential zone. In these
situations, additional scrutiny should be required. They also asked staff to provide information about other existing code
language that addresses impacts such as noise, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Chave indicated the amendments would be
scheduled for a public hearing in June.
Board Member Clarke asked how outdoor dining associated with retirement homes or assisted living facilities would be
regulated. He questioned if these establishments would be permitted to have outdoor dining areas for their residents. Mr.
Chave answered that this use is not regulated, and retirement homes and assisted living facilities that are located within
multi-family residential zones would be allowed to have small areas for outdoor dining for their residents. He noted that
these areas are usually multi-purpose areas and are not set aside solely for outdoor dining.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the proposed adjustments to the downtown Business District (BD) zones is
scheduled for June 8th. He advised that two press releases have been published to announce the hearing, and the draft
language has been forwarded to various groups, including the Downtown Edmonds Merchant’s Association.
Mr. Chave announced that at the Citizens Economic Development Commission’s (CEDC) June 15th meeting, the University
of Washington/Cascade Land Conservancy Team will present a summary of what they heard at the last presentation. They
Packet Page 76 of 180
AM-4396 Item #: 2. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Finance Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Non-represented employee compensation ordinance.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Finance Committee discuss non represented compensation ordinance as it relates to the 1.5% COLA.
Previous Council Action
This agenda item is forwarded with recommendation for adoption from the Public Safety/Human Resources Council
Committee.
As is past practice, Council adopts a salary ordinance each year as part of the budget process.
Council first discussed this ordinance on November 15, 2011 and decided to postpone the decision to adopt the ordinance.
After the last Council meeting, Council President recommended we discuss this at a Finance Committee meeting before
bringing it back to Council.
Narrative
As Council may recall, the City has recently contracted with Public Sector Personnel Consultants (PSPC) to complete three
phases of work in an effort to create consistent and effective business practices throughout the organization, to address audit
findings from WCIA and to address some of Council's concerns in regards to the Non represented compensation policy. Two
phases of this work include updating the Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC) and completing a total compensation
survey for Non-Represented employees.
Because of this current process, the Mayor and staff are recommending that we work with PSPC in the next few months to
address the concerns related to the Non-Represented Compensation Policy and bring revisions back to Council for adoption. In
addition, the Mayor and staff will also be working with PSPC and the Council to address the results and impacts of the total
compensation survey. The expected timeline to complete this process is four months.
As is common across municipalities, cost of living adjustments (COLA's) for non-represented employees are considered
during the budget process. As the preliminary budget is created, it often contains a COLA that is in alignment with most of the
bargaining units of represented employees. During the budget process, it was noted by interim Finance Director Jim Tarte that
the Mayor’s proposed budget included a 1.5% COLA for SEIU, Teamsters, and non-represented employees. Once Council
adopted this budget, this gave authorization to the Mayor to grant COLA's to the SEIU, Teamsters, and non-represented
employees.
As is past practice, Council has considered and approved an ordinance to grant the COLA authorization, which in essence has
been a duplicative effort of authorization; this has no effect on pay bands. In addition, a salary ordinance is the method for
adjusting pay bands for non-represented employees. This is not a duplicative effort and will need to be considered by Council
prior to taking action on the salary ordinance.
This being said, the Mayor and staff are recommending that Council consider a salary ordinance authorizing the 1.5% COLA
for non represented employees, thus being consistent with both SEIU and Teamsters. In addition, we would like Council to
consider having this authorization be part of the overall budget process and adoption in future years.
In addition, the Mayor and staff recommend that Council postpone the adoption of the salary band ordinance, thereby not
Packet Page 77 of 180
adjusting the pay bands for non-represented employees, until the compensation consultant completes his work and brings forth
recommendations for consideration.
Attachments
NRC Policy
Non represented salary ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/30/2011 02:25 PM
Mayor Sandy Chase 12/02/2011 08:28 AM
Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 12/07/2011 01:17 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2011 01:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:47 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:48 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 11/30/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 78 of 180
12/9/2011dlh
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
SUBJECT: NON-REPRESENTED COMPENSATION POLICY
The City’s non-represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity in pay
for all employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants,
offers internal equity to foster long term retention of valuable employees, and
rewards meritorious job performance for deserving individuals.
BANDING (Internal Equity Component) -
The City’s non-represented compensation policy covers all non-represented
positions in eight different bands as follows:
Band A:
Police Chief, Finance Director, Public Works Director, Community Services
Director/Economic Development Director, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Services Director, Development Services Director, and Human Resources
Director
Band B:
Assistant Police Chief and City Engineer
Band C:
Planning Manager, Building Official, City Clerk and WWTP Manager
Band D:
Chief Information Officer, Transportation Engineer, Court Administrator,
Water/Sewer Manager, Street/Storm Water Manager and WWTP Supervisor
Band E:
Facilities Manager, Parks Manager, Storm Water Engineer, Cultural Services
Manager, Recreation Services Manager, Fleet Manager, Assistant Building
Official, Engineering Program Manager 2 and 3, Senior Planner and Senior
Utilities Engineer
City of Edmonds
PERSONNEL POLICIES
Packet Page 79 of 180
Page 2
Band F:
Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Planner, Capital Project Manager, Engineering
Program Manager 1 and Associate Planner
Band G:
Assistant Planner, Recycling Coordinator, Executive Assistant Confidential and
Human Resources Analyst
Band H:
Human Resources Assistant
The salary for each position shall remain within the boundaries of the specific
corresponding band. The bands are consistently held at a 50% width.
METHOD/APPLICATION (External Component) –
Annually, to be completed no later than September 1 of each year, the non-
represented bands will be realigned based on a market survey of two positions;
the highest paid non-represented position and the lowest paid non-represented
position. This process will involve the following:
1. Determining the highest paid non-represented position (Band A) and the
lowest paid non-represented position (Band H).
2. Complete a market based survey of the two positions using the
comparable cities from King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties as
determined by the HR Committee in 2000 (Attachment 1). The survey will
include successfully comparing our positions with four cities directly above
Edmonds by population and with four cities directly below Edmonds by
population. The level 5 position (or median) will be determined with the
median salary becoming the new maximum for the band.
3. The remaining bands (B through G) will be consistently spaced between
Bands A and H.
ANNUAL INCREASES –
Non-represented staff are eligible for two increases a year as follows:
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA):
As part of the annual budget process, each band is eligible for a COLA on an
annual basis when approved by City Council. COLA shall be awarded following
the annual market based survey and any necessary adjustments of non-
represented bands.
Packet Page 80 of 180
Page 3
Annual Merit Increase:
Merit increases may be awarded to non-represented employees based on
performance as follows:
• 1% - Meets Standards –
Performance consistently meets job requirements and goals are achieved
as stated in the annual evaluation or work plan.
• 2% - Commendable –
Performance is consistently above adequate skill levels. Goals are
achieved often beyond expectation.
• 3% - Distinguished –
Performance is consistently and significantly beyond established
standards. Goals are achieved at an outstanding level and exceptional
skill levels are consistently demonstrated.
For exceptional meritorious performance, over and above distinguished, the
Mayor has the authority to award a merit increase up to a maximum of 5% with
appropriate justification from the Department Director. At no point shall
employees be allowed to exceed the band maximum.
RECRUITMENT -
For external recruitment purposes, the band range will consist of the established
band minimum up to 50% of the band width as the maximum (the mid-point of
the band). New employees shall be hired at no more than 5% above their
current salary not to exceed 50% of their specific band. In rare situations in
which the position can not be filled, or when internal salary compression is a
component, the Mayor has the authority to negotiate a starting salary that may
exceed the mid-point within the band width.
APPEALS –
If a non-represented employee believes they have been incorrectly placed within
the band structure, or has another pay equity issue, they may bring the issue
forward to their direct supervisor and/or Department Director. If the Director
finds the issue has validity, he/she will appeal to the Mayor to determine whether
the position has been placed inappropriately, from a financial and from a
responsibilities/job tasks standpoint, within a designated band. If, upon the
conclusion of the review it is determined that an adjustment is warranted, the
Mayor has the authority to correct position placement within the bands as
appropriate. No other appeal process is available.
Packet Page 81 of 180
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES
FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR
BUDGET YEAR 2012, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.33.050 requires that the salary ranges for the various
positions in the City of Edmonds (“City”) be made a part of the annual budget document as a
part of the adoption of an annual budget ordinance; and
WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it
appropriate to adjust salary ranges for certain non-represented employees described in the
attached Exhibit A in order to permit a salary increase along with approval of a benefit package;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Annual salary ordinance.
1.1 The salaries of all non-represented employees, per the Non-
Represented Compensation Policy and as shown on Exhibit A, are
adjusted as follows:
Current Band Proposed 2012 Band
A – $103,568 - $155,352 A – $105,122 - $157,682
(includes a 1.5% COLA)
B – $94,402 - $141,604 B – $95,818 - $143,728
C – $85,237 - $127,855 C – $86,516 - $129,773
D – $76,071 - $114,107 D – $77,212 - $115,819
E – $66,905 - $100,358 E – $67,909 - $101,863
F – $57,740 - $86,610 F – $58,606 - $87,909
G – $48,574 - $72,861 G – $49,303 - $73,954
H – $39,408 - $59,113 H – $39,999 - $60,000
Packet Page 82 of 180
1.2 In addition, the Mayor is authorized to approve merit increases
for the non-represented employees listed in Exhibit A, effective on
the individual employee’s anniversary date. Such merit increases
normally range between zero percent (0%) up to three percent (3%)
but for exceptional performance shall not exceed five percent (5%)
nor exceed the band maximum per the Non-Represented
Compensation Policy.
1.3 When a non-represented employee is assigned to work in a
position with a higher pay rate in order to fill a vacancy or act on
behalf of an absent employee, the employee shall be paid Acting Pay
in the amount of either the minimum of the salary rate of the acting
position or a 5% increase in base pay, whichever is greater. To
qualify, the employee must be assigned to the acting position for a
period of ten (10) or more consecutive workdays. This additional
compensation shall be temporary and shall not exceed six (6) months
or will cease when the vacant position has been filled, whichever
comes first. Up to one week of additional compensation may be paid
if the designated employee assists in training the new hire.
1.4 The purpose of this ordinance is to fulfill the requirement of
RCW 35A.33.050 that the salary or salary range for each office,
position or job classification shall be set forth separately, together
with the title or position designation thereof, and included in the
City’s proposed preliminary budget for each year. Because there is a
compensation and classification study currently in progress for Non-
Represented positions, the results of that study may impact the
salaries and titles of this classification group. Therefore, it is
possible that another ordinance with adjusted salaries and titles for
Non-Represented positions may be brought for approval during
2012. Such an ordinance would supersede this ordinance.
Section 2. Insurance, leave and other existing benefits shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
Packet Page 83 of 180
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 84 of 180
4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said
ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY
RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT
PERSONNEL FOR BUDGET YEAR 2012, AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 85 of 180
5
2012
NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE (NRC)
Effective January 1, 2011
(1.5% COLA)
BAND TITLES
A
PAY RANGE
Police Chief $105,122 - $157,682
PW Director
Community Services/Economic Dev Director
Parks and Recreation Director
Development Services Director
Human Resources Director
Finance Director
BAND TITLES
B
PAY RANGE
Assistant Police Chief $95,818 - $143,728
City Engineer
BAND TITLES
C
PAY RANGE
Planning Manager $86,516 - $129,773
Building Official
City Clerk
WWTP Manager
BAND TITLES
D
PAY RANGE
Chief Information Officer $77,212 - $115,819
Transportation Engineer
Court Administrator
Water/Sewer Manager
Street/Storm Water Manager
WWTP Supervisor
BAND TITLES
E
PAY RANGE
Facilities Manager $67,909 - $101,863
Parks Manager
Storm Water Engineer
Cultural Services Manager
Recreation Services Manager
Fleet Manager
Assistant Building Official
Engineering Program Manager 2 and 3
Senior Planner
Senior Utilities Engineer
Packet Page 86 of 180
6
BAND TITLES
F
PAY RANGE
Executive Assistant to the Mayor $58,606 - $87,909
Planner
Capital Projects Manager
Engineering Program Manager 1
Associate Planner
BAND TITLES
G
PAY RANGE
Assistant Planner $49,303 - $73,954
Recycling Coordinator
Executive Assistant - Confidential
Human Resources Analyst
BAND TITLES
H
PAY RANGE
Human Resources Assistant $39,999 - $60,000
Packet Page 87 of 180
AM-4415 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Holiday and Kelly day buy back EPOA and Law Support.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information as requested by the Finance Committee of the City Council.
Previous Council Action
This year, the Holiday and Kelly day buy back check payment was detailed out for informational purposes as part of the
normal payroll check run in November 2011 to describe the increase in the November payroll. In the past, council has
approved these issued payroll checks which included the Holiday and Kelly day buy back checks.
Narrative
The yearly Holiday and Kelly day buy back is a contract negotiated benefit for commissioned police officers (Edmonds' Police
Officers Association - EPOA members) as noted in section 7.3 of the EPOA collective bargaining agreement (see attachment).
As this is a negotiated benefit, these Holiday and Kelly day buy backs are processed under the terms of the contract each year
in November. The contract language states that they must be paid out for their unused and unscheduled holidays by December
1st of each year. In compliance with the collective bargaining agreement, these Holiday and Kelly day buy back checks have
been issued.
This is an informational discussion only. Any discussion outside of information only should be scheduled for an Executive
Session as part of labor negotiations.
Attachments
Section 7.3 - EPOA Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 12/07/2011 01:17 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2011 01:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:44 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:46 PM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 12/07/2011 10:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 88 of 180
Packet Page 89 of 180
AM-4414 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Reserve Policy
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No recommendation at this time, for discussion purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A draft Reserve Policy is presented for Committee discussion and feedback. No action is expected at this time. The draft
Reserve Policy would create a combined contingency fund of a minimum of 16% of annual unrestricted General Fund
revenue, consistent with best practices for municipal financial planning. Funding of the contingency fund would occur over a
four-year time period. According to the draft policy, resources accumulated within the fund could be used by Council for
specific purposes. Uses over a certain threshold would trigger replenishment of the contingency fund.
Attachments
Draft Reserve Policy
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2011 01:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:46 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:48 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 12/07/2011 10:12 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 90 of 180
1
1.0 PURPOSE:
To establish a Reserve Policy for the City which is capable of addressing the
various types (categories) of the City’s operating and restricted use funds. The
objectives of this Policy are to (i) provide a clear understanding of the goals and
objectives of reserve establishment, (ii) offer guidance and limitations regarding
the establishment, use and replenishment of City reserves, and (iii) establish a
process for periodic reporting and review of City reserves.
2.0 ORGANIZATION AFFECTED:
All City funds.
3.0 REFERENCES:
4.0 GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY:
The General Fund is used to account for all general revenues of the City not
specifically levied or collected for other City funds, and for expenditures related
to providing general services by the City. For the purpose of this policy and as it
applies to the General Fund only, the City will establish a Contingency Reserve
Fund with a minimum balance of 8% of annual General Fund revenues. At no
time, however, shall the balance in the Contingency Reserve Fund fall below
4% unless specifically waived by the City Council because of an unforeseen
emergency.
The Contingency Reserve Fund shall initially be set at a minimum of 4% of
annual General Fund revenues. The City shall reach the targeted minimum of
8% no later than fiscal year 2016 according to the following schedule:
2% by December 31, 2013
CITY OF EDMONDS
RESERVE POLICY
Subject: Reserve Policy Original Policy Date: N/A
Originating Department: Finance Division Last Revision Date: N/A
Approved By: Shawn Hunstock, Director, Finance & Information Services
Packet Page 91 of 180
2
4% by December 31, 2014
6% by December 31, 2015
8% by December 31, 2016
4.1 If actual expenditures in the General Fund are less than budgeted
expenditures, and the General Fund does not end the year at a deficit, at
least 25% of the difference between budgeted and actual expenditures will
revert to the Contingency Reserve Fund and may then be re-appropriated
in a subsequent year at the discretion of the City Council.
4.2 The City will annually direct a minimum of 25% of sales tax receipts from
new construction (NAICS Industry Classification Code 23) to the
Contingency Reserve Fund, up to $500,000 per year.
4.3 Total annual transfers to the Contingency Reserve Fund shall not be more
than 125% of the amounts calculated in Sections 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 above.
Once funded up to the 8% target, there shall be no limitation on the
maximum annual contribution to the Contingency Reserve Fund.
4.4 Use of Contingency Reserve Fund - To the extent that there is an
imbalance in the General Fund between revenues and budgeted
expenditures, City Council and administration will strive to address the
imbalance first with revenue increases, expenditure reductions, or a
combination of the two.
Use of the Contingency Reserve Fund is a one-time, non-recurring
funding source. If an imbalance in the General Fund occurs that can not
be addressed with additional revenues or expenditure reductions, a multi-
year plan shall be developed to address the imbalance concurrently with
the planned reserve draw down of the Contingency Fund. The
implementation of the replenishment plan will be done in accordance with
the guidelines below (see “Replenishment of Reserves”). A planned draw
down of the fund’s reserves should: a) not exceed 50% of the balance in
the Contingency Reserve Fund, and b) not reduce the reserve below 4%
of annual General Fund revenues.
4.5 Replenishment of Reserves - The following criteria will be used to restore
the Contingency Reserve Fund based upon the remaining fund balance
compared to the minimum reserve guideline:
1. If the reserves are drawn down by 25-50% of reserve fund balance,
then a budgetary plan shall be implemented to return the reserve
level to between 75% and 100% of the minimum balance over a 5
to 7 year period.
Packet Page 92 of 180
3
2. If the reserves are drawn down by 10-25% of reserve fund balance,
then the budgetary plan to restore the reserve shall be structured
over a 3 to 5 year period.
3. If the reserves are drawn down by 0-10% of reserve fund balance,
then a solution to replenish to at least the minimum shall be
structured over a 1 to 3 year period.
4.6 Annual Status Reporting and Periodic Review - Annually, after
presentation of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the
Finance Director will prepare and present an updated Reserve Level
Status report by July 1st of the following year.
At least every five years, the Mayor, based on advice from the Finance
Director, will ask the City Council to reaffirm or revise this policy, including
the percentages established herein.
5.0 RISK MANAGEMENT/CAPITAL FACILITIES RESERVE POLICY:
5.1. The City shall maintain a Risk Management/Capital Facilities Reserve
Fund dedicated to mitigation of the risk of loss arising from potential
claims against the City for general liability purposes as well as claims
resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes. Amounts not needed
for current or estimated future claims will be made available along with the
Contingency Reserve Fund in Section 4 for unanticipated expenditures or
significant declines in actual revenue versus budgeted revenue.
5.2. The Risk Management/Capital Facilities Reserve Fund shall be set initially
at a minimum of 4% of annual General Fund revenues. The City shall
reach the targeted minimum of 8% no later than fiscal year 2016
according to the following schedule:
2% by December 31, 2013
4% by December 31, 2014
6% by December 31, 2015
8% by December 31, 2016
5.3. Legal claims expenses incurred below the City’s insurance deductable
amounts will be paid for out of the Risk Management/Capital Facilities
Reserve Fund. Uninsured legal claim expenses will also be deducted from
the Risk Management Reserve Fund.
5.4. Use of the Risk Management/Capital Facilities Reserve Fund - A draw
down of the fund’s reserves should: a) not exceed 50% of the balance in
the Risk Management/Capital Facilities Reserve Fund, and b) not reduce
the reserve below 4% of annual General Fund revenues. Council may
grant an exception to this limitation on draw down of reserves to fund
Packet Page 93 of 180
4
major capital facility upgrades, construction or acquisition of capital
facilities identified in the portion of the City’s Capital Facilities Plan not
relating to Enterprise Fund assets or operations. Any exception granted
will be adopted as part of the City’s annual budgeting process.
5.5. Replenishment of Reserves - The following criteria will be used to restore
the Risk Management/Capital Facilities Reserve Fund based upon the
remaining fund balance compared to the minimum reserve guideline:
1. If the reserves are drawn down by 25-50% of reserve fund balance,
then a budgetary plan shall be implemented to return the reserve
level to between 75% and 100% of the minimum balance over a 5
to 7 year period.
2. If the reserves are drawn down by 10-25% of reserve fund balance,
then the budgetary plan to restore the reserve shall be structured
over a 3 to 5 year period.
3. If the reserves are drawn down by 0-10% of reserve fund balance,
then a solution to replenish to at least the minimum shall be
structured over a 1 to 3 year period.
5.6. The City Council may, at their discretion and as necessary, transfer funds
between the Contingency Reserve Fund and the Risk
Management/Capital Facilities Reserve Fund. Once the two reserve funds
are fully funded up to the minimum levels as established within this policy,
at no time will the combined balances of both funds decline below 8% of
annual General Fund revenues.
6.0 REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND POLICY:
6.1. The City shall maintain a Revenue Stabilization Fund dedicated to
mitigating the impact of unanticipated revenue declines.
6.2. The City shall appropriate, on an annual basis, a transfer of 1% of General
Fund revenue to the Revenue Stabilization Fund beginning with the 2013
budget. The Revenue Stabilization Fund will not be utilized by the City
unless actual General Fund revenue is 5% or more below budgeted
revenue after six months through any given calendar year. At no point will
the balance in the Revenue Stabilization Fund decline by more than 50%,
unless actual General Fund revenue is more than 20% below budgeted
revenue.
6.3. In addition to the annual 1% appropriation, the City will transfer a minimum
of 25% of the excess of any actual property tax or sales tax collections
above the respective budgeted amounts. Such transfer shall take place by
March 31st of the following fiscal year.
Packet Page 94 of 180
5
6.4. Replenishment of Reserves - The following criteria will be used to restore
the Revenue Stabilization Fund based upon the remaining fund balance
compared to the minimum reserve guideline:
1. If the reserves are drawn down by 25-50% of reserve fund balance,
then a budgetary plan shall be implemented to return the reserve
level to between 75% and 100% of the minimum balance over a 5
to 7 year period.
2. If the reserves are drawn down by 10-25% of reserve fund balance,
then the budgetary plan to restore the reserve shall be structured
over a 3 to 5 year period.
3. If the reserves are drawn down by 0-10% of reserve fund balance,
then a solution to replenish to at least the minimum shall be
structured over a 1 to 3 year period.
6.5. Contributions to the Revenue Stabilization Fund shall not be made if the
balance in the fund equals or exceeds 4% of General Fund revenues.
7.0 ENTERPRISE FUND RESERVE POLICY:
7.1. The City shall maintain an adequate fund balance in each of the City’s
enterprise funds to provide funding for capital expenses, unanticipated
revenue declines, and any other unbudgeted expense. The policy applies
to the Combined Utility Fund.
7.2. The City shall incorporate into its customer rate structure funding for the
establishment and maintenance of a Working Capital Reserve Fund. The
reserve balance shall be no less than 20% of the previous year operating
and capital expenses. The City shall reach the targeted minimum of 20%
no later than fiscal year 2016 according to the following schedule:
5% by December 31, 2013
10% by December 31, 2014
15% by December 31, 2015
20% by December 31, 2016
7.3. Use of the Working Capital Reserve Fund - A draw down of the fund’s
reserves should: a) not exceed 50% of the balance in the Working Capital
Reserve Fund, and b) not reduce the reserve below 10% of annual
operating and capital expenditures within each fund.
7.4. Replenishment of Reserves - The following criteria will be used to restore
the Working Capital Reserve Fund based upon the remaining fund
balance compared to the minimum reserve guideline:
1. If the reserves are drawn down by 25-50% of reserve fund balance,
Packet Page 95 of 180
6
then a budgetary plan shall be implemented to return the reserve
level to between 75% and 100% of the minimum balance over a 5
to 7 year period.
2. If the reserves are drawn down by 10-25% of reserve fund balance,
then the budgetary plan to restore the reserve shall be structured
over a 3 to 5 year period.
3. If the reserves are drawn down by 0-10% of reserve fund balance,
then a solution to replenish to at least the minimum shall be
structured over a 1 to 3 year period.
The Working Capital Reserve fund shall be maintained within the Enterprise Funds, but
shall be separate from the accumulated fund balance within the fund.
Packet Page 96 of 180
AM-4416 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Investment Policy
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No recommendation at this time, for discussion purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft investment policy creates standards for prudence in making investment decisions with the City's available cash,
creates objectives of the investment policy and establishes benchmarks against which performance will be measured. The draft
policy also provides for quarterly updates to Council on investment performance as prescribed by State law.
Attachments
Draft Investment Policy
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/07/2011 01:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:40 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 12/07/2011 10:22 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 97 of 180
1
1. Policy
It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to invest public funds in a manner which will provide
maximum security with the highest investment return while meeting the daily cash flow demands
of the City of Edmonds and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of
public funds.
2. Scope
This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Edmonds. These funds are
accounted for in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include the following:
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Enterprise Funds
Trust and Agency Funds
Retirement/Pension Funds
Any new fund created by the legislative body, unless specifically exempted.
3. Prudence
Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which
persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs,
not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as
the probable income to be derived.
CITY OF EDMONDS
INVESTMENT POLICY
Subject: Investment Policy Original Policy Date: April 4, 2007
Originating Department: Finance Division Last Revision Date: June 30, 2007
Approved By: Shawn Hunstock, Director, Finance & Information Services
Packet Page 98 of 180
2
The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person"
standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers
acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due
diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or
market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and
appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.
4. Objective
The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City’s investment activities shall be:
• Safety: Safety of the principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments of the City of Edmonds shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the
preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To obtain this objective, diversification is
required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income
generated from the remainder of the portfolio.
• Liquidity: The City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City
of Edmonds to meet all operating requirements that might be reasonably anticipated.
• Return on Investment: The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of
attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into
account the City’s investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the
portfolio.
5. Delegation of Authority
Authority to manage the City’s investment program is hereby delegated to the Finance Director
who will act as the City’s Investment Officer and Treasurer. The Finance Director shall establish
written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment
policy.
Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, PSA master repurchase agreements, wire
transfer agreements, custody agreements and investment related banking services contracts. Such
procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment
transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the
terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Director, whom shall act as
the City’s Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall
establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials.
6. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
Packet Page 99 of 180
3
Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business
activity that may conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or may impair
their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall
disclose to the City Council any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct
business within this jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any personal financial/investment
positions that could be related to the performance of the City’s portfolio. Employees and officers
shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City of Edmonds,
particularly with regard to the timing of purchases and sales.
7. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions
The Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment
services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected
by credit worthiness. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposits
shall be made except in qualified public depositaries as provided in Chapter 39.58 RCW.
All brokers/dealers and financial institutions who desire to do business with the City of Edmonds
must supply the Treasurer with the following:
• Audited financial statements
• Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers certification
• Certification of having read the City’s investment policy
• Proof of state registration
• Copy of city and state business licenses
The Treasurer will conduct an annual review of the financial condition of firms. A current
audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and
broker/dealer with whom the City of Edmonds invests. Investment purchases from any
institution or broker/dealer which does not satisfy the criteria established herein must be
approved in advance by the City Council.
8. Authorized and Suitable Investments
The City of Edmonds is empowered to invest in the following types of securities:
• U.S. Government obligations, U.S. government agency obligations, and U.S. government
instrumentality obligations, which have a liquid market with a readily determinable market
value;
Packet Page 100 of 180
4
• U.S. Treasury securities maturing in less than ten (10) years;
• Fully insured or collateralized certificates of deposit, and other evidences of deposit, at
qualified financial institutions that are approved by the Washington Public Deposit
Protection Commission (WPDPC).
• Banker’s acceptances, and commercial paper rated in the highest tier by a nationally
recognized rating agency;
• Investment-grade obligations of state, local governments and public authorities located
within the State of Washington;
• Local government investment pools, either state-administered or through joint powers
statutes and other intergovernmental agreement legislation.
9. Collateralization
Collateralization is required on repurchase agreements. In order to anticipate market changes and
provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be (102%) of market value
of principal and accrued interest.
Pursuant to state statutes (RCW 35.98) the deposit of public funds and the placement of
investment deposits (i.e. time deposits, money market deposit accounts and savings deposits of
public funds will be placed only with institutions approved by the Washington Public Deposit
Protection Commission (PDPC) as eligible for deposit of public funds. The maximum amount
placed with any one depository will not exceed the net worth of the institution as determined by
the PDPC. In accordance with PDPD regulations, such investments are 100% collateralized.
Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the entity has a current
custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be
supplied to the City and retained. The right of substitution is granted.
10. Safekeeping and Custody
All security transactions, including collateral for repurchase agreements, entered into by the City
of Edmonds shall be conducted on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis. Securities purchased
by the entity will be delivered against payment and held in a custodial safekeeping account. The
Treasurer will designate a third party custodian and safekeeping receipts will evidence all
transactions.
11. Diversification
The City of Edmonds will diversify its investments by security type and institution.
Packet Page 101 of 180
5
11.1 No more than fifty percent (50%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time of purchase, shall
be in any single financial institution.
11.2 Except that no more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time
of purchase, shall be invested in the Washington Local Government Investment Pool,
and
11.3 No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time of
purchase, shall be invested in U.S. Treasury or Agency securities.
11.4 The City’s Finance Committee can recommend to the City Council variance to 11.1,
11.2 or 11.3 prior to purchase if it is deemed in the best overall benefit to the City.
12. Maximum Maturities
To the extent possible, the City of Edmonds will attempt to match its investments with
anticipated cash flow requirements.
12.1 At the time of investment, a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the portfolio will be
comprised of investments maturing or available within one year.
12.2 At the time of investment, eighty percent (80%) of the portfolio will be comprised of
investments maturing or available within five (5) years and no investments shall have a
maturity exceeding ten (10) years, except when compatible with a specific fund’s
investment needs.
12.3 To provide for on-going market opportunity, investment maturities should be laddered
or staggered to avoid the risk resulting from overconcentration of portfolio assets in a
specific maturity.
12.4 The average maturity of the portfolio shall not exceed three and one half (3 ½) years or
forty-two months.
12.5 Any variance to 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 or 12.4 can be approved by City Council prior to
occurrence, and if deemed in the City’s best interest.
Reserve and retirement funds may be invested in securities exceeding ten (10) years if the
maturity of such investments are made to coincide as nearly as practical with the expected use of
the funds.
13. Internal Controls
The Treasurer shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor.
This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures.
14. Performance Standards
Packet Page 102 of 180
6
The investment portfolio will be designed to obtain an average rate of return during budgetary
and economic cycles, consistent with the investment objectives and cash flow needs.
The City’s investment strategy is to actively manage investment selection, maturity and yield to
maximize earnings. Given this strategy, the basis used by the Treasurer to determine
performance levels will be the six-month Treasury bill rate for non-reserve funds.
15. Reporting
The Treasurer shall provide the City Council consistent periodic reporting on a quarterly basis.
These reports shall provide an accurate and meaningful representation of the investment
portfolio, its performance versus the established benchmark, and proof of compliance with the
investment policy. Quarterly reports will include, at a minimum, the following:
• A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period.
• Average life and final maturity of all investments listed.
• Coupon, discount or earnings rate.
• Par value, amortized book value and market value.
• Percentage of the portfolio in each investment category.
16. Investment Policy Adoption
The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council, upon
recommendation from the Finance Committee. The policy shall be reviewed on an annual basis
by the Finance Committee and any modification to the policy will be made upon approval by the
City Council.
Packet Page 103 of 180
AM-4423 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Amendment #16 to Seattle Fiber Partners Agreement.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Place on Consent Agenda for Mayor's signature.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
This agreement adds the City of Edmonds, City of Shoreline, United States Coast Guard, Port of Seattle, and Federal Bureau
of Investigation to the Seattle Fiber Partners Agreement. The agreement and its exhibits provides for the sharing of fiber optic
projects among the partners and formalizes the relationship we have established, and under which we have worked, and had
access to the 6 stands of fiber that run to the Westin Bldg in Seattle.
Due to the number of agencies involved the agreement has been slow in making its way to the City of Edmonds, first presented
Dec 2009 and now the April 2010 version.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement as to form.
Attachments
Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 12/08/2011 07:07 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 10:30 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:39 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 12/08/2011 04:16 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 104 of 180
Packet Page 105 of 180
Packet Page 106 of 180
Packet Page 107 of 180
Packet Page 108 of 180
Packet Page 109 of 180
Packet Page 110 of 180
Packet Page 111 of 180
Packet Page 112 of 180
Packet Page 113 of 180
Packet Page 114 of 180
Packet Page 115 of 180
Packet Page 116 of 180
Packet Page 117 of 180
Packet Page 118 of 180
Packet Page 119 of 180
Packet Page 120 of 180
Packet Page 121 of 180
Packet Page 122 of 180
Packet Page 123 of 180
Packet Page 124 of 180
Packet Page 125 of 180
Packet Page 126 of 180
Packet Page 127 of 180
Packet Page 128 of 180
Packet Page 129 of 180
Packet Page 130 of 180
Packet Page 131 of 180
Packet Page 132 of 180
Packet Page 133 of 180
Packet Page 134 of 180
Packet Page 135 of 180
Packet Page 136 of 180
Packet Page 137 of 180
Packet Page 138 of 180
Packet Page 139 of 180
Packet Page 140 of 180
Packet Page 141 of 180
Packet Page 142 of 180
Packet Page 143 of 180
Packet Page 144 of 180
Packet Page 145 of 180
Packet Page 146 of 180
Packet Page 147 of 180
Packet Page 148 of 180
Packet Page 149 of 180
Packet Page 150 of 180
Packet Page 151 of 180
Packet Page 152 of 180
Packet Page 153 of 180
Packet Page 154 of 180
Packet Page 155 of 180
Packet Page 156 of 180
Packet Page 157 of 180
Packet Page 158 of 180
Packet Page 159 of 180
AM-4419 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
General Fund Update - October 2011
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
General Fund Update for the month of October 2011.
Attachments
General Fund Update Oct 2011
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 10:30 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/08/2011 01:39 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 12/07/2011 01:44 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/08/2011
Packet Page 160 of 180
i
CITY OF EDMONDS
GENERAL FUND UPDATE
OCTOBER, 2011
Overview
The attached report provides the following information regarding the General Fund:
- 2011 revised annual budget of revenue and expenditures
- January 2011 through October 2011actual revenues and expenditures
- The variance in dollars between budget and actual results
- Actual compared to budget expressed as a percentage. October represents 83% of the year
(10 months divided by 12 months). Discussed below are the revenues and expenditures
where there is a material variance from actual to budget:
Revenues:
- Property Taxes - are collected twice a year (May & November). The November receipts
begin to come in during late October, which is why actual revenue is greater than 50% but
not yet close to 100% collected for the year.
- Telephone Utility Tax – Since Feb 2011 actuals have been below budget. Year end is targeted
to be $1,390,000 which is $173,000 (11%) below budged amount of $1,563,000. See attached
chart for further details.
- Licenses & Permits - actuals in excess of budget relate to the franchise agreements of
approximately $100,000 from Blackrock and Verizon not budgeted in 2011. We are also
expecting to be over budget in Building Permit revenue by approximately 10% by year end.
- Intergovernmental - In the last couple months we received yearly PUD Priviledge tax revenue
of $181,000 and quarterly Liquor Profits of $56,000. We also have approximately $90,000 of
unbudgeted intergovernmental billings with Fire District #1. Year end is targeted to be
$1,000,000 which is $107,000 (12%) above budged amount of $893,000.
- Charges for Goods & Services - actuals in excess to budget relate to Inter-fund reimbursement
of the General Fund, EMS Transport Fees, Park & Rec Program Fees and Plan Check Fees.
Year end is targeted to be $3,900,000 which is $263,000 (7%) above budged amount of
$3,637,000.
Expenditures:
- Salaries & Benefits – actuals below budget due to open positions from 2011 retirements and
resignations as well as 2011 budgeted but unfilled positions.
- Supplies – actuals below budget across most City departments.
- Intergovernmental – actuals above budget due to a number of 4th quarter payments to
vendors (FD 1, SNOCOM, ESCA, etc) being paid at the start of the current quarter.
- Debt Service – are paid twice a year (June & December), therefore the September report
only shows June’s payments.
Packet Page 161 of 180
2011 Revised
Annual Budget YTD Actuals Variance
%
Rec/Exp
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 6,855,108 6,855,108 -
REVENUES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,506,114 6,251,566 3,254,548 66%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,233,038 2,307,364 925,674 71%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 877,984 563,652 314,332 64%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,524,195 3,795,893 728,302 84%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,667 10,009 6,658 60%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 530,130 428,071 102,059 81%
GAS UTILITY TAX 890,000 736,494 153,506 83%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 698,865 595,006 103,859 85%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,563,454 1,138,748 424,706 73%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,532,043 1,255,993 276,050 82%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 285,918 246,284 39,634 86%
WATER UTILITY TAX 764,082 658,645 105,437 86%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 389,927 80,073 83%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 237,600 211,230 26,370 89%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 250,938 162,963 87,975 65%
PULLTABS TAX 61,043 56,537 4,506 93%
LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,484,829 1,522,122 (37,293) 103%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 893,692 958,121 (64,429) 107%
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES 3,637,480 3,584,587 52,893 99%
FINES AND FORFEITURES 667,100 519,314 147,786 78%
MISCELLANEOUS 339,073 353,551 (14,478) 104%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 114,727 12,543 102,184 11%
32,578,972 25,758,621 6,820,351 79%
EXPENDITURES:
SALARIES / WAGES 12,728,874 10,168,455 2,560,419 80%
BENEFITS 4,385,811 3,401,025 984,786 78%
SUPPLIES 531,862 317,087 214,775 60%
SERVICES 4,003,708 3,185,076 818,633 80%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 8,876,513 8,165,883 710,630 92%
CAPITAL OUTLAY - - - 0%
DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL 1,111,369 62,752 1,048,617 6%
DEBT SERVICE INTEREST 340,759 173,594 167,165 51%
INTERFUND SERVICES 646,172 508,434 137,738 79%
32,625,068 25,982,306 6,642,762 80%
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (YTD)(46,096) (223,685) 177,589
ENDING FUND BALANCE 6,809,012 6,631,423 177,589
Page 1 of 6
City of Edmonds
General Fund Update
October 2011
Packet Page 162 of 180
20
1
0
O
U
T
L
O
O
K
55
1
,
4
5
9
20
1
1
B
U
D
G
E
T
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
TOTAL
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
8
%
5
%
7
%
8
%
8
%
1
0
%
9
%
1
1
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
8
%
7
%
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
8
%
1
3
%
1
9
%
2
8
%
3
6
%
4
6
%
5
5
%
6
6
%
7
6
%
8
6
%
9
3
%
1
0
0
%
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
5
4
,
5
0
9
3
5
,
4
1
5
4
5
,
8
5
4
5
8
,
5
4
8
5
5
,
9
7
5
7
1
,
3
6
3
6
5
,
1
3
8
7
5
,
8
8
2
6
7
,
5
2
5
6
8
,
7
2
6
5
4
,
7
9
8
46,268
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
5
4
,
5
0
9
8
9
,
9
2
3
1
3
5
,
7
7
7
1
9
4
,
3
2
5
2
5
0
,
3
0
0
3
2
1
,
6
6
3
3
8
6
,
8
0
1
4
6
2
,
6
8
3
5
3
0
,
2
0
8
5
9
8
,
9
3
4
6
5
3
,
7
3
2
700,000
Ac
t
u
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
$
6
4
,
4
5
0
2
6
,
9
9
2
3
0
,
9
6
9
6
1
,
1
9
3
5
1
,
9
6
4
3
6
,
9
2
1
5
1
,
9
3
8
4
3
,
2
9
4
5
2
,
8
8
6
5
1
,
2
3
2
43,170 36,450
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
$
6
4
,
4
5
0
9
1
,
4
4
2
1
2
2
,
4
1
1
1
8
3
,
6
0
4
2
3
5
,
5
6
8
2
7
2
,
4
8
9
3
2
4
,
4
2
7
3
6
7
,
7
2
1
4
2
0
,
6
0
7
4
7
1
,
8
3
9
515,009 551,459
YE
A
R
E
N
D
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
8
2
7
,
6
6
7
7
1
1
,
8
2
2
6
3
1
,
0
9
0
6
6
1
,
3
8
0
6
5
8
,
7
9
9
5
9
2
,
9
8
8
5
8
7
,
1
2
1
5
5
6
,
3
3
0
5
5
5
,
3
0
1
5
5
1
,
4
5
9
551,459 551,459
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
E
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
1
2
7
,
6
6
7
1
1
,
8
2
2
(
6
8
,
9
1
0
)
(
3
8
,
6
2
0
)
(
4
1
,
2
0
1
)
(
1
0
7
,
0
1
2
)
(
1
1
2
,
8
7
9
)
(
1
4
3
,
6
7
0
)
(
1
4
4
,
6
9
9
)
(
1
4
8
,
5
4
1
)
(148,541) (148,541)
Bu
d
g
e
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
%
18
%
2%
-1
0
%
-6
%
-6
%
-1
5
%
-1
6
%
-2
1
%
-2
1
%
-21%-21%-21%
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
1
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
RE
A
L
E
S
T
A
T
E
E
X
C
I
S
E
T
A
X
-
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DEC
20
1
1
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
/
T
r
e
n
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
R:
\
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
2
0
1
1
\
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
G
F
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
2
0
1
1
1
1
C
H
A
R
T
S
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
6
12/7/2011 1:23 PM
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
3
of
18
0
20
1
1
O
U
T
L
O
O
K
4,
5
7
4
,
3
4
7
20
1
1
B
U
D
G
E
T
4
,
5
2
4
,
1
9
5
TOTAL
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
8
%
1
0
%
7
%
8
%
9
%
8
%
8
%
9
%
8
%
8
%
9
%
8
%
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
8
%
1
8
%
2
5
%
3
3
%
4
1
%
4
9
%
5
7
%
6
6
%
7
5
%
8
3
%
9
2
%
1
0
0
%
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
3
6
1
,
1
3
8
4
5
8
,
8
5
6
3
2
0
,
3
0
7
3
3
9
,
6
1
5
3
9
2
,
1
8
8
3
5
1
,
8
8
1
3
5
3
,
1
3
9
4
2
2
,
2
0
1
3
7
6
,
0
2
1
3
7
8
,
9
3
0
4
2
1
,
8
8
4
348,035
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
3
6
1
,
1
3
8
8
1
9
,
9
9
4
1
,
1
4
0
,
3
0
2
1
,
4
7
9
,
9
1
6
1
,
8
7
2
,
1
0
4
2
,
2
2
3
,
9
8
5
2
,
5
7
7
,
1
2
4
2
,
9
9
9
,
3
2
5
3
,
3
7
5
,
3
4
5
3
,
7
5
4
,
2
7
6
4
,
1
7
6
,
1
6
0
4,524,195
Ac
t
u
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
$
3
5
8
,
4
1
5
4
4
9
,
7
9
1
3
4
4
,
7
1
3
3
2
5
,
2
7
9
4
2
4
,
5
6
7
3
6
5
,
3
8
1
3
7
5
,
9
8
2
4
1
1
,
3
9
2
3
5
2
,
6
8
1
3
8
7
,
6
9
3
426,561 351,893
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
$
3
5
8
,
4
1
5
8
0
8
,
2
0
5
1
,
1
5
2
,
9
1
8
1
,
4
7
8
,
1
9
7
1
,
9
0
2
,
7
6
4
2
,
2
6
8
,
1
4
5
2
,
6
4
4
,
1
2
7
3
,
0
5
5
,
5
1
9
3
,
4
0
8
,
2
0
0
3
,
7
9
5
,
8
9
3
4,222,454 4,574,347
YE
A
R
E
N
D
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
4
,
4
9
0
,
0
7
5
4
,
4
5
9
,
1
5
0
4
,
5
7
4
,
2
5
1
4
,
5
1
8
,
9
3
9
4
,
5
9
8
,
2
8
9
4
,
6
1
4
,
0
2
9
4
,
6
4
1
,
8
2
0
4
,
6
0
8
,
9
5
9
4
,
5
6
8
,
2
3
2
4
,
5
7
4
,
3
4
7
4,574,347 4,574,347
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
E
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
(
3
4
,
1
2
0
)
(
6
5
,
0
4
5
)
5
0
,
0
5
6
(
5
,
2
5
6
)
7
4
,
0
9
4
8
9
,
8
3
4
1
1
7
,
6
2
5
8
4
,
7
6
4
4
4
,
0
3
7
5
0
,
1
5
2
50,152 50,152
Bu
d
g
e
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
%
-1
%
-1
%
1%
0%
2%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%1%1%
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
1
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
SA
L
E
S
A
N
D
U
S
E
T
A
X
-
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
20
1
1
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
/
T
r
e
n
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
R:
\
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
2
0
1
1
\
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
G
F
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
2
0
1
1
1
1
C
H
A
R
T
S
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
6
12/7/2011 1:23 PM
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
4
of
18
0
20
1
1
O
U
T
L
O
O
K
86
4
,
7
9
5
20
1
1
B
U
D
G
E
T
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
TOTAL
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
1
4
%
1
5
%
1
3
%
1
1
%
9
%
7
%
5
%
4
%
3
%
4
%
6
%
9
%
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
1
4
%
2
9
%
4
2
%
5
3
%
6
2
%
6
9
%
7
5
%
7
8
%
8
1
%
8
5
%
9
1
%
1
0
0
%
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
1
2
4
,
2
9
7
1
3
1
,
6
4
5
1
1
9
,
1
9
6
9
7
,
0
6
9
8
2
,
9
4
5
6
2
,
2
6
2
4
5
,
7
2
8
3
2
,
2
5
1
2
9
,
9
3
0
3
2
,
6
3
7
5
5
,
8
2
5
76,215
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
1
2
4
,
2
9
7
2
5
5
,
9
4
2
3
7
5
,
1
3
8
4
7
2
,
2
0
7
5
5
5
,
1
5
2
6
1
7
,
4
1
3
6
6
3
,
1
4
1
6
9
5
,
3
9
2
7
2
5
,
3
2
2
7
5
7
,
9
6
0
8
1
3
,
7
8
5
890,000
Ac
t
u
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
$
1
1
8
,
2
1
6
1
1
9
,
2
7
9
1
1
1
,
0
7
6
1
0
3
,
9
8
8
8
3
,
7
2
8
6
2
,
6
5
9
4
5
,
2
0
7
3
2
,
7
9
1
3
0
,
3
0
7
2
9
,
2
4
3
54,244 74,056
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
1
8
,
2
1
6
2
3
7
,
4
9
5
3
4
8
,
5
7
1
4
5
2
,
5
5
9
5
3
6
,
2
8
7
5
9
8
,
9
4
6
6
4
4
,
1
5
3
6
7
6
,
9
4
4
7
0
7
,
2
5
1
7
3
6
,
4
9
5
790,739 864,795
YE
A
R
E
N
D
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
8
4
6
,
4
6
0
8
2
5
,
8
5
4
8
2
6
,
9
7
1
8
5
2
,
9
6
8
8
5
9
,
7
5
7
8
6
3
,
3
7
9
8
6
4
,
5
1
6
8
6
6
,
3
8
9
8
6
7
,
8
2
6
8
6
4
,
7
9
5
864,795 864,795
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
E
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
(
4
3
,
5
4
0
)
(
6
4
,
1
4
6
)
(
6
3
,
0
2
9
)
(
3
7
,
0
3
2
)
(
3
0
,
2
4
3
)
(
2
6
,
6
2
1
)
(
2
5
,
4
8
4
)
(
2
3
,
6
1
1
)
(
2
2
,
1
7
4
)
(
2
5
,
2
0
5
)
(25,205) (25,205)
Bu
d
g
e
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
%
-
5
%
-
7
%
-
7
%
-
4
%
-
3
%
-
3
%
-
3
%
-
3
%
-
2
%
-
3
%
-3%
-
3
%
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
1
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
GA
S
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
T
A
X
-
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
20
1
1
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
/
T
r
e
n
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
R:
\
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
2
0
1
1
\
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
G
F
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
2
0
1
1
1
1
C
H
A
R
T
S
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
6
12/7/2011 1:23 PM
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
5
of
18
0
20
1
1
O
U
T
L
O
O
K
1,
3
9
0
,
4
5
4
20
1
1
B
U
D
G
E
T
1
,
5
6
3
,
4
5
4
TOTAL
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
6
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
6
%
9
%
7
%
1
0
%
9
%
6
%
1
1
%
6
%
1
3
%
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
6
%
1
5
%
2
5
%
3
1
%
4
0
%
4
6
%
5
6
%
6
5
%
7
1
%
8
2
%
8
7
%
1
0
0
%
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
8
8
,
1
0
5
1
4
8
,
9
7
1
1
4
9
,
5
0
1
9
8
,
5
6
0
1
3
4
,
1
5
4
1
0
1
,
8
3
2
1
4
9
,
2
0
0
1
3
9
,
7
7
7
9
7
,
1
7
8
1
7
3
,
1
5
3
8
6
,
9
0
0
196,123
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
8
8
,
1
0
5
2
3
7
,
0
7
6
3
8
6
,
5
7
6
4
8
5
,
1
3
6
6
1
9
,
2
9
1
7
2
1
,
1
2
3
8
7
0
,
3
2
3
1
,
0
1
0
,
1
0
0
1
,
1
0
7
,
2
7
8
1
,
2
8
0
,
4
3
1
1
,
3
6
7
,
3
3
1
1,563,454
Ac
t
u
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
$
1
1
9
,
0
4
6
7
6
,
8
4
0
1
3
4
,
7
6
4
1
1
3
,
6
9
8
1
1
0
,
4
9
8
1
1
0
,
7
4
7
1
0
7
,
1
5
7
1
1
6
,
5
5
1
1
1
8
,
8
8
7
1
3
0
,
5
6
1
77,284 174,421
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
1
9
,
0
4
6
1
9
5
,
8
8
6
3
3
0
,
6
4
9
4
4
4
,
3
4
7
5
5
4
,
8
4
5
6
6
5
,
5
9
2
7
7
2
,
7
4
9
8
8
9
,
3
0
0
1
,
0
0
8
,
1
8
7
1
,
1
3
8
,
7
4
8
1,216,033 1,390,454
YE
A
R
E
N
D
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
2
,
1
1
2
,
5
1
4
1
,
2
9
1
,
8
1
6
1
,
3
3
7
,
2
6
6
1
,
4
3
2
,
0
0
2
1
,
4
0
0
,
7
5
6
1
,
4
4
3
,
0
5
9
1
,
3
8
8
,
1
7
1
1
,
3
7
6
,
4
7
7
1
,
4
2
3
,
5
3
9
1
,
3
9
0
,
4
5
4
1,390,454 1,390,454
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
E
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
5
4
9
,
0
6
0
(
2
7
1
,
6
3
8
)
(
2
2
6
,
1
8
8
)
(
1
3
1
,
4
5
2
)
(
1
6
2
,
6
9
8
)
(
1
2
0
,
3
9
5
)
(
1
7
5
,
2
8
3
)
(
1
8
6
,
9
7
7
)
(
1
3
9
,
9
1
5
)
(
1
7
3
,
0
0
0
)
(173,000) (173,000)
Bu
d
g
e
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
%
3
5
%
-
1
7
%
-
1
4
%
-
8
%
-
1
0
%
-
8
%
-
1
1
%
-
1
2
%
-
9
%
-
1
1
%
-11%
-
1
1
%
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
1
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
T
A
X
-
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
20
1
1
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
/
T
r
e
n
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
R:
\
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
2
0
1
1
\
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
G
F
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
2
0
1
1
1
1
C
H
A
R
T
S
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
6
12/7/2011 1:23 PM
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
6
of
18
0
20
1
1
O
U
T
L
O
O
K
1,
4
6
4
,
0
3
4
20
1
1
B
U
D
G
E
T
1
,
5
3
2
,
0
4
3
TOTAL
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
1
0
%
1
2
%
1
1
%
1
1
%
9
%
8
%
7
%
6
%
7
%
6
%
7
%
7
%
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
1
0
%
2
2
%
3
2
%
4
3
%
5
2
%
6
0
%
6
7
%
7
3
%
8
0
%
8
6
%
9
3
%
1
0
0
%
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
1
5
4
,
3
4
4
1
8
0
,
8
6
5
1
6
1
,
0
3
9
1
6
1
,
3
9
7
1
4
2
,
2
0
7
1
1
6
,
7
9
8
1
1
0
,
5
9
7
9
6
,
9
3
1
1
0
1
,
3
8
1
8
8
,
7
7
9
1
1
2
,
4
7
4
105,231
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
$
1
5
4
,
3
4
4
3
3
5
,
2
0
9
4
9
6
,
2
4
8
6
5
7
,
6
4
5
7
9
9
,
8
5
2
9
1
6
,
6
5
1
1
,
0
2
7
,
2
4
7
1
,
1
2
4
,
1
7
8
1
,
2
2
5
,
5
5
9
1
,
3
1
4
,
3
3
8
1
,
4
2
6
,
8
1
2
1,532,043
Ac
t
u
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
$
1
6
3
,
7
7
0
1
4
2
,
7
4
3
1
5
1
,
1
9
7
1
6
2
,
8
2
2
1
4
0
,
8
8
7
1
1
3
,
7
1
5
1
0
7
,
5
7
9
8
8
,
0
7
8
1
0
1
,
1
3
3
8
4
,
0
6
8
107,481 100,559
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
6
3
,
7
7
0
3
0
6
,
5
1
4
4
5
7
,
7
1
1
6
2
0
,
5
3
3
7
6
1
,
4
2
0
8
7
5
,
1
3
5
9
8
2
,
7
1
4
1
,
0
7
0
,
7
9
2
1
,
1
7
1
,
9
2
5
1
,
2
5
5
,
9
9
3
1,363,475 1,464,034
YE
A
R
E
N
D
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T
1
,
6
2
5
,
6
1
2
1
,
4
0
0
,
8
9
5
1
,
4
1
3
,
0
6
9
1
,
4
4
5
,
5
8
7
1
,
4
5
8
,
4
3
0
1
,
4
6
2
,
6
5
6
1
,
4
6
5
,
6
2
6
1
,
4
5
9
,
2
8
7
1
,
4
6
4
,
9
9
6
1
,
4
6
4
,
0
3
4
1,464,034 1,464,034
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
E
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
9
3
,
5
6
9
(
1
3
1
,
1
4
8
)
(
1
1
8
,
9
7
4
)
(
8
6
,
4
5
6
)
(
7
3
,
6
1
3
)
(
6
9
,
3
8
7
)
(
6
6
,
4
1
7
)
(
7
2
,
7
5
6
)
(
6
7
,
0
4
7
)
(
6
8
,
0
0
9
)
(68,009) (68,009)
Bu
d
g
e
t
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
%
6
%
-
9
%
-
8
%
-
6
%
-
5
%
-
5
%
-
4
%
-
5
%
-
4
%
-
4
%
-4%
-
4
%
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
1
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
T
A
X
-
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
JA
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
20
1
1
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
/
T
r
e
n
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
R:
\
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
2
0
1
1
\
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
G
F
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
2
0
1
1
1
1
C
H
A
R
T
S
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
6
12/7/2011 1:23 PM
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
16
7
of
18
0
AM-4427 Item #: 3. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 12/13/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Department:Police Department
Committee:Public Safety Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Orchid Cellmark DNA Testing
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Staff recommends the Public Safety Committee approve the supplemental contract for the December 20th Council Meeting
consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The City entered into an agreement for DNA testing and analysis of evidence for property crimes entered into an agreement on
March 1, 2010. That agreement ends on December 31, 2011. DNA evidence has become an important part of our
investigations into solving property crimes such as burglary, auto theft, and other property crime cases. The police department
wishes to continue to use the services by Orchid Cellmark to assist in solving our property crimes cases.
The testing process used by Orchid Cellmark is now sensitive enough to detect DNA samples collected from a crime scene
simply by the suspect touching an item. The same process has been used in England for over ten years. Orchid Cellmark
currently provides services for WASPC's Stranger Rape Project. In addition, the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory
has approved the scientific testing process Orchid Cellmark uses to enter DNA data into the national data base (CODIS).
The 2012 police has budgeted for the cost of DNA testing.
The agreement has been approved by the City Attorney as to form.
Attachments
Original Contract
New Pricing Letter
New Supplemental Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2011 04:09 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/09/2011 07:42 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2011 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 12/08/2011 03:39 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/09/2011
Packet Page 168 of 180
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
9
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
0
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
1
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
2
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
3
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
4
o
f
1
8
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
5
o
f
1
8
0
December 6, 2011
Al Compaan, Chief of Police
Edmonds Police Department
250 Fifth Av. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Pricing Agreement for Property Crime Testing Services
Dear Chief Compaan,
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding property crime testing services. This letter
shall serve as a pricing agreement between Orchid Cellmark and the City of Edmonds
Police Department for the testing of property crime evidence.
BioTracks ExpressTM (15 to 30 day Turn Around Time)
Streamlined Property Crime Sample Processing without Suspects* for Upload into
a Database
1. Evidence Samples
a. Batches of 70 or more Swabs $245 per swab
b. Batches of 45 – 69 Swabs $265 per swab
c. Batches of 20 – 44 Swabs $285 per swab
d. Batches of 10 – 19 Swabs $305 per swab
e. Batches of 1 – 9 Swabs $305 per swab plus $500 per batch
surcharge
2. Reference Elimination Samples $245 per buccal swab
* If a suspect sample is identified at a later time or a confirmation sample is tested after a hit this
can be done for an additional $395 and will include a full case report.
BioTracks TM (30 to 45 day Turn Around Time)
Standard Property Crime Casework for Upload into CODIS or Comparison with
Known Suspects
1. Evidence Samples
a. Batches of 70 or more Swabs $345 per swab
b. Batches of 45 – 69 Swabs $365 per swab
c. Batches of 20 – 44 Swabs $385 per swab
d. Batches of 10 – 19 Swabs $405 per swab
e. Batches of 1 – 9 Swabs $405 per swab plus $500 per batch
surcharge
2. Reference Elimination or Suspect Samples $345 per buccal swab
Expert Witness Testimony: It is expected that the vast majority of property crime
suspects will confess when faced with DNA evidence linking them to the scene of the
Packet Page 176 of 180
crime. As a result, property crime cases using DNA testing rarely go to court. However,
in the event a property crime case does go to court and require Expert Witness
Testimony, charges will be as follows:
$1,500 per day plus expenses for each testimony request.
Video Conferencing for testimony is available for $250 per hour plus the cost of
the video feed.
Description of Analysis Approach
Service
Element BioTracks ExpressTM BioTracksTM
Turn-around time 15-30 days 30-45 days
Report Batch data tables and abbreviated
CODIS Upload Review report to DPS
Standard Individual Casework report to
DPS
Low quant
samples
Samples with <10 picograms of
DNA/microliter after extraction and
quantification are not analyzed further
Samples with <10 picograms of
DNA/microliter after extraction and
quantification are not analyzed
Non-swab items
(less than 8.5” x
11”)**
Cigarette butts – no charge
Other (e.g. chewing gum, baseball
cap) – Additional $50/item
Cigarette butts – no charge
Other (e.g. chewing gum, baseball cap)
– Additional $50/item
**Hair, bones, or items larger than 8 ½” x 11” are not accepted for Biotracks ExpressTM or
BiotracksTM analysis.
Orchid Cellmark Representations: Orchid Cellmark represents and warrants that the
Services provided hereunder shall be performed in accordance with established and
recognized forensic testing procedures and in material compliance with federal and state
laws.
Testing Specifications: All testing will be performed by Orchid Cellmark utilizing
protocols approved under the existing Washington State Patrol contract other than
detailsspecified in the Description of analysis Approach.
Switching Service Options: Each batch of samples submitted will be run using either
BioTracksTM or BioTracks ExpressTM (i.e., half of one sample batch cannot be run using
one process and half with the other process). The City of Edmonds Police Department
shall have the right to change which process they are using in between sample shipments.
Testing Location: Orchid Cellmark has fully accredited casework facility in Farmers
Branch, TX, a suburb of Dallas.
Contract Length: The pricing outlined herein shall remain in effect through December 31,
2013.
Packet Page 177 of 180
Billing and Payment: Orchid Cellmark shall invoice the City of Edmonds Police
Department for all services performed on a monthly basis. The City of Edmonds Police
Department agrees that all invoices should be paid within 30 days.
Record Retention: All biological material/evidence pertaining to cases sent to Orchid
Cellmark by the City of Edmonds Police Department will be returned to the City of
Edmonds Police Department within 60 days after delivery of the final report unless
otherwise instructed by the City of Edmonds Police Department.
Customer Service Contact: Your operations point of contact at our testing facility, Matt
Quartaro (214-271-8323 mquartaro@orchid.com). Mr. Quartaro will contact you once
this agreement is signed to make sure you have all the information you need to send
samples as it becomes necessary. He can also help coordinate case file review and
CODIS upload of your samples with the appropriate Washington State Patrol crime lab.
If these terms are acceptable, please return this signed agreement via fax or email.
Laura Gahn, Ph.D., D-ABC
Director of Operations, North American Forensics
Orchid Cellmark, Inc.
13988 Diplomat Drive, Suite 100, Dallas, TX 75234
Phone: 214-271-8406 FAX: 214-271-8422
lgahn@orchid.com
Agreed and Acknowledged to
Signature ________________________________________ Date __________________
Name ______________________________________Title______________________
Please address bills to:
Name_________________________________________Title______________________
Address (if different from above)
________________________________________________________________________
Phone ___________________________email_________________________________
Packet Page 178 of 180
Original Contract No.
Supplemental Agreement 1 No.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO DNA TESTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and
Orchid Cellmark, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Cellmark” or the “Contractor”, entered into an
underlying agreement for the testing of property crime evidence for DNA, dated March 1, 2010;
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to revise the Scope of Work of the underlying
contract, per the terms of Section 10, to the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to extend the underlying contract, which expires
December 31, 2011, per the terms of Section 1B, to December 31, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of March 1, 2010 between the parties, incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying
agreement shall be amended to encompass the Scope of Work outlined in the
attached Exhibit A, which consists of Cellmark’s letter to the City of Edmonds
Police Department, dated December 6, 2011, and is incorporated by this reference
as fully as if herein set forth.
1.2 Term. This Supplemental Agreement, including but not limited
to the pricing outlined in the attached Exhibit A, shall be effective from January 1,
2012 through December 31, 2013.
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein.
DONE this day of , 20 .
CITY OF EDMONDS ORCHID CELLMARK, INC.
By: By:
Mayor Dave Earling Title:
Packet Page 179 of 180
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the
seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 180 of 180