Loading...
2012.08.28 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds AUGUST 28, 2012 Work Session             6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(75 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   7:15 P.M. - RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE   2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.Roll Call   B.AM-5085 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2012.   C.AM-5083 Approval of claim checks #133824 through #133952 dated August 23, 2012 for $638,586.89.   4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   5.(15 Minutes) AM-5086 Report on bids opened August 27, 2012 for the Main Street Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements Project (5th Ave to 6th Ave) and possible award of a construction contract.   6.(20 Minutes) AM-5082 Permitting fees for solar installations.   7.(60 Minutes)Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions. Packet Page Page 1 of 98 7.(60 Minutes) AM-4999 Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions.   8.(15 Minutes)Report on outside committee/board meetings.   9.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   10.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   ADJOURN   Packet Page Page 2 of 98    AM-5085     3. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/28/2012 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2012. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 08-21-12 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/24/2012 08:12 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/24/2012 08:30 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/23/2012 05:16 PM Final Approval Date: 08/24/2012  Packet Page Page 3 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 21, 2012 The Edmonds City Council Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Interim Dev. Serv. Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii). At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Planner Kernen Lien, Public Works Director Phil Williams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:58 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:01 p.m. and led the flag salute. Mayor Earling announced the Council had not had time to discuss a labor matter during the executive session and may add an executive session at the end of tonight’s agenda. 2. MEET WITH CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Earling explained the City Council will next meet with Planning Board candidate Ian Duncan for approximately 15 minutes. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex and was open to the public. All Councilmembers were present for the meeting with Mr. Duncan. The City Council Meeting was reconvened at 7:17 p.m. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, ADDING A POTENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AS AGENDA ITEM 16. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page Page 4 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Petso requested Item N be removed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2012. C. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51593 THROUGH #51625 FOR $475,737.42 AND BENEFIT CHECKS #51626 THROUGH #51634 & WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $124,333.88 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2012 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2012. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #133691 THROUGH #133823 DATED AUGUST 16, 2013 FOR $362,327.33 AND REPLACEMENT CHECKS #133763 FOR $3,259.01 AND #133803 FOR $952.90. E. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BOAT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1. F. AUTHORIZATION TO SELL ONE (1) 2002 DODGE STRATUS. G. AUTHORIZATION TO SELL UNIT 047-STR (1973 ASPHALT TACK WAGON). H. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES. I. BANKING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #2 WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE 76TH AVE. W @ 212TH ST. SW INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. L. APPROVAL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT AND APPRAISAL WAIVER PROCEDURES ON FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS. M. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE LIFT STATION 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. O. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 31, 2012 FOR THE A-BASIN UPGRADE PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MOON CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. ($174,530.96 INCLUDING SALES TAX). P. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 2, 2012 FOR THE BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KRUGER SHEET METAL ($344,925 INCLUDING SALES TAX). Q. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO NORTHSHORE PAVING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,251.23 FOR THE 2012 WATERLINE OVERLAY PROJECT. Packet Page Page 5 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 3 R. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTS. S. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 WITH PARAMETRIX, INC. FOR THE MAIN ST. DECORATIVE LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT. T. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 9, 2012 FOR THE LIFT STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO RAZZ CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,872,095.20. U. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE EASEMENTS FOR THE SEWER LIFT STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT. V. RENEW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COORDINATOR POSITION WITH THE CITY OF MILL CREEK. W. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF IAN DUNCAN TO THE PLANNING BOARD. ITEM J: 2011 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT REPORT - STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. Councilmember Buckshnis stated she pulled this item in order to commend Finance Director Shawn Hunstock on the audit. Although there has been controversy among citizens regarding the City’s financial policies, this is a new administration and a new Finance Director and improved transparency. The audit was nearly perfect with the only comments related to categorization of expenses. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM N: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (OVWSD) TO INSTALL SEWERLINE AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES AS PART OF THE 224TH ST. SW SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT. Councilmember Petso pulled this item so that she could abstain from the vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM N. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. 5. INSURANCE BRIEFING FROM WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY (WCIA). Finance Director Shawn Hunstock introduced Lisa Roberts, Risk Services Manager, WCIA. Ms. Roberts has been with WCIA for six years and has been in the public risk management industry for twenty years. He advised that Ms. Roberts will not be able to comment on specific claims or litigation during her presentation. Ms. Roberts explained WCIA is the City’s insurer; WCIA is not an insurance company, it is a self- insurance pool. WCIA was created in 1981 with only 9 Puget Sound area cities and has since grown to 153 members throughout Washington; Edmonds joined WCIA in 1985. WCIA was formed during the hard insurance market in the 1980s when many governmental agencies could not obtain insurance and those who could found their premiums had increased substantially. Public entities were a poor risk at that Packet Page Page 6 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 4 time as they did little in terms of risk management and began having a lot of claims. RCWs 48.62 and 39.34 provides oversight for interlocal agency pools. Ms. Roberts explained WCIA’s philosophies differ from an insurance company. WCIA has a board that operates the pool; each of WCIA’s 153 members is a full voting member of the pool. She displayed and described an organizational chart of WCIA’s governing body. The full board meets three times a year and the board determines coverage. WCIA does not rely on the insurance industry for much of their financial strength; only about 12%. WCIA believes in creating good case law through aggressive litigation and provides tailored risk management services to its members. The Executive Committee is elected from the full board. Members can participate in one of the committees (Long Range Planning, Budget, Loss Control, Investment and Audit).WCIA anticipates and responds to members’ needs quickly; for example, following 9/11, members wanted terrorism coverage. WCIA enacted terrorism coverage long before the federal government enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). WCIA is the strongest pool in the state financially with over $165 million in total assets; $32.5 million in assessments from members to cover property and liability risks, $83 million in reserve, and a $4.5 million administrative budget. WCIA has a 99% confidence level, the strongest in the state for any self-insurance pool and probably in the nation. Part of the reason WCIA has been so successful is their national award-winning training program called the COMPACT. All members are required to meet organizational elements to be in compliance with the COMPACT; members who are not in compliance are penalized 7% of their insurance premium. The COMPACT provides a systematic method of delivering risk management services and training that helps reduce losses. Each member must attend three annual trainings. Trainings are free and located throughout the state or the trainer will come to the member’s location. Each member is subjected to an annual audit and review. WCIA staff works with the member’s staff on whatever topic is being audited that year; the audit topics are determined by the Long Range Planning Committee. This year’s topic is cyber liability, last year’s topic was employment. The topic the year before was police. Each member then has a year to come into compliance with mandatory requirements. Each City Attorney must attend WCIA training; they provide City Attorney training at the Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys conferences in the spring and fall or they can attend any of the WCIA trainings. All members are encouraged to pay their assessments on time. WCIA’s administrative budget includes their legal consultation program and member services program and pre-defense program. WCIA trained over 6,000 employees last year at over 281 sites. WCIA has 9 designated risk management professionals that can meet with the membership; each city has a risk management representative assigned to their city. Edmonds’ risk management representative is Debbie Sellers. Another of WCIA’s philosophies is aggressive litigation. If a member does something wrong and is negligent, that claim is paid quickly and fairly. If the member did not feel they did anything wrong and the adjuster agrees and the facts of the case are worth fighting for, WCIA will litigate it. She cited examples such as a Bainbridge Island case that provided shoreline management enforcement for the city that took nine years to win. WCIA also won a class action lawsuit filed against Spokane police. WCIA has won at the 9th Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court. She noted many plaintiffs choose not to file frivolous lawsuits when they learn WCIA is the insurer. WCIA has defense costs of approximately $6 million annually. WCIA has total liability limits of $20 million in coverage on an occurrence basis; there are some supplements for certain types of lawsuits. An occurrence basis is important for elected officials; because errors and omissions coverage is occurrence based, once a Councilmember has completed his/her term in office, claims filed during their tenure will be covered. Packet Page Page 7 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 5 WCIA handles approximately 1500 claims annually; 300 cases are pending at any given time. WCIA has an aggressive pre-defense program, typically used for land use and employment. WCIA also offers a free legal consultation program to review personnel policies, land use ordinances, etc. The most important thing WCIA does that differs from an insurance company is to look for coverage, not exclusions. Ms. Roberts referred to the City of Edmonds’ loss severity report for 2007-2011, commenting the City’s assessment was not based solely on this information. The report shows the average for the group and claims WCIA paid for Edmonds during 2007-2001. Edmonds is in the second to largest group of cities (Group 3 – medium sized cities, 200,000 – 400,000 annual worker hours). She reviewed the report, pointing out Edmonds has had some higher losses in police and Public Works sewer and street. She recognized Edmonds is an older city with older infrastructure. Ms. Roberts displayed a comparison of the group cost per worker hour 2007-2011. The average cost per worker hour is $0.45; Edmonds is slightly above at $0.51. She explained the cost per worker hour was the total cost to the pool including defense costs, reserves, indemnity reserves and actual indemnity claims. WCIA caps members’ assessments; one large claim does not necessarily drive up a city’s assessment. A large number of claims will drive up a member’s assessment. Ms. Roberts described Council exposures that can be problematic. Land use can be very problematic and verdicts can be outrageously expensive. She referred to the Westmark v. City of Burien case on which WCIA paid a $10 million verdict on a SEPA permit application issue. She applauded Edmonds for the use of a Hearing Examiner, noting the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine can be problematic for Councils in quasi judicial matters. WCIA supports the use of a Hearing Examiner, an impartial body. WCIA also supports having appeals to Superior Court. WCIA placed a $5 million cap on land use exposure. Most WCIA members have moved to a Hearing Examiner and appeals to Superior Court. An area of exposure for cities is moratoriums on adult sex shops. There were two Federal District Court decisions that rendered summary judgments against Bothell and Kenmore, stating their moratoriums were illegal due to constitutional issues. If the City did not have zoning for adult sex shops, she encouraged the City to work with the City Attorney and not to enact a moratorium while doing so. Another area that Councils have exposure is personnel. There have been numerous claims for wrongful termination and discrimination in recent years. Often Councils are confused regarding their role in that process. She emphasized the Council is the legislative branch that makes policy and the Mayor is responsible for day-to-day operations and controls over staff. When Councilmembers are on the dais, they have legislative immunity. When not on the dais, Councilmembers have no immunity or power and may not have coverage if acting outside their scope. She encouraged the Council to understand their role, and use the chain of command. Another area of exposure for Councilmembers is leaking executive session information. There are few exceptions to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA); executive sessions must be related topics allowed to be discussed in executive session such as real estate, litigation and personnel. It is important that information provided in executive session not be disclosed outside an executive session. Any conflicts should be aired and the Councilmember should recuse themselves before going into executive session. WCIA wants to share their defense strategy with the Council but will not if they feel their ability to defend the City will be compromised. There are sanctions for leaking executive session information; Councilmembers who leaked executive session information have been sanctioned, required to pay a $500 fine, make a public apology and have not been reelected. WCIA recommends cities have an ethics ordinance and a resolution to ensure due process. Malfeasance or misfeasance can be a reason for recall. Ms. Roberts cautioned Councilmembers from taking matters into their own hands. She referred to one of the stories in the vignettes provided in the Council packet where a Councilmember who was passionate about a park land purchase and who blazed a trailhead on the property when the process was taking too Packet Page Page 8 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 6 long. The city was then required to purchase the land and pay for the taking the Councilmember created. Another Councilmember who disagreed with the city’s strategy, waived his attorney-client privilege by sharing the written defense strategy provided in executive session to the plaintiff’s attorney. That Councilmember was sanctioned, required to pay a fine and was not reelected. She summarized Councilmembers did not have the ability to individually waive their attorney-client privilege; that must be done by the Council as a whole. Ms. Roberts cautioned Councilmembers from responding to requests from the public such as for a sign, guardrail, etc. during the public comment portion of a Council meeting. Such requests should be referred to staff for study, input and response. She also cautioned Councilmembers against making general comments that assure, promise or guarantee such as “we’ve had that problem all over the city, or “I told them this would happen,” or “we meant to fix that problem,” or “don’t worry, this will never happen again.” Ms. Roberts commented the “E” in email stands for “evidence.” This is an area WCIA is seeing more problems in and there have been instances when an employee’s or Councilmembers’ personal computers used for work were subpoenaed. She emphasized everything a Councilmember writes is a public record. She recommended that before writing, Councilmembers ask themselves if they would like to have it published in the newspaper or be an exhibit in a lawsuit. She encouraged Councilmembers to use their City issued email address and not use their personal computer. This helps with Councilmember’s protection as well as with public record retention. She also cautioned Councilmembers not to communicate to each other while on the dais. She relayed a story where a Councilmember’s texts with his girlfriend during an open Council meeting were revealed via a public records request. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the keeping of minutes, notes or audio recording of executive sessions and whether any other cities kept minutes, notes, or audio recordings of executive session. Ms. Roberts relayed WCIA’s position is they prefer cities not keep minutes, notes or audio recordings of executive sessions. The reason a Council is in executive session is the topic being discussed is an exception to the OPMA and executive session notes have the potential to be disclosed via public records requests. She was not aware of any cities that kept minutes, notes or audio recordings of executive sessions. Councilmember Johnson asked what the audit question will be for next year. Ms. Roberts answered it is cyber liability and social media. Councilmember Johnson asked about Council serving in a quasi judicial role on land use appeals. Ms. Roberts explained the area WCIA has seen the most expensive claims is a well-meaning City Council that unintentionally violates someone’s rights of due process. Hearing Examiners are typically land use attorneys who know how to hold hearings and avoid violating the public’s rights. Councilmembers have opinions and like to share those opinions with their constituents. Many cities who have gone to a Hearing Examiner system like it better because Councilmembers are able to express their opinion rather than not talking to citizens on quasi judicial issues. Over the past 15 years, land use has become a very technical, expensive exposure for cities. Councilmember Johnson asked about cities with a Hearing Examiner that use City Council for appeals. Ms. Roberts answered there are cities that do that. There is still exposure if something is done wrong in the process. It usually takes a Council a while to get comfortable with the Hearing Examiner process before they are willing to have appeals go to Superior Court. Councilmember Bloom asked Ms. Roberts to review the loss severity report. Ms. Roberts explained the loss severity is the amount of money spent on claims in Edmonds 2007-2011 for each area compared to the group average. Edmonds is in actuarial Group 3, 200,000-400,000 annual worker hours. There are five actuarial groups: Packet Page Page 9 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 7 1. Cities under 100,000 annual worker hours 2. Cities with 100,000-200,000 annual worker hours 3. Cities with 200,000-400,000 annual worker hours 4. Cities with 400,000+ annual worker hours 5. Special districts (911 centers, fire districts, etc.) Edmonds losses as well as the group’s losses help drive the City’s assessment. Cities with high losses get peer pressure from other cities in their group. Edmonds’ losses are slightly above the average; Edmonds is the fifth highest city in the group for losses paid 2007-2011. She referred to the loss severity chart commenting police claims could have been constitutional issues or auto accidents. From the police bar on the chart to the right are finite things such as sewer, street, etc. From the police bar on the chart to the left typically are constitutional issues that are more expensive to defend. She noted the chart does not illustrate whether WCIA prevailed or lost, only the amount WCIA paid out 2007-2011. She summarized Edmonds’ loss profile is not bad for five years; WCIA’s biggest loss area is sewer. One large loss will not affect the City’s assessment; frequent losses will potentially increase a member’s assessment. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, announced Snohomish County Council will hold a public hearing at 10:30 a.m. on September 5 regarding construction of a large cargo freighter operations facility at the Snohomish County Airport. Next, Mr. Rutledge reported Mountlake Terrace staff defeated City staff in a softball game. Mr. Rutledge also reported on the effort to acquire federal funds for a project on Lake Ballinger. Dave Page, Edmonds, complimented Ms. Roberts on the report she provided. With regard to the proposed retail only in the BD1 zone, he commented although retail only sounds like a great idea, it has the potential to impede on someone’s rights, which could subject the City to paying just compensation under the constitution. He referred to the City’s enactment 15 years ago of a $50 permit to cut a tree in excess of 3 inches in diameter; that ordinance was modeled after a Phoenix, Arizona, ordinance where there are no trees compared to alders in this area that grow 3 inches in one year. He suggested the Planning Board, Architectural Design Board and City Council take a land use course. He recalled the Council has made some huge land use decisions on appeal in the past five years which according to the WCIA may not be the safest thing for the Council to do. Don Hall, Edmonds, expressed support for retail only in the BD1 zone. Breaks in retail storefronts and uninteresting windows cause pedestrians to stop walking which causes retailers at the end of the block to lose customers. Retail only would send a strong message to people seeking to establish a new store or branch as well as existing retailers that the City cares about retail in the BD1 zone. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to a good example of chipsealing on 175th in Shoreline from approximately I-5 to 15th Avenue NE. He explained chipsealing is covering the road with tar and gravel to create a new surface. He suggested any Councilmember interested in further information and the cost to contact Shoreline. He did not think Edmonds Public Works was interested in chipsealing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, asked what drives WCIA’s attendance in executive session and is WCIA considered part of the governing body or does the governing body invite them to attend executive sessions in certain situations. MRSC states executive sessions are comprised of the governing body and entities or individuals that the City Council invites. He questioned how the City Council could invite people to executive session as that would require a quorum of the Council. Possibly the Council President can invite people to executive session. WCIA is not a part of the governing body and is a separate entity with their own motivation and guidelines that may not be consistent with the City’s best interests. WCIA is primarily concerned with the best interests of the pool. He asked the impact on the attorney-client privilege status of the executive session when WCIA attends an executive session. If WCIA is not part of Packet Page Page 10 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 8 the governing body, he asked how the City can redact the related executive session meeting minutes under attorney-client privilege. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, pointed out only two of the seated Councilmembers were on the Council in January 2010 when the decision to have Hearing Examiner appeals heard by the City Council was made and for one of the two, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, it was her first meeting and the decision was made at 11:00 p.m. He suggested the Council reconsider that decision, recalling the WCIA representative recommended the Council not serve in that role. Of the five Hearing Examiner appeals in the past several years that came to the Council, the only decision that was reversed was in favor of a developer. Councilmembers may think they are benefiting citizens by hearing appeals but in actuality there are far more dangers than benefits. 7. UPDATE ON BUDGET FORECAST Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained the General Fund forecast included in the 2012 budget document, adopted by Council on November 22, 2011, projected a deficit of $813,151 for 2013 (page 6 of the budget). The projection showed Ending Fund Balance becoming close to negative at the end of 2016. “Ending Fund Balance” on the forecast included money in the General Fund – 001, as well as the $1.9 million in the Emergency Financial Reserve Fund – 006. He displayed the Executive Summary – Current Forecast, Changes in Fund Balance (Revised), highlighting the actual Ending Fund Balance 2010 and Estimate 2011 is $6,855,108. Mr. Hunstock explained subsequent to the budget adoption in November 2011, several items have had an impact on the City’s 2012 and later budgets: • The City stopped receiving liquor excise taxes on July 1, 2012. The lost revenue is estimated to be $211,000 annually. • PERS employer retirement contribution rates are expected to increase by more than 25% effective July 1, 2013. The impact will be $180,000 annually. • The State Supreme Court implemented new rules regarding indigent defense (public defender) caseload limits. These new limits become effective July 1, 2013. It is estimated this will at least double the cost of public defender services. The impact in 2013 is estimated to be at least $134,000. • The State is expecting a surcharge of up to 19% on employer L&I disability rates in order to replenish the Disability Fund. The impact is estimated to be $56,000 annually. • Budget amendments adopted during 2012 are expected to impact 2013 and future budgets by approximately $100,000 per year. These include the Human Resources Department reorganization and membership in the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County ($5,000). The future year impact of the Human Resources reorganization is estimated to be $93,000. Mr. Hunstock emphasized of the above five items, the City has no control over the first four. The above items increase the deficit from $813,151 in 2013 to approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Hunstock displayed an updated financial forecast that incorporates the above items. He highlighted the deficit projected in 2013 of $1.5 million. The revised projections show the City’s reserves being depleted in early 2016. The old and new projections do not include the $1.3 million from the sale of fire assets. The addition of this amount would mean about a 4-6 month difference in when the City’s reserves are depleted (the reserve depletion would move from early 2016 to the third quarter of 2016). The revised projections do not yet include the effect of any departmental budget reductions for 2013, the Voluntary Separation Program, or any changes in health insurance plans or co-pays. The City’s expenses are still projected to grow faster than increases in revenue. The $1.5 million deficit currently projected for 2013 will grow over time. In order to begin to address the structural issues in the Packet Page Page 11 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 9 City’s budget, the administration is considering addressing an additional $400,000 in cost savings, in addition to the $1.5 million deficit for 2013. It is expected if the City moves to Budgeting by Priorities for the 2014 budget, the Council, Mayor, department heads and the public will perform a comprehensive review of where and how the City allocates its resources and whether the allocations are meeting the needs of the citizens of Edmonds. Mayor Earling commented when he took office, the projected deficit was $800,000; due to the state directives, the deficit has increased substantially. He anticipated a number of long meetings to reduce the budget by $1.5 million and hopefully find another $400,000 to address the long term structural problem. He planned to have an op-ed out in the next few days regarding this subject to make the public aware that the problem has accelerated due in part to decisions made by the State and the State Supreme Court. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the reserve fund that will include the $1.9 million Emergency Reserve and the $1.3 million from the sale of fire assets. Mr. Hunstock explained the budget amendment associated with the reserve policy (Agenda Item 9) consolidates the $1.9 million and $1.3 million and $2 million from the General Fund into one reserve. He clarified the accounting change does not change the dollars, only how they are accounted for and grouped together. The 2011 financial statements show a General Fund ending fund balance of $9.5 million. That amount is made up of General Fund 001, the $1.9 million in Fund 006 and the $1.3 million in Fund 010 and a couple other funds. The reserve policy does not change that in any way. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Hunstock explained implementation of the 16% reserve target is consistent with recommended best practices by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ellensburg has a 17% reserve, Mukilteo has 22% and Redmond has 24%. Councilmember Petso asked if good financial news such as savings from bond refinancing or lower WCIA premiums were included in the current forecast. Mr. Hunstock answered the updated forecast does not include many of the items that will ultimately be included in the 2013 budget that will be presented to the Council in October. Unfortunately there has not been a lot of good news but to the extent possible they will be incorporated. He anticipated the savings from bond refinancing to be approximately $20,000/year for 9 years. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was benefit in considering a multi-jurisdictional court rather than the City having its own court, noting in the past the Municipal Court did a lot of things to cover expenses such as issuing passports, etc. but those revenues are diminishing. Mr. Hunstock agreed potential cost savings as well as known and unintended consequences should be analyzed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what items were included in “Services” under Expenses. Mr. Hunstock answered it included a number of professional services including the City Attorney, Public Defender, Prosecuting Attorney, etc. Councilmember Bloom inquired whether the $93,000 Mr. Hunstock cited for the Human Resources Department reorganization was a cost savings. Mr. Hunstock answered it was cost increase as a result of the reorganization. Interim Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained at the end of 2011 the Council cut $150,000 in the Human Resources budget for the director’s salary and tasked the Mayor with reorganizing the Human Resources Department. The reorganization added approximately $90,000; the net savings is approximately $60,000. 8. JUNE 2012 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained the fund balance of the General Fund increased during the second quarter by $2.7 million which is historically consistent with the receipt of the first half of property Packet Page Page 12 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 10 taxes during the second quarter. Year-to-date the City has a $219,000 surplus. He explained the $9.56 million General Fund fund balance ties to the audited financial statements and includes the $1.3 million and $1.9 million reserves in addition to a couple smaller funds. He referred to Revenues by Fund – Summary (page 6 of packet) that illustrates General Fund revenues are at 52% of budget, expenditures are at 51% and REET 1 revenue is at 54% of budget. Mr. Hunstock reviewed the Change in Fund Balance – Summary (page 8 of packet) and Revenues - General Fund (page 9-10). He reviewed Expenditure by Fund – Detail (page 13), highlighting salaries and wages at 47% of budget and overtime is at 43% of budget. He pointed out debt service payments on GO bonds are made in December. He reviewed Expenditures – General Fund – by Department in Summary, pointing out every department is below budget. Mr. Hunstock thanked Finance Committee Members Buckshnis and Yamamoto for their patience with the changes he has made to the report over the past several months. He planned to make other changes with the goal of making the report more useful for the Council as decision makers. He invited feedback from Councilmembers to improve the report. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about revenue projections from the fiber optics program. Mr. Hunstock answered budgeted revenue for fiber optics is included in the General Fund. It is a fairly small amount. CTAC has identified the need for a business/marketing plan for the fiber program. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. ORDINANCE – 2012 AUGUST BUDGET AMENDMENT. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock reviewed the budget amendment for the Main Street project, explaining it reflects three previously unknown funding sources for that project: $500,000 in State grants as well as contributions from the Water and Stormwater Utility funds for their portion of the utility upgrades in the project. Mr. Hunstock referred to the budget amendment to establish the Contingency Reserve Policy. He explained the Finance Committee considered a draft reserve policy at their December 13, 2011 meeting. The consensus at that time was the draft policy was too complicated with too many reserve funds and the policy should be simplified. At their July 10, 2012 meeting, the Finance Committee considered a revised draft reserve policy that proposed creation of one overall reserve fund with a target of 16% of annual General Fund revenues or approximately $5.3 million as well as a smaller reserve fund with a target of 2% General Fund revenue or approximately $660,000 to be used for claims and litigation. During both the July 10 Finance Committee meeting and the July 17 City Council meeting, the plan was a future budget amendment to fund the 16% target with the $1.9 Emergency Financial Reserve Fund, $1.3 million from the sale of fire assets and an additional transfer of approximately $2 million from the General Fund. It was also mentioned during those meetings that the smaller 2% Risk Management Reserve Fund would be funded from interfund transfers from the LID funds as well as future year-end General Fund budget surpluses. It was recognized that the new reserve policy would replace the previous restriction on the $1.9 million Emergency Financial Reserve Fund. Both the December 2011 and July 2012 Finance Committee meetings and the July 17 City Council meeting were public meetings during which public comment was available. Mr. Hunstock explained the proposed budget amendment moves the $1.9 million from the Emergency Financial Reserve Fund, the $1.3 million from the sale of fire assets and approximately $2 million from the General Fund into a single, consolidated Contingency Reserve Fund in order to meet the target of 16% in the reserve policy adopted by Council at the July 17 meeting. Packet Page Page 13 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 11 A budget amendment approved by Council at the July 17 meeting created the Risk Management Reserve Fund and transferred $244,000 from the LID Guarantee Fund to the newly created Risk Management Reserve Fund. The $244,000 partially funds the 2% target of approximately $660,000. The reserve policy adopted by Council states in Section 5.2 that the end of 2014 is the target for fully funding the Risk Management Reserve Fund. To clarify information that has been incorrectly stated elsewhere, Mr. Hunstock assured there is no plan at this time to move any of the reserve funds beyond what is intended to be accomplished with this budget amendment. The budget amendment accomplishes the transfer in of money into the Contingency Reserve Fund; the ordinance does not include an appropriation to use or move those reserve funds. An appropriation is the legal authority granted by Council to spend or transfer money from specific funds up to specified dollar amounts. An appropriation can only occur during budget adoption at a City Council meeting during which a public hearing occurs or through a budget amendment at a City Council meeting during which public comments can be provided. Absent such an appropriation, any use or movement of the money would be a violation of State law as well as the City’s budget ordinance appropriating money into specific funds. Without such an appropriation to use or transfer the money, it simply remains in the fund gaining investment income over time. Speaking for Mayor Earling, Mr. Hunstock explained the preliminary 2013 budget that will be presented to the Council in October will not include the use of reserve funds. Every effort is being made at this time to not only present a balanced budget for 2013 without the use of reserve funds but possibly make a dent into future deficits that are anticipated with the updated financial projections. A balanced budget for 2013 with the currently projected deficit of $1.5 million will only occur with significant reductions in the budget and resulting service level impacts for the City and residents. Council President Peterson clarified the only way Council could access the funds in the Contingency Reserve Fund would be via a budget amendment. Mr. Hunstock agreed the funds cannot legally be used without an appropriation which can only occur with adoption of the budget or a budget amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it would be irresponsible for Councilmembers to tap into the reserves; the City needs to have a reserve fund. Edmonds’ 16% target is somewhat low; Ellensburg has 17%, Mukilteo has 22% and Redmond has 24%. Councilmember Bloom asked why the name of the reserve fund was changed and why the funds were combined, noting there seems to be a perception that there is a difference between an emergency reserve and a contingency reserve. Mr. Hunstock explained consolidating the reserve funds increases accountability and transparency. Previously there were reserve funds in two different funds and part of a third fund, the General Fund. The fund name has no legal force of use. The reserve policy adopted by Council in July 2012 specifically mentions types of emergencies including natural disaster but does not limit the use to only those purposes. He reiterated the funds cannot be used without an appropriation by the Council. Councilmember Bloom asked if there were more options for using funds in the Contingency Reserve Fund versus the Emergency Reserve Fund. Mr. Hunstock answered only due to the restriction that previously existed on the $1.9 million which was effectively eliminated by Council adoption of the new reserve policy. City Attorney Jeff Taraday stated the reserve policy includes reference to RCW 35A.33.145 and 146 that refer to contingency funds. Those sections contain the legal framework for a contingency fund. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the plan to fully fund the Risk Management Reserve Fund by the end of 2014. Mr. Hunstock responded the reserve policy establishes a target of 2% by the end of 2014. There is no definite plan for establishing that target. He would have concern with moving more than the $2 million proposed in the budget amendment into the Contingency Reserve as it would leave a Packet Page Page 14 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 12 significantly smaller ending fund balance in the General Fund. He wanted to ensure there were sufficient funds in the General Fund to meet ongoing operating needs. Transferring $2 million from the General Fund into the Contingency Reserve leaves a $3.8 million fund balance in the General Fund. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that it did not make any difference what the reserve fund was called; there was money available for a catastrophic event. Mr. Hunstock answered the total dollar amount available for emergencies has not changed; the $1.9 million, $1.3 million and some of the fund balance of the General Fund that is considered to be reserve were combined into one single fund. The overall dollars have not changed; they are simply accounted for in fewer funds. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3893 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3891 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, CREATING A NEW CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND. Council President Peterson explained one of the reasons for creating an emergency reserve fund was to establish a percentage of monies to set aside. With the adoption of the new reserve policy, he is comfortable with renaming the fund Contingency Reserve Fund because it clarifies the funds are set aside for catastrophic occurrences or other emergencies. Tonight’s action implements the reserve policy the Council adopted in July. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. SAVINGS FROM REFINANCING OF GO BONDS Finance Director Shawn Hunstock reviewed savings from refinancing GO bonds: Bond Issue Savings General Fund 001 Street 111 Storm 411 Parks Acq 126 WWTP 414 Edmonds PFD 1998 $28,097.22 12.35% $3,470.01 7.07% $1,985.07 7.07% $1,985.07 73.52% $20,657.08 2001A $244,671.29 83.58% $204,496.26 16.42% 440,175.03 2001B $112.654.07 100% $112,654.07 2002 13.64% $139,173.94 86.36% $881,162.88 Total $1,405,759.40 Total Savings by Fund $207,966.27 $1,985.07 $1,985.07 $272,485.09 $40,175.03 $881,162.88 Mr. Hunstock referred to savings by fund, explaining the life of each bond varies. He pointed out in theory the savings in the PFD bond would accrue to the PFD, in actuality over the short term it will essentially decrease the potential loan from the City to the PFD related to the debt service. Mr. Hunstock referred to a calendar in the packet related to the bond refinancing. The ordinances related to refinancing of revenue bonds and refinancing of these GO bonds was approved by Council in December 2011. This will be a competitive bond sale. He explained the difference between a negotiated and competitive bond sale; in a negotiated bond sale the City works with one underwriter and one financial adviser to negotiate the terms of the bond and they sell the bonds. In a competitive bond sale there are numerous underwriters and buyers and the bonds are marketed to get the best interest rate Packet Page Page 15 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 13 possible. This increases borrowing costs somewhat but the rate in a competitive bond sale more than outweighs the higher cost. Mr. Hunstock reviewed the Summary of Refunding Results, explaining there is a total par value of approximately $9.9 million. As long as the refinancing is under $10 million, bank qualified bonds can be issued which are earlier to market on the open market as well as have an interest rate discount, resulting in approximately ¼% less in debt service costs. As rates change, the par value may also change; every effort will be made to keep the total under $10 million. Mr. Hunstock reviewed the Summary of Refunding Results for each bond issue, explaining the goal is a minimum savings of 2½ -3%; that percentage is significantly higher for most of the bond issues. The only exception is the 1998 bonds although savings will still be achieved. That bond issue may be pulled to keep the par value under $10 million. Mr. Hunstock referred to the 2011B bond issues which relate to the Marina Beach improvements. In November/December 2011, the Council discussed lengthening the term of the bonds to free up additional REET funds. The refinancing and extension to 2031 accomplishes an $112,000 savings as well as $90,000/year in REET funds for debt service. All the other bonds are refinanced for the original length of the bond issue. Mr. Hunstock referred to the $244,671.29 in savings from refinancing the 2011A bonds, the approximately $27,000 - $30,000 year in savings will accrue to the General Fund. The new, lower debt service savings will be incorporated into future budgets. He referred to the $1,020,336 savings for refinancing of the 2002 PFD bonds; he explained some of the savings accrue to the Parks Acquisition 126 ($139,000), the remainder accrues to the PFD. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the City’s bond rating. Mr. Hunstock answered the City regularly goes through a bond review with Moody’s Investment Services; the City maintained its existing bond rating which is reflected in the CAFR. Councilmember Johnson asked the City’s bonding capacity. Mr. Hunstock answered that is also in the CAFR; the City has a great deal of capacity. Mr. Hunstock explained the savings identified in December 2011 were approximately $868,000; by waiting until now rates have decreased which increased the savings to $1.4 million. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING RETAIL ONLY ZONE IN BD1. Interim Development Services Manager Rob Chave reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendation: • Restrict uses in the designated street front in the BD1 zone to retail or service uses and prohibit office/professional office used from the street front of the building • No restriction behind or above the designated street front He displayed a map of downtown, identifying the BD1 zone (the retail core approximately 2 blocks north, south, east and west of the fountain at 5th & Main) and the designated street fronts. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained his comments were in regard to why consideration should be given to restricting and promoting certain uses within the first 45 feet of a structure located within a BD1 zone. This issue is being raised in part from past conversations with some leasing agents, other cities as well as implementing Goal 2, Policy 2i of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan which states: “Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail core” area in the downtown.” If there is no requirement to fill spaces with certain uses, there is little incentive/motivation to search for the types of activities or businesses that would help increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. In Packet Page Page 16 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 14 other words, it can sometimes be easier to lease to a tenant that will not add to the commercial vitality of the retail/restaurant/art gallery/boutique/service business core. Downtown land use goals and strategies for many downtown areas incorporate four prominent themes: (1) central gathering place, (2) sense of place, (3) connectivity, and (4) density. To achieve these objectives, downtowns need economic development/vitality, safety, housing/businesses, and tourism; a vibrant retail/service core helps advance these goals and reach overall downtown success. Retail/Restaurants/Service Uses, particularly independently owned, adds to the Edmonds’ distinctiveness because it is the most visible element within the downtown core of Edmonds. He referred to a June 21, 2010 email he sent to downtown property owner Jonathan Mayo, “Edmonds’ unique downtown character is defined by the diversity and concentration of complimentary commercial uses such as restaurants/cafes, art galleries, house wares, books, garden supplies, specialty boutiques, hair/nail salons, wellness businesses, etc. These uses generate pedestrian activity and a lively social environment that, in turn, sustain a mix of uses. Creation of a critical mass of this type of activity also helps to increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. While purely office uses have the ability and flexibility to open in more locations within commercial areas, uses such as retail stores, restaurants, art galleries, etc., have limited business spaces/stock and thrive best when there is a concentration of similar uses. The City and business community have been working to attract businesses that will help bring life to the City's downtown streets during the weekend and evening hours and it’s starting to pay off. A healthy retail core is also important for maintaining safe streets in many central cities. According to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design guidelines (CEPTED), businesses on the ground floor provide “eyes on the street” and deter criminal activity. Retail, restaurants, art galleries, etc., stay open for longer periods of time than office uses, thus providing more activity on the street beyond 5 or 6 p.m. Retail/restaurants/galleries/service uses can also help stimulate housing and business development within downtown areas as they often provide essential services to city residents. This can be partially attributed to the vibrancy that these uses add to downtown streets. A strong retail/restaurant/gallery/service core helps attract shoppers and tourists. Tourists invest significant amounts of money into many City, County and State economies and tourism is the 4th largest industry in Washington. Tourism in turn supports businesses and their employees. Downtown Edmonds is home to many independent retailers and restaurants, so when tourists are shopping downtown, they are supporting the growth of smaller independent businesses. Conversely, negative fluctuations in the retail market, e.g., absence of a critical mass, can result in vacant storefronts thus affecting the street environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core. Therefore, retail/service issues are not just retail/service issues – they are a critical part of sustaining the health of the downtowns. Kirkland limits uses at street level to certain kinds of commercial uses throughout the downtown area, but in the core area of downtown Kirkland, the list of allowed uses narrows for business spaces fronting Park Lane and Lake Street. This works very well and occupancy rates are quite high. Other cities with these types of provisions include Escondido, Encinitas, etc. To a question that has been asked about allowing the market to decide, Mr. Clifton pointed out adoption of zoning standards related to uses, setbacks, height limits, etc. means the market is not allowed to decide. He summarized the uses proposed to be restricted in the BD1 are strictly office uses such as accounting, insurance, pure banking uses, architectural, engineering, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about banking and real estate offices. Mr. Clifton responded the proposal would allow banking and real estate offices; a customer makes somewhat of a purchase when they visit a bank or real estate office compared to an architectural, engineering or accounting office which are by appointment or a pure office use. Packet Page Page 17 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many offices would be affected. Mr. Clifton responded Planning Board Members Valerie Stewart and Kristiana Johnson inventoried downtown businesses. The Public Works, Planning, and Parks Committee discussed re-inventorying downtown businesses. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how existing offices in the BD1 zone would be affected. Mr. Clifton answered the proposal would include maintaining existing nonconforming regulations (Chapter 17.40.010). Under the proposal, within the first six months, a landlord could fill the space with a similar office use, after six months the landlord would be required to replace it with a use that was allowed under the amended zoning code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about buildings whose architecture was not conducive to retail. Mr. Clifton answered that issue was raised by the Public Works, Planning, and Parks Committee and could potentially be discussed further. Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff’s expectation of the Council tonight. Mr. Clifton wanted to know if the Council was interested in pursuing this further and if so, staff will conduct further investigation to provide additional information. There were three primary concerns raised at yesterday’s Public Works, Planning, and Parks Committee meeting: • What are the proposed boundaries of a zone that would restrict office uses? The initial intent was to include the entire BD1 zone. A question was raised by Councilmember Fraley Monillas whether this area could/should be reduced to extend only 1 block either side of the fountain at 5th Avenue and Main Street. • More clearly define what would be allowed and not allowed in a retail only/commercial core. He contacted the City of Kirkland again and researched other cities and agreed that it would be helpful to develop a more specific list of what would and would not be allowed under this proposal. This would help with the administration of the code as well as provide more clear guidance for landlords or business owners. • Grandfathering or how long is the proposed period before a landlord has to conform to amended language? Within the first six months, a landlord could fill the space with a similar office use, after six months the landlord would be required to replace it with a use that was allowed under the amended zoning code. Councilmember Buckshnis viewed an accountant as a service the same as a nail salon. Councilmember Yamamoto assumed the boundary was only one block in each direction from the fountain as that was primarily the downtown core. Mr. Clifton agreed that could be considered; the original proposal was the entire BD1 zone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas found this an interesting idea and her understanding was that the businesses in the area and the building owners did not object to the proposal. Her primary concerns were grandfathering existing businesses and allowing a landlord to rent to another office use within the first six months an office use ceased. She questioned the difference between banking or real estate and a stockbroker or other service. She commented downtown building owners were currently not prohibited from renting to whomever they wished. Mr. Clifton agreed as long as it was an allowed use. Because the City does not have a policy related to retail only, he currently encourages landlords to fill spaces within the core with uses that will add vitality and liveliness and that stay open later than an office use. Councilmember Petso relayed her concern with structures that are not suitable for retail, indicating she has other concerns that she will forward to staff. She suggested the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Planning Board consider this. Mr. Clifton advised this was already reviewed by the EDC and Planning Board. Packet Page Page 18 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 16 Councilmember Bloom commented the amendment is titled retail only but the uses being considered are nail salons, banks, real estate, etc. She suggested the definition not be retail only but a prohibition on offices. Mr. Clifton agreed this proposal was about the uses that would not be allowed. Councilmember Bloom asked who and how property owners and/or businesses were surveyed and how the conclusion was reached that they were all supportive of the proposed change. Mr. Clifton responded not all property owners were surveyed. His conversations with a few major property owners indicated they were supportive. Councilmember Bloom recalled one of the reasons this amendment was delayed was to ensure property owners and tenants were supportive of the proposal. Mr. Clifton commented more outreach could be done as part of the EDC process. Councilmember Bloom shared other Councilmembers’ concern with buildings in the BD1 zone that are not suitable for retail. Councilmember Johnson recalled the EDC and Planning Board discussed this issue approximately a year ago. She referred to the Planning Board’s recommendation to prohibit drive-through services in the BD1 zone. She recalled one of the questions at that time was what services would be allowed and how appropriate services would be determined. She recommended this issue be remanded to the Planning Board and EDC for further discussion along with additional research by staff. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO LOOK AT RETAIL ONLY IN THE BD1 ZONE FURTHER, SPECIFICALLY SERVICE USES, AND ANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE. As this had been considered by the EDC and Planning Board previously, Council President Peterson preferred it be referred to only the EDC. This has been before the Council previously and is the Council’s decision to make. One of the reasons it has been before the Council a number of times is to ensure property and business owners were aware of the proposal; there has not been a huge outcry from property or business owners. Councilmember Johnson relayed she has been involved in the discussion at both the EDC and Planning Board. The EDC has approximately 50% new members and the Planning Board is well versed on the subject. She suggested a joint EDC/Planning Board meeting. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO HAVE THIS ISSUE CONSIDERED AT A JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. It was the consensus of the Council to move the executive session regarding labor negotiations to next week prior to the City Council meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. DISCUSSION REGARDING STEP-BACKS Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave explained explained the difference between a setback and step-backs; a setback is the entire building is set back a distance from the property line; a step-back is a portion of the building is stepped back at a certain height, providing a notch in the building. In most of Packet Page Page 19 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 17 the BD zones, there is a 15-foot step-back requirement at 25 feet for a maximum building height of 30 feet above the average grade. That provision was inserted in approximately 2006, until that time the height limit was 30 feet with pitched roof or modulated building façade. No buildings have been constructed using the step-back regulations. Step-backs are not required in the BD1 zone. He relayed the Planning Board’s recommendation: • Eliminate the step-back requirement in the downtown BD zones Mr. Chave displayed a map identifying the BD1 zone (downtown core), BD2 zone (surrounding the retail core), BD3 (auto oriented retail uses south up 5th Avenue), BD 4 (contains a substantial number of residential uses) and BD5 (along 4th Avenue). The step-back requirement allows building height to be increased from 25 feet to 30 feet. He displayed photographs of traditional commercial building styles, pointing out there are a variety of ornamentation and detail but they have a common pedestrian scale street front. He provided photographs of historic downtown Edmonds buildings, pointing out there are no setbacks or step-backs. He highlighted the false front on the Chanterelle building to create a block presence at the street front. He identified the location of a 15-foot step-back at 25-feet on the Chanterelle building, noting that requirement would make it difficult to reproduce historic downtown buildings. He provided photographic examples of pedestrian street fronts, commenting the upper stories are less obvious to pedestrians, they notice the street level. The Comprehensive Plan contains design objectives related to downtown site design, building form, building facades, etc. He suggested revisiting the design objectives. Councilmember Petso relayed the Public Works, Planning, and Parks Committee discussed her perception that the amendment as drafted resulted in a 5-foot building height increase for most of the BD2 – BD5 because the language is a 25-foot height plus an additional 5 feet with a step-back. She suggested removing the building height issue and focusing on the step-back language by redrafting the amendment so that it eliminated the step-back and the extra 5 feet. Mr. Chave answered if the Council wanted a 25- foot building height, the height discussion could be eliminated. A 25-foot building would be lower than the City has had in the past; the building height has essentially been 30 feet. The Chanterelle building is approximately 30 feet. Lowering the building height to 25 feet may eliminate some historical options. One option would be a 30-foot height limit with design parameters to achieve 30 feet. Councilmember Petso recalled the Public Works, Planning and Parks Committee discussed alternatives to the 15-foot step-back such as reducing the size of the step-back, stepping back the entire floor or making the additional 5-foot height dependent on something other than the step-back. Mr. Chave answered there are many options such as allowing a 30-foot building height but with more specificity regarding the street front at the pedestrian level. He referred to drawings and diagrams provided by Mr. Hinshaw that could be reintroduced into the design guidelines to provide more clarity. Councilmember Petso referred to Comprehensive Plan general objectives, observing not all of them would be required for a single development. Mr. Chave answered some are worded as shall, others are encouraged. They apply to any proposal in the downtown area and are part of the criteria that downtown building designs are viewed against. The design review chapter in the code refers to the design objectives in the Downtown Waterfront Plan. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could be sued for applying guidelines that use words such as minimize, optimize or improve. Mr. Chave answered application of the guidelines is defensible. Councilmember Yamamoto noted existing height limits already limit development downtown and limiting building heights to 25 feet would further limit development. Developers need to have the Packet Page Page 20 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 18 opportunity to propose a building with 30-foot height limit; that cannot be done with the current step- back. Councilmember Buckshnis did not object to eliminating the required step-back. She disagreed with Councilmember Petso that it was an increase in the building height as the building height was already 30 feet. She suggested language that states the overall building height in the BD1 – 4 zones is a maximum of 30 feet. Mr. Chave agreed that was an option. He agreed essentially the building height was 30 feet now; the code describes what happens between 25 feet and 30 feet. Developers have a right to a 30-foot building height as long as they meet the requirements. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the 15-foot step-back was a change in the architectural design. Mr. Chave commented height is a surrogate for design in discussions in Edmonds; height is a poor arbiter of design and does not automatically result in good design. It provides a certain scale but not necessarily a desirable streetscape. The 30-foot building height has worked reasonably well but the 30-foot buildings that have been constructed have not always been what the community wanted. A number of revisions were made to the code in 2006 to encourage viable building design for a pedestrian environment. He noted historic buildings do not have a step-back. Councilmember Buckshnis commented requiring a step-back would change the architectural design of buildings. Mr. Chave commented step-backs are typically required on much taller buildings to reduce the apparent mass of the building. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding was the building height was 25+5 in the BD zones and the +5 feet could be achieve with modulation and now with a step-back. In the BD1 zone, a 15-foot ground floor was required to achieve a 30 foot building height which she noted that precludes three stories. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on topography. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso that eliminating the step-back would allow a 30-foot building without modulation or step-back. Recognizing citizens’ sensitivity regarding building heights, she suggested a public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Committee discussed a 5-foot step back. Mr. Chave offered to provide photographs of buildings with a 5-foot step-back. Typically 5-foot step-backs are at the 4-5 story level to make the lower portion of the building more prominent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled discussion regarding step-backs at Firdale Village. Mr. Chave explained step-backs at Firdale Village were intended to provide a reduction in building mass adjacent to residential. The Planning Board’s concern with a 15-foot step-back downtown was it would make residential uses on upper stories very challenging on narrow lots. Councilmember Petso clarified she viewed this as a height increase because the existing code states the base height is 25 feet; a developer can construct a 25-foot box without a step-back or pitched roof. The code as proposed would allow a 30-foot box without a step-back or modulated roof which she equated to a height increase. She preferred to develop options for achieving a 30 foot building height. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the language for the BD5 zone if the step-back requirement were removed. Mr. Chave agreed the BD5 zone is unique and establishing a historic corridor will require the involvement of the Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Petso recommended beginning that process along with this amendment. Mr. Chave answered that was a long term process that will require a great deal of public input, workshops, etc. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Chave offered to return with drawings and language for increasing building heights in BD zones from 25 to 30 feet to reinforce the pedestrian scale. He also Packet Page Page 21 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 19 offered to provide photographs of 5-foot step-back. He asked whether the intent was to review that information at a full Council work session. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Chave providing the information at a Council work session. She supported including language regarding building architecture. Mr. Chave pointed out in 2005 a developer could build a 30-foot box with a modulated façade. He referred to examples such as the 3rd & Bell building that was constructed under those regulations. Councilmember Petso preferred this be referred to the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson commented when this was first presented to the Planning Board, it was one of four items that were considered together. The fourth item, performance standards, is scheduled for the September 25 Council meeting. She suggested combining this discussion with the discussion on September 25. She recalled the Planning Board unanimously found the 15-foot step-back not architecturally desirable but there was no discussion regarding building heights. Mr. Chave responded a September work session would be acceptable to staff. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 25 WORK SESSION. Council President Peterson agreed this discussion dovetails with development agreements; however, when the previous items were on the same Council agenda, the Council requested they be separated. City Attorney Jeff Taraday is preparing a white paper on development agreements and incentive zoning. Council President Peterson preferred the two topics not be combined. The September 25 Council meeting already includes a one hour budget review and a one hour discussion regarding incentive zoning. Mayor Earling suggested delaying this discussion until the end of October. Council President Peterson suggested September 18. Councilmember Johnson commented it would be more productive to have the incentive zoning discussion occur prior to the 25-foot versus 30-foot building height discussion. As the code currently exists, additional building height can be achieved via a step-back; there may be other tradeoffs that are more desirable. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO DISCUSS STEP-BACKS ON SEPTEMBER 18 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS/INCENTIVE ZONING ON SEPTEMBER 25. Councilmember Petso preferred to delay the discussion to October 23 or the fifth Tuesday, October 30. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to discuss development agreements prior to removing the 15- foot step-back requirement Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to describe the white paper he is preparing for the September 25 presentation regarding incentive zoning. Mr. Taraday stated his office is preparing a memo that will explain terminology in more detail. When the Council has discussed development agreements, it appeared what the Council really wanted was incentive zoning. The Council wants to allow flexibility in development regulations in exchange for a developer providing certain types of public benefits. Packet Page Page 22 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 20 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BLOOM, PETSO AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION REGARDING STEP-BACKS TO OCTOBER 2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 14, 2012 Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported the majority of items discussed by the Committee were approved on the Consent Agenda or discussed by the Council tonight. Public comment addressed the reserve policy, REET revenue and the WCIA presentation. Public Works, Parks, and Planning Committee Councilmember Petso reported most agenda items were on tonight’s Consent Agenda. The Committee discussed whether the City is interested in subsidizing solar panel projects by waiving the permit fee; that item is scheduled for full Council discussion. At yesterday’s meeting, the Committee discussed retail only in BD1 and step-backs; the Committee did not provide a recommendation to Council. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Councilmember Bloom reported the Committee discussed renewal of the Domestic Violence Coordinator Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mill Creek which was approved on the Consent Agenda. The Domestic Violence Coordinator, Kari Hovorka, works 19 hour/week, divided 2/3 to Edmonds and 1/3 to Mill Creek. She and Councilmember Johnson were impressed with the amount of work done by Ms. Hovorka. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported students from Hekinan, Japan, visited Edmonds this week. He found the students to be extremely polite and full of energy. He recognized Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, her staff and the Sister Cities Commission for organizing the event, and the families who hosted students. Mayor Earling referred to trees cut last week on the hillside below Pt. Edwards. An arborist report was due today. Trees were definitely cut and there may be fines imposed or replanting required. Mayor Earling referred to yesterday’s Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee meeting, noting committee meetings are intended to be two Councilmembers; four Councilmembers attended yesterday’s meeting. Although it was legal to have four Councilmembers attend because the meeting was noticed, he expressed concern with what appeared to be a robust discussion between four Councilmembers that excluded three Councilmembers. He encouraged the Council to avoid that situation in the future, preferring to have full Council discussion occur at a regular Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded the two Councilmembers who do not serve on the Committee were allowed to provide input as was staff and the guest but Councilmember Petso and she tried to limit discussion. She questioned what could have been done differently other than ask one of the Councilmembers to leave. Mayor Earling answered that option should have been considered. Packet Page Page 23 of 98 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 21 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Yamamoto commented there will be a softball rematch with Mountlake Terrace next year. He thanked Todd Court, Recreation Manager, for organizing that game. Councilmember Bloom explained she was one of the Councilmembers who attended the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee meeting and appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the two issues. She is the only member of Council who was not on the EDC, Planning Board or on the Council when these issues were discussed previously. She felt Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did an excellent job ensuring the discussion stayed on track. Mayor Earling reiterated if four Councilmembers attended, it should have been advertised as a full Council meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was good for Councilmember Bloom to attend the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee meeting because she was not part of the previous discussions regarding step-backs. Councilmember Johnson announced the Planning Board is having a special workshop on Wednesday, August 22 to discuss Harbor Square. The meeting will be recorded and broadcast on Channels 21 and 39 beginning Saturday at 9:00 a.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she has attended other committee meetings where four Councilmembers were in attendance. She reported the Edmonds Special Olympics Masters Team won the silver medal this week; Shoreline won the gold medal. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the reggae band, Adrian Xavier, that performed at City Park last Sunday. The last Concert in the Park is this Sunday, 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. at City Park. She thanked City Clerk Sandy Chase for organizing the special Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee meeting. 16. POTENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS This item was moved to next week prior to the City Council meeting. 17. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Packet Page Page 24 of 98    AM-5083     3. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/28/2012 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #133824 through #133952 dated August 23, 2012 for $638,586.89. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2012 Revenue: Expenditure:638,586.89 Fiscal Impact: Claims $638,586.89 Attachments claim cks 08-23-12 Project Numbers 08-23-12 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Shawn Hunstock 08/23/2012 08:41 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/23/2012 08:46 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/23/2012 10:04 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/23/2012 05:17 PM Packet Page Page 25 of 98 Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/23/2012 08:09 AM Final Approval Date: 08/23/2012  Packet Page Page 26 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133824 8/17/2012 069120 AST CAPITAL TRUST COMPANY Mebt 8/20/12 MEBT 08-20-12 PAYROLL August 20, 2012 MEBT less Gerry Gannon 811.000.000.231.520.000.00 77,036.13 Total :77,036.13 133825 8/23/2012 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC CR18742 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 130.00 Total :130.00 133826 8/23/2012 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 3386 BACKFLOW TEST REPORTS BACKFLOW TESTS 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,380.00 Total :1,380.00 133827 8/23/2012 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001492517 3-0197-001492517 RECYCLE ROLLOFF 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 12.64 Total :12.64 133828 8/23/2012 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 15574 HAINES WHARF PARK PLAQUES HAINES WHARF PARK PLAQUES 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,410.00 Freight 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.60 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 136.67 Total :1,575.27 133829 8/23/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6344255 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 42.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 4.07 Total :46.92 1Page: Packet Page Page 27 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133830 8/23/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6344262 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 57.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.46 Total :62.96 133831 8/23/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0334200-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 6,060.21 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 575.71 Total :6,635.92 133832 8/23/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0334748-IN Fleet - Regular Unleaded 11,100 Gal Fleet - Regular Unleaded 11,100 Gal 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 35,402.34 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 4,440.33 WA St Svc Fees 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 4.75 Total :39,897.42 133833 8/23/2012 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC D24333 Water- Supplies Water- Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.94 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.37 Total :4.31 133834 8/23/2012 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 65974 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.10 UB Outsourcing area #100 printing 2Page: Packet Page Page 28 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133834 8/23/2012 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.10 UB Outsourcing area #100 printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 92.82 UB Outsourcing area #100 postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 302.55 UB Outsourcing area #100 postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 302.54 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.56 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.56 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.82 Total :904.05 133835 8/23/2012 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Sept 2012 AWC SEPTEMBER 2012 AWC PREMIUMS 09-12 fire pension premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,011.32 09-12 retirees premiums 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 30,064.63 09-12 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 273,040.44 Total :307,116.39 133836 8/23/2012 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 4626 E2GA.SERVICES THRU 7/20/12 E2GA.Services thru 7/20/12 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 490.77 E2GA.Services thru 7/20/12 411.000.656.538.800.410.00 587.85 Total :1,078.62 133837 8/23/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 943352 INV 943352 EDMONDS PD GOLD EP LETTERS (PAIR) -CAMERON 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 17.95 EMBROIDERED NAMETAG -CAMERON 3Page: Packet Page Page 29 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133837 8/23/2012 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 29.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.53 INV 950550 EDMONDS PD -SUPPLIES950550 48" HOBBLE, FLAT WEBBING 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 74.75 TRANZPORT SPIT HOODS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 49.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 11.83 INV 951888 MILLS - EDMONDS PD951888 SEW NAMETAG ON SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.00 SEW SERVICE BARS ON SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.95 INV 952855 EDMONDS PD -HAWLEY952855 SEW CHEVRONS - 4 JUMPSUITS 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 2.07 4 PAIRS CORPORAL CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.260.240.00 11.80 Total :223.33 133838 8/23/2012 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14174921 142519 ODOR SCRUBBER EVALUATION 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 298.00 Total :298.00 133839 8/23/2012 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1033484 E7AA.E9GA.WWTP.BID ADVERTISING E7AA.E9GA.Bid Advertising 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 127.50 E7AA.E9GA.Bid Advertising 4Page: Packet Page Page 30 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133839 8/23/2012 (Continued)072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 448.75 E7AA.E9GA.Bid Advertising 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 45.00 Total :621.25 133840 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080235 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 23.75 Total :273.74 133841 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080236 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 273.74 COPIER LEASE12080240 COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 30.65 COPIER LEASE12081756 PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 36.16 Total :340.55 133842 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080229 CANON CONTRACT CHARGE IRC1030 Canon contract charge for IRC1030 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.36 Canon contract charge for IRC1030 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 9.36 Canon contract charge for IRC1030 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 9.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page Page 31 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133842 8/23/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.88 Total :30.65 133843 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080234 LEASE CITY CLERK'S COPIER Lease City Clerk's Copier 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 44.36 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE12080237 Recept. desk copier lease 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.91 Total :533.35 133844 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12081753 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 3.14 PW ADMIN COPIER12081754 PW Office Copier for 8/1-8/31/12 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 68.55 PW Office Copier for 8/1-8/31/12 111.000.653.542.900.450.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 8/1-8/31/12 411.000.652.542.900.450.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 8/1-8/31/12 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 8/1-8/31/12 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 8/1-8/31/12 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 6.51 6Page: Packet Page Page 32 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133844 8/23/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.450.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.450.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 2.59 WATER SEWER COPIER12081755 Water Sewer Copier 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 6.71 Total :441.15 133845 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080228 Lease Council Office copier/printer Lease Council Office copier/printer 001.000.110.511.100.450.00 30.65 Total :30.65 133846 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080238 Lease copier/printer Planning Div. Lease copier/printer Planning Div. 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16 Lease Bldg copier/printer12080239 Lease Bldg copier/printer 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16 Total :72.32 133847 8/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12080233 INV 12080233 CUST # 572105 EDMONDS PD 7Page: Packet Page Page 33 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133847 8/23/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES LEASE CHARGE - 4 COPIERS 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 55.25 Total :636.85 133848 8/23/2012 074137 CARPENTER, RHONDA CARPENTER0821 REFUND REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 68.00 Total :68.00 133849 8/23/2012 068484 CEMEX LLC 9424338837 Water - Asphalt Water - Asphalt 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 175.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.63 Total :191.63 133850 8/23/2012 074142 CITRIX SYSTEMS INC 91317594 CITRIX SERVER LICENSES Citrix XenServer Enterprise Edition - 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 1,531.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 145.53 Total :1,677.31 133851 8/23/2012 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I12002368 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,134.00 Total :1,134.00 133852 8/23/2012 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3-C889 V249 Unit EQ87WQ 2012 Ford 86A Transit XL Van Unit EQ87WQ 2012 Ford 86A Transit XL Van 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 20,731.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,716.34 8Page: Packet Page Page 34 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :22,447.34133852 8/23/2012 069892 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 133853 8/23/2012 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3265530 BANKING SERVICES RFP Banking Services RFP 8/16/12 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 34.85 Total :34.85 133854 8/23/2012 074146 DANIEL & SUSAN DAPPER 1-37206 #611033796-KK UTILITY REFUND #611033796-KK Utility Refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 72.93 Total :72.93 133855 8/23/2012 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2012070340 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for July 2012 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 940.00 Total :940.00 133856 8/23/2012 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2012070027 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Adobe Acrobat 10 Professional Win 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 193.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 18.35 Total :211.51 133857 8/23/2012 006635 DEPT OF LICENSING 312 000 093 001 0007 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LICENSERENEWAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RENEWAL 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 169.00 Total :169.00 133858 8/23/2012 074067 DREISBACH, ELIZABETH DREISBACH0826 CITY PARK CONCERT CITY PARK CONCERT:BALLARD SEDENTARY 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 700.00 Total :700.00 133859 8/23/2012 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 12-13418 Water Quality - Water Samples Water Quality - Water Samples 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,024.00 9Page: Packet Page Page 35 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,024.00133859 8/23/2012 068292 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 133860 8/23/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 14019 CEMETERY SUPPLIES CEMETERY SUPPLIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 33.38 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.17 Total :36.55 133861 8/23/2012 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP BRIGGS0814 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS FOR MOLLIA AND 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 118.00 Total :118.00 133862 8/23/2012 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 1001101043 PRINTING OF SWIM VOUCHERS PRINTING OF 3RD GRADE SWIM VOUCHERS 001.000.640.575.510.490.00 298.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.510.490.00 28.32 Total :326.44 133863 8/23/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57 Total :29.57 133864 8/23/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 42693A 1 COPIER AND PRINTER FOR FRONT COUNTER COPIER AND PRINTER FOR FRONT COUNTER 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 1,095.00 Total :1,095.00 133865 8/23/2012 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0082830-IN 0082830-IN EDMONDS PD REFURBISH ASST CHIEF BADGE 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 30.00 REFURBISH DETECTIVE BADGE 001.000.410.521.210.240.00 35.00 REFURBISH SERGEANT BADGE 10Page: Packet Page Page 36 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133865 8/23/2012 (Continued)008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 30.00 HANDLING CHARGE 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 6.90 Total :106.40 133866 8/23/2012 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 512705 Unit EQ85SD - Supplies Unit EQ85SD - Supplies 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 301.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 28.63 Total :330.03 133867 8/23/2012 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 19520 City Hall - AC Service Repair City Hall - AC Service Repair 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 535.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 50.83 Total :585.83 133868 8/23/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU26432 Street - Supplies Street - Supplies 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.55 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.72 Total :8.27 133869 8/23/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0343097-1 Meter Inventory - ~ Meter Inventory - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.342.00 1,583.88 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.342.00 150.47 Water -Red Brass Pipe Non Inventory0346872 Water -Red Brass Pipe Non Inventory 11Page: Packet Page Page 37 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133869 8/23/2012 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 243.86 7.7% sales tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.78 Water Inventory - ~0347405 Water Inventory - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 2,296.32 Water Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 37.90 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 218.15 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.60 Water - Supplies2402367 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 40.94 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.89 Total :4,597.79 133870 8/23/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.99 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.99 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX,425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.18 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 70.89 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 59.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.39 12Page: Packet Page Page 38 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133870 8/23/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.17 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.36 Total :505.07 133871 8/23/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423-080202-AFTER HOURS PHONE AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 64.90 Total :64.90 133872 8/23/2012 074141 HAMILTON, LISA HAMILTON15359 PRESCHOOL ART EXPLORATION PRESCHOOL ART EXPLORATION # 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 399.00 Total :399.00 133873 8/23/2012 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 59830 Unit 582 - Repairs Unit 582 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 190.00 Unit 582 - Parts and fees 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 425.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 18.05 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.39 Unit 582 - Brake Pads, Supplies60353 Unit 582 - Brake Pads, Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 315.84 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.01 Fleet Supplies60356 Fleet Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 605.88 13Page: Packet Page Page 39 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133873 8/23/2012 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.54 Unit 582 - Air Filter Elements61385 Unit 582 - Air Filter Elements 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 74.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.11 Unit 203 - Supplies61387 Unit 203 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.50 Total :1,874.50 133874 8/23/2012 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007D6242 036570 SOLVENT CEMENT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 414.96 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.54 Total :435.50 133875 8/23/2012 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 0018246-B C-385 C-385 SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE 414.000.656.594.320.410.10 11,513.23 Total :11,513.23 133876 8/23/2012 074138 HIGBEE, NANCY HIGBEE0821 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total :500.00 133877 8/23/2012 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 23343 E2CB.TASK ORDER 12-02.SERVICES THRU E2CB.Task Order 12-02 Services thru 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 162.00 E2FE.TASK ORDER 12-01.SERVICES THRU23368 14Page: Packet Page Page 40 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133877 8/23/2012 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC E2FE.Task Order 12-01 Services thru 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 613.32 Total :775.32 133878 8/23/2012 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 516482-1 Street - Work gloves Street - Work gloves 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 223.60 Freight 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 12.59 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 22.44 Total :258.63 133879 8/23/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2135476 WRITING PADS PERFORATED WRITING PADS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 36.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.45 Total :39.75 133880 8/23/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2132363 Office supplies DSD Office supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 347.16 Total :347.16 133881 8/23/2012 067924 INTEGRA CHEMICAL COMPANY 0104052-IN Water - VITA-D-CHLOR Tablets (1000 Water - VITA-D-CHLOR Tablets (1000 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 593.75 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 57.99 Total :668.54 133882 8/23/2012 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 9977583 C/A 768328 15Page: Packet Page Page 41 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133882 8/23/2012 (Continued)071634 INTEGRA TELECOM PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,951.41 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 32.26 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 32.84 Total :2,016.51 133883 8/23/2012 070526 INTERNATIONAL TACTICAL 07-19-12 SWAT 7/19/12 INV 5 DAY SWAT SCHOOL - 5 DAY SWAT SCHOOL 9/22-26/12 001.000.410.521.230.490.00 4,748.10 Total :4,748.10 133884 8/23/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 710021 GLOVES GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 258.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.56 Total :283.06 133885 8/23/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 709102 Fleet Supplies Fleet Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 53.67 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 5.10 Total :58.77 133886 8/23/2012 068802 INVENSYS SYSTEMS INC 92848999 1000004933 MAGNETIC FLOW TRANSMITTER 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,709.47 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 74.26 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 169.45 100000493392851012 16Page: Packet Page Page 42 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133886 8/23/2012 (Continued)068802 INVENSYS SYSTEMS INC MAGNETIC FLOWTUBES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2,176.91 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 53.65 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 211.91 Total :4,395.65 133887 8/23/2012 069851 JACKYE'S ENTERPRISES INC 9302 Strom - Work T Shirts Strom - Work T Shirts 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 80.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 7.60 Total :87.60 133888 8/23/2012 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 556534 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,431.68 Total :3,431.68 133889 8/23/2012 072821 JENKINS, CHRISTINA JENKINS0820 REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 73.00 Total :73.00 133890 8/23/2012 065056 JOHNSON, TROY JOHNSON0819 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~ 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 133891 8/23/2012 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3601467 INV 3601467 3 CASES COPIER PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 73.14 HANDLING FEE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 16.02 17Page: Packet Page Page 43 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133891 8/23/2012 (Continued)072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.95 Total :96.11 133892 8/23/2012 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KLS15292 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES #15292 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 389.40 #15291 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 389.40 #15290 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 637.20 #15287 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 424.80 #15282 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 106.20 #15281 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 247.80 #15280 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 141.60 #15293 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 318.60 SOCCER CAMP #15246 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 792.00 Total :3,447.00 133893 8/23/2012 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 03142011-03 City Car Washes - July 2012 City Car Washes - July 2012 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 15.09 Total :15.09 133894 8/23/2012 074139 KWON, JUNG JUNG0820 REFUND REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 58.00 Total :58.00 18Page: Packet Page Page 44 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133895 8/23/2012 074144 LARRY & LINDA LENZ 8-50129 #00633-001343893 UTILITY REFUND #00633-001343893 Utility Refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 28.31 Total :28.31 133896 8/23/2012 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 797622 BLADES BLADES FOR POLE SAW 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 42.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.00 PLATES797677 PLATES FOR HONDA MOWER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.91 Total :68.08 133897 8/23/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1019 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1021 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1022 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE4633 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 50.00 Total :314.96 133898 8/23/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 33711801 123106800 HOSE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 217.37 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.65 19Page: Packet Page Page 45 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133898 8/23/2012 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 12310680033711931 STEEL EYEBOLT/POLYESTER ROPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 428.64 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.14 12310680033824709 ACETAL RESIN SHEET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 295.53 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.52 12310680033850900 PIPE/HOSE & TUBE CUTTER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 161.14 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.15 Total :1,147.14 133899 8/23/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 153074 LIFT TRUCK RENTAL LIFT TRUCK FOR FISHING PIER TO CHANGE 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 17.10 Total :197.10 133900 8/23/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 152727 131 PROPANE 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 46.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 4.38 Total :50.45 133901 8/23/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 153098 Storm - Hot Water Pressure Washer Storm - Hot Water Pressure Washer 411.000.652.542.400.480.00 33.14 9.5% Sales Tax 20Page: Packet Page Page 46 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133901 8/23/2012 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 411.000.652.542.400.480.00 3.15 Total :36.29 133902 8/23/2012 074052 MOTHER NATURE'S ORGANICS INC 18239 X FIT PRODUCE BOXES X FIT PRODUCE BOXES 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 1,024.00 Total :1,024.00 133903 8/23/2012 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-247574 101690-01 OIL SEALS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 102.98 101690-01WA23-247584 1/2 HP MOTOR 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 992.36 Total :1,095.34 133904 8/23/2012 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0480578-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 93.56 Unit 98 - Filters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.49 Total :131.12 133905 8/23/2012 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 47895 CITYEDMTRE HOSE/COUPLER/ADAPTER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,218.25 9.2% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 112.08 Total :1,330.33 133906 8/23/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-511828 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL 21Page: Packet Page Page 47 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133906 8/23/2012 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:MARINA BEACH 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,418.55 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-513236 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:PINE STREET PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-514007 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:CIVIC CENTER 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-515340 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-515832 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HUMMINGBIRD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL2-515611 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:WILLOW CREEK FISH 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35 Total :2,144.84 133907 8/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 854983 IPAD CASE IPad case 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 32.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 3.07 Total :35.43 133908 8/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 928937 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:LAMINATING 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 43.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 4.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES928981 TAPE, REINFORCEMENTS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 14.01 9.5% Sales Tax 22Page: Packet Page Page 48 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133908 8/23/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.33 Total :63.46 133909 8/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 874980 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 76.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.30 Total :84.15 133910 8/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 958568 INV 958568 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS PD BOX OF CD ROM ENVELOPES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.52 ADDING MACHINE TAPE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.08 CARTON OF KLEENEX 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 44.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.02 Total :57.82 133911 8/23/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 137709 DUMP FEES DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.00 DUMP FEES137721 DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.00 DUMP FEES137830 DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50 DUMP FEES137843 DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50 Total :273.00 23Page: Packet Page Page 49 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133912 8/23/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.954023030083 PS - Paint Supplies PS - Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 70.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.68 Total :77.03 133913 8/23/2012 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0821 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT OF DAYCAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 257.53 DAYCAMP PHOTO PRINTING REIMBURSEMENT 001.000.640.575.530.490.00 3.18 Total :260.71 133914 8/23/2012 069338 PARTNER CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT 5030 Roadway - Crack Sealer Roadway - Crack Sealer 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 3,384.00 Freight 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 85.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 329.56 Total :3,798.56 133915 8/23/2012 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH0822 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENTS REPAIR SUPPLIES FOR GYMNASTICS EQUIPMENT 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 13.14 FOOD SUPPLIES FOR X FIT NUTRITION CLASS 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 58.10 INK CARTRIDGES FOR POOL 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 34.38 PRESCHOOL GAMES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 2.19 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 3.88 DAYCAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 1.10 24Page: Packet Page Page 50 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133915 8/23/2012 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC SUPPLIES FOR 7/26 X FIT NUTRITION CLASS 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 65.17 PUBLIC ART SUPPLIES 117.200.640.575.500.310.00 14.28 CRAFT SUPPLIES FOR GYMNASTICS CAMP 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 20.74 PRESCHOOL LAMINATING &SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 11.49 ICE FOR PICNIC 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.90 Total :242.37 133916 8/23/2012 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730AU12 POSTAGE METER LEASE Lease 7/30-8/30 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 68.26 Total :786.86 133917 8/23/2012 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2127162 211958 PVC JCT BOX 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 47.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.49 Total :51.77 133918 8/23/2012 064167 POLLARDWATER.COM-EAST I331809-IN Water - Suppleis Water - Suppleis 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 454.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 22.38 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 45.26 Total :521.64 25Page: Packet Page Page 51 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133919 8/23/2012 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 146385 INV 146385 EDMONDS PD M26/X26 TASER CARTRIDGES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2,490.00 HANDLING CHARGE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 237.50 Total :2,737.45 133920 8/23/2012 073915 PUGET SOUND FIN OFFICERS ASSOC 2012-20 PSFOA MEETING 7/11/12 S HUNSTOCK PSFOA 7/11/12 Meeting - Topic: 001.000.310.514.100.490.00 25.00 Total :25.00 133921 8/23/2012 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0057299-IN 0047800 CHECK BALLS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3,072.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 73.52 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 298.83 Total :3,444.35 133922 8/23/2012 006841 RICOH USA INC 5023493335 Additional images - Ricoh 907EX Additional images - Ricoh 907EX 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 42.44 Total :42.44 133923 8/23/2012 074071 RIVENWORKS MOSAICS 246 HAZEL MILLER MOSAIC FINAL PAYMENT ON HAZEL MILLER MOSAIC 117.200.640.575.500.410.00 2,168.95 9.5% Sales Tax 117.200.640.575.500.410.00 206.05 Total :2,375.00 133924 8/23/2012 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7792 PUBLIC DEFENDER 26Page: Packet Page Page 52 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133924 8/23/2012 (Continued)069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,600.00 Total :1,600.00 133925 8/23/2012 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 24523 FALL CRAZE PRODUCTION FALL CRAZE 2012 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 2,466.10 FALL CRAZE 2012 117.100.640.573.100.440.00 3,652.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 234.28 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.440.00 347.03 Total :6,700.38 133926 8/23/2012 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2305191 Street - Rapid Set Mortar Mix Street - Rapid Set Mortar Mix 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 62.08 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 5.90 Total :67.98 133927 8/23/2012 074083 SCHREIBER STARLING & LANE 2 FAC -ADA Improvements and Replacement FAC -ADA Improvements and Replacement 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 3,600.00 Total :3,600.00 133928 8/23/2012 071776 SHULL, ERIN SHULL15319 JUMP IT UP CAMP JUMP IT UP CAMP #15319 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 133929 8/23/2012 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0141207-IN Unit 411 - 9" Locking Slide Arm Unit 411 - 9" Locking Slide Arm 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 191.75 27Page: Packet Page Page 53 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133929 8/23/2012 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.75 Total :206.50 133930 8/23/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY 9537 BOWDOIN WAY/POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,478.62 Total :2,478.62 133931 8/23/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.68 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 62.92 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,059.47 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 150.81 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 101.78 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW2011-5141-2 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.68 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,889.58 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 41.56 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 28Page: Packet Page Page 54 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133931 8/23/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 79.98 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 39.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 70.21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 266.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 266.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 266.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 266.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 266.76 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,197.31 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW2024-2780-3 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.64 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,231.20 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 1400 OLYMPIC AVE2025-1986-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.68 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 31.68 WATER TOWER 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1 WATER TOWER 8519 BOWDOIN WAY 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 226.97 29Page: Packet Page Page 55 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :11,642.96133931 8/23/2012 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 133932 8/23/2012 065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU EDM0812 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD FOR VISITOR CTR Tourism promotion award to Sno County 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 133933 8/23/2012 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES Aug 17 2012 Fraley-Monillas/Johnson attend SCC Fraley-Monillas/Johnson attend SCC 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 46.00 Total :46.00 133934 8/23/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 08172012 ASH DISPOSAL ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,441.75 Total :3,441.75 133935 8/23/2012 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Sept Standard Insur SEPTEMBER STANDARD INSURANCE September Standard Insurance Premiums 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,996.19 Total :13,996.19 133936 8/23/2012 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3168159 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 151.61 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.40 Sewer - Green Upside down paint3170224 Sewer - Green Upside down paint 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 190.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 18.07 Sewer - Ridge Set Jaw Inserts3170884 Sewer - Ridge Set Jaw Inserts 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 90.07 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.52 30Page: Packet Page Page 56 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133936 8/23/2012 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.94 Total :488.81 133937 8/23/2012 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 19584 E7AA.STERNBERG LIGHTS E7AA.Sternberg Lights 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 49,432.00 Total :49,432.00 133938 8/23/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100262553.002 FISH PIER LIGHTS HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMPS FOR FISHING 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 174.48 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.67 Total :203.64 133939 8/23/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100264778.001 FS 17 - Elect Supplies FS 17 - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.26 Total :14.53 133940 8/23/2012 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 13873 Sewer -Gas Monitor Troubleshooting Sewer -Gas Monitor Troubleshooting 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 407.00 Total :407.00 133941 8/23/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1790283 NEWSPAPER ADS Ord. #3892 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.96 Total :30.96 133942 8/23/2012 074145 THE ESTATE OF NADINE OKINSELLA 1-25000 #4221-1903429 UTILITY REFUND 31Page: Packet Page Page 57 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133942 8/23/2012 (Continued)074145 THE ESTATE OF NADINE OKINSELLA #4221-1903429 Utility Refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 184.50 Total :184.50 133943 8/23/2012 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 11843419 PW Admin - 1 Yr Subscription- PW Admin - 1 Yr Subscription- 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 177.00 Total :177.00 133944 8/23/2012 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-71071 EDEN CASHIERING INSTALLATION EDEN Cashiering Installation 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 60.00 EDEN Cashiering Installation 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 30.00 EDEN Cashiering Installation 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 30.00 EDEN Cashiering Installation 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 30.00 EDEN CASHIERING CONSULTING045-71778 EDEN Cashiering consulting time 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 60.00 EDEN Cashiering consulting time 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 30.00 EDEN Cashiering consulting time 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 30.00 EDEN Cashiering consulting time 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 30.00 Total :300.00 133945 8/23/2012 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT APPLICATIONS POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT APPLICATIONS 001.000.230.512.500.420.00 98.00 Total :98.00 133946 8/23/2012 062693 US BANK 6254 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS 32Page: Packet Page Page 58 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133946 8/23/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK PRODUCE BOX #3 FOR X FIT CAMP 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 992.00 TICKETS FOR SISTER CITY HEKINAN 138.200.210.557.210.490.00 264.00 PAYMENT PROCESSING FOR WOTS 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 750.00 ADDING $TO ORCA CARD FOR SENIOR 001.000.640.575.530.430.00 100.00 PRODUCE BOX FOR X FIT CAMP 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 1,024.00 UMBRELLA STANDS FOR HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 98.07 UMBRELLAS FOR HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 132.000.640.594.760.310.00 199.44 Total :3,427.51 133947 8/23/2012 074147 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOC 3-21075 #2933444-01 UTILITY REFUND #2933444-01 Utility Refund - 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 127.10 Total :127.10 133948 8/23/2012 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 47649 INV 47649 EDMONDS PD CASE 12-3043 TOW AEN7143 2001 FORD MUSTANG 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 Total :173.01 133949 8/23/2012 026510 WCIA 100917 STORAGE TANKS/INSURANCE STORAGE TANKS/INSURANCE 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 703.00 Total :703.00 133950 8/23/2012 074140 WECHSLER, DENISE WECHSLER0820 REFUND REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION 33Page: Packet Page Page 59 of 98 08/23/2012 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 7:44:05AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 133950 8/23/2012 (Continued)074140 WECHSLER, DENISE 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 100.00 Total :100.00 133951 8/23/2012 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7622 INV 7622 EDMONDS PD MOTOROLA MTS-2000 BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 735.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 69.83 Total :804.83 133952 8/23/2012 065936 WESSPUR TREE EQUIPMENT INC IN-74881 Unit 139 - Chipper Knife Unit 139 - Chipper Knife 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 174.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.53 Total :190.53 Bank total :638,586.89129Vouchers for bank code :front 638,586.89Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report129 34Page: Packet Page Page 60 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 61 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 62 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR E2CA c388 2012 Street Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair WTR E2CC c399 5th Avenue Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 63 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 64 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 E8GC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 65 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Street Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR c399 E2CC 5th Avenue Overlay Project STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 66 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC WTR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 67 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 8/23/2012Packet Page Page 68 of 98 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Engineering Division) Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right-of-Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time-Storm str Engineering Staff Time-Street swr Engineering Staff Time-Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time-Water prk Engineering Staff Time-Park Packet Page Page 69 of 98    AM-5086     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/28/2012 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Report on bids opened August 27, 2012 for the Main Street Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements Project (5th Ave to 6th Ave) and possible award of a construction contract. Recommendation Staff will review the bids received on August 27, 2012 and provide a recommended action with regard to contract award at the City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On May 15, 2012, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids for the Main St. Improvement Project.  On July 10, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and recommended the item be placed on the agenda after the construction bids were received. On August 14, 2012, the City Council approved a resolution to reject all bids received on August 9, 2012 for the Main Street Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements Project (5th Ave to 6th Ave). Narrative On August 9, 2012, the City received four bids for the Main St. Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements project. In reviewing the bid documents for all four bidders, errors were found in meeting the Disadvantage Business Enterprise goal for the project.   The City Council rejected all bids on August 14, 2012 and the project was re-advertised with a new bid opening date of August 27, 2012.    Staff will report on the bids received and a recommendation will be provided to the City Council on the award of a construction contract to complete the project.  HISTORY:  In 2010, the City was successful in securing a $725,000 grant to add historic decorative street lighting and replace sidewalks, curb and gutter on Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues. The grant is funded by the federal transportation enhancement program and a local match is not required. The project will install new light poles and decorative poles for planter baskets and artist made elements. The new sidewalk will improve pedestrian safety by replacing sidewalk that has been displaced by existing street trees along the corridor. The existing street trees will be removed due to the damage they are causing to the surrounding infrastructure and replaced with new street trees that are better suited for this location.  Packet Page Page 70 of 98 In addition to the federal grant, the City received a direct appropriation of $500,000 from the State Legislature in April 2012 to add more improvements and enhance the project. These improvements include street furniture, a mid-block pedestrian crossing, relocation of overhead power to an adjacent alley, street pavement reconstruction and use of low impact stormwater devices and materials. Please refer to the attached drawing.  Attachments Main St. Drawing  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/24/2012 07:55 AM Public Works Phil Williams 08/24/2012 08:11 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/24/2012 08:30 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/24/2012 09:22 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/24/2012 09:53 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 08/24/2012 07:27 AM Final Approval Date: 08/24/2012  Packet Page Page 71 of 98 Packet Page Page 72 of 98    AM-5082     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/28/2012 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Leonard Yarberry Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Development Services Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Information Information Subject Title Permitting fees for solar installations. Recommendation See discussion. Previous Council Action This item was discussed by Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee on August 14th.  Referred to full Council for discussion. Narrative A question has been forwarded to staff regarding how permit fees are set for solar installations, and specifically whether the Council would consider reducing or eliminating permitting fees.  Currently there is no specific fee for solar permits in our adopted fee schedule Table 1 other than identifying them as residential or commercial alterations and feeing them based on straight valuation of the project. There does, however, exist a measure of discretion afforded to the building official in determining the method of calculating valuation. For example, the current method of establishing valuation for commercial solar projects deducts the cost of some of the electrical equipment (panels and inverters) from the total job cost in order to establish a more realistic valuation and thus the permit fee is more commensurate with the actual costs incurred by the City. This method has recently been implemented by the building official after researching and monitoring practices and trends in other jurisdictions. Previously, the permit fees were figured using the unaltered valuation provided by the applicant. Please see attached Exhibit 1 that shows the actual permit fees charged to the Anderson Center Phase 1 project last year compared to what the fees would be on the exact same scope of work if it was permitted today. Since the Anderson project is the only commercial installation the city has had experience with, we have limited history with which to work and draw other comparisons. Applicants for residential solar permits are currently charged a flat fee of $135 by the City, which merely covers the minimal amount of staff time needed for a simple review and a single inspection. This fee was also recently established by the building official, and drastically reduces what charges would take place using the valuation approach. This method works well since residential solar installations are typically quite simple. In addition to the City permit fee, a solar applicant would also be responsible for obtaining a separate electrical permit. Packet Page Page 73 of 98 The setting of fees is ultimately a policy call by the Council. The issue can be framed in several ways: First, at this point in time there are very few solar projects being permitted, so the opportunity cost of reducing or eliminating fees is negligible at this time (i.e. we're not losing much revenue if we're not getting any applications anyway). A second way of looking at it is whether you might want to incentivize construction/building techniques that implement the Community Sustainability Element, which has policy direction regarding encouraging energy efficiency, for example. Along these lines, you could view it as a short-term measure to maximize resources going toward sustainable building/energy practices. In this way, waiving fees for a specific period of time (3 years? pick a number...) could fit within that policy direction. At this stage of the solar energy game, the industry is arguing that it needs as much help as it can get, given the state of the economy and the economies of scale working against solar energy in general. On the other hand, setting fees at a minimum level intended to capture some part of the staff time needed to review installations has some merit, particularly if many different interest groups have similar arguments for low or reduced fees. Low rent or low income housing? Hospital projects that support community health? Other non-profit-sponsored projects that benefit the community? Stressed economic times? Who's to say which imperative is more important or deserving? Also, for the Committee's information, the City of Edmonds is a current participant in a Department of Energy grant project (the Evergreen State Solar Partnership, or ESSP) examining ways of standardizing and minimizing costs for solar energy projects state-wide. We expect positive outcomes from this project that will help standarize an approach to solar permitting throughout Washington State. At the same time, we expect to develop a more formal and effective policy for the City of Edmonds, including a possible refinement of our fee structure. In the ESSP's own words, the purpose of the project is: "The Evergreen State Solar Partnership (ESSP), under the leadership of the Washington Department of Commerce and the US DOE SunShot initiative, is working to make rooftop solar energy cost-competitive with other forms of electricity by reducing the “soft costs” of installing solar generation. The ESSP includes a coalition of four jurisdictions – Bellevue, Edmonds, Ellensburg and Seattle - and their load serving utilities – Puget Sound Energy, Snohomish Public Utility District, City of Ellensburg, and Seattle City Light. The ESSP is working closely with solar industry and community advocates, including Northwest SEED, Solar Washington, and Sustainable Connections, to ensure that the interconnection and permitting processes across our four jurisdictions and utilities are standardized in a manner consistent with industry best practices. Our aim is to produce standard practices that can be adopted across Washington State, to reduce the cost of installing solar generation and accelerate the deployment of distributed generation." Attachments 08-24-12 Planning, Parks & Public Works Committee Minutes Exhibit 1: Community Solar Fee Comparison Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/22/2012 05:33 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/23/2012 10:03 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/23/2012 05:17 PM Form Started By: Leonard Yarberry Started On: 08/22/2012 10:14 AM Final Approval Date: 08/23/2012  Packet Page Page 74 of 98 Packet Page Page 75 of 98 M I N U T E S Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Meeting August 14, 2012 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Chair Rob English, City Engineer Council Member Lora Petso Phil Williams, Public Works Director Leonard Yarberry, Building Official The committee convened at 6:15p.m. A. Permitting fees for solar installations. Mr. Yarberry introduced the topic and updated the committee on current policies on fees for residential and commercial solar projects. Residential projects are charged a flat fee of $135 and commercial installation fees are based upon valuation, using a modified approach. The committee suggested moving to full Council to discuss the possibility of using waivers as incentives. ACTION: Schedule for Council discussion at future meeting B. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement Project. Mr. English reviewed the scope of work and services to be provided under the proposed Supplemental Agreement #2 with David Evans & Associates for the intersection improvements at 76th Ave and 212th St. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. C. Approval of Right-of-Way, Administrative Settlement and Appraisal Waiver Procedures on Federal-Aid Projects. Mr. English presented the proposed revisions to the right-of-way, administrative settlement and appraisal waiver procedures on Federal-Aid projects. He discussed how these procedures are applied when acquiring right-of-way on transportation projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. D. Report on final construction costs for the Lift Station 2 Replacement Project and acceptance of project. Mr. English provided a brief summary of the Lift Station 2 improvements and that the project is now complete and ready for acceptance. The final construction contract amount was $62,915 below the original contract amount with the Contractor. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. Packet Page Page 76 of 98 Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 2 2 F. Report on bids opened July 31, 2012 for the A-Basin Upgrade Project and award of contract to Moon Construction Co. Inc. ($174,530.96 including sales tax). Mr. Williams reviewed the bid results for the A-Basin upgrade project and recommended the project be awarded to Moon Construction in the amount of $174,530.96. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. G. Report on bids opened August 2, 2012 for the Building Roof Replacement Project and award of contract to Kruger Sheet Metal ($344,925 including sales tax). Mr. Williams reviewed the bid results for the Building Roof Replacement project and recommended the project be awarded to Kruger Sheet Metal in the amount of $344,925. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. H. Authorization to award a construction contract for the 2012 Waterline Overlay Project. Mr. English explained that the City was scheduled to receive quotations for the 2012 Waterline Overlay project on August 16, 2012. The project will repair and overlay three City streets that were disturbed during the waterline replacement work in 2011. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. I. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of Public Pedestrian Access Easements. Mr. English discussed why a public pedestrian access easement was required as part of the Edmonds Way Apartment Complex improvements. The easement provides for a proper sidewalk alignment and clearances around existing utilities on Edmonds Way. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. J. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 2 with Parametrix, Inc. for the Main Street Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancement Project. Mr. English presented the scope of work and fees for Supplemental Agreement No. 2 with Parametrix, Inc for the Main St. Decorative Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancement Project. The engineering services will be provided during the upcoming construction phase. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. K. Report on Bids Opened August 9, 2012 for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project and Award of Contract. Mr. English discussed the bids that were received for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project and that Razz Construction was the apparent low bidder with a bid of $3,872,095. If staff finds the bid documents to be acceptable, then the item will be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Packet Page Page 77 of 98 Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 3 3 ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. L. Authorization to approve easements for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. Mr. English explained that the proposed temporary construction easements are needed for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. The documents have been signed by the property owners and are ready for approval. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. Councilmember Petso left the meeting prior to item E being discussed. E. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) to install sewerline and associated appurtenances as part of the 224th St. SW Sewer Replacement Project. Mr. Williams provided a brief overview of the Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District for the 224th St. SW sewer replacement project. Mr. Williams explained how this section of sewer main on 224th St. has been a problem area for the City in past years and that this project would improve the operation of the conveyance system. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. M. Public Comments Mr. Ken Reidy provided comments regarding an e-mail previously sent to Council and the City Attorney about 704 Fir St. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Packet Page Page 78 of 98 Permit BLD2011-0571 (Phase 1 at Anderson Center) Project valuation as on permit: $42,000. Net total permit fee of $1385.50 If same project was applied for today: Project valuation would be based on the numbers in the chart above: System Cost $39,160.05 Deduct 22 modules <$20,333.61> Deduct Inverter <$3,321.20> Total $15,505.24 Permit fee based on $15,505.24 would be $621.50 Packet Page Page 79 of 98    AM-4999     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/28/2012 Time:60 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilwoman Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions. Recommendation   Previous Council Action During the July 17, 2007 Council Meeting there was a discussion regarding Executive Sessions (minutes attached).  During that meeting Resolution 1150 (attached)  was approved and placed on the August 8, 2007 consent agenda and approved. This agenda item was  discussed during the 2012 City Council Retreat (minutes attached).  It was discussed again at the March 20, 2012 Council Meeting (minutes attached).   It was then discussed during the Public Safety and Personnel Committee on June 12, 2012 (minutes attached). Narrative The purpose of the discussion on March 20, 2012 was to determine if there are changes that are desired with regard to City Council Resolution No. 853 which established the procedure for keeping and retaining minutes of City Council executive sessions.  A copy of the Resolution is attached. Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant,  from the Municipal Research and Services Center will be making a presentation regarding issues involving notes and minutes of executive sessions. Attachments 7-17-2007 Approved Council Minutes 2012 Council Retreat Minutes 3-20-12 Approved Council Minutes 6-12-2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes Resolution No. 853 Resolution 1150 Packet Page Page 80 of 98 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/22/2012 05:33 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/23/2012 10:06 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/23/2012 05:17 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/01/2012 02:38 PM Final Approval Date: 08/23/2012  Packet Page Page 81 of 98 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 15 proposal adhered to GMA policies, met the GMA housing goals, fit within the surrounding uses, was suitable and met the value criteria. Councilmember Orvis spoke against the motion, commenting if allowing additional units on a site was required to get buildings upgraded, the entire City would be rezoned eventually which was contradictory to the changes, suitability and surrounding area criteria. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting there were many requirements a developer must meet currently. He supported having the Planning Board consider the multi family zoning but cautioned against requiring sustainability as he was hesitant to mandate sustainability in private buildings. Councilmember Wambolt spoke in support of the motion. In response to Mr. Bernheim, he noted the benefit of the rezone and subsequent new construction which would be more energy efficient than the existing homes that were constructed in 1946 and 1966. Councilmember Plunkett commented in a quasi judicial hearing the Council could not consider what should be, only whether the applicant met the criteria with their proposal. He found the applicant met the criteria under the existing code, zoning and Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, requested the Council consider term limits for Boards and Commissions as well as the City Council and the Mayor. Council President Olson cautioned him to avoid campaign issues. Next, Mr. Hertrich commented he could not recall a Council meeting being cancelled when he was on the Council and he objected to giving the Council President that power. 11. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE INCLUDING: (1) CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, (2) EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, (3) GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21, AND (4) COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Council President Olson explained these issues were discussed at the recent Council retreat. Cancellation of Meetings Council President Olson did not envision this occurring very often, noting it occurred in the past due to the loss of the Police Chief. As it was not possible to talk to each Councilmember because that was considered a rolling quorum, there needed to be a way to cancel Council meetings. Councilmember Marin was satisfied with delegating that authority to the Council President. Councilmember Plunkett agreed. Councilmember Dawson envisioned it would be a rare occurrence for the Council President to exercise his/her authority to cancel a meeting. She acknowledged two meetings were cancelled earlier this year due to Police Chief Stern’s sudden illness and subsequent memorial service. She found it inappropriate to require staff and/or Council to attend a meeting under those circumstances. She remarked it was a waste of public resources to schedule a meeting if there was no business as each Councilmember was paid, some staff members were paid, etc. She concluded it was appropriate to delegate that authority to the Council President. Councilmember Moore commented the proposed method was more efficient. She noted a Council President who cancelled meetings that the Council did not want to have cancelled would answer to the Council. Term Limits Meeting Cancellations Council Rules of Procedure Packet Page Page 82 of 98 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 16 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3656. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1.04 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ADD A NEW SECTION 1.04.140 CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Executive Session Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He recalled during the discussions of the park in south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion regarding what information was and was not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss certain issues in Executive Session and in at least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session was broken. The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would accomplish two purposes, 1) if a Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that should not, they could propose a motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have discussion and make a determination during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from revealing information that other Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session. Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address Councilmembers questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was appropriate for Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in Executive Session. She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the retreat with the way meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the number of times each Councilmembers could speak. Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to question an inappropriate Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember could always leave an Executive Session that they felt was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. He explained the Council could reach consensus in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an issue in the open meeting, they could come out of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue placed on a future agenda and/or request information be released. In the absence of a motion, the confidence of the Executive Session would be observed. He noted the resolution did not address the appropriateness of a subject for Executive Session because that was addressed in state law. Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council had agreed should not be disclosed. His intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the same understanding. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session information remained confidential as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Committee Assignments Council President Olson explained in the past some Council committee meetings were paid and others were not; in assigning committees, it seemed more prudent to simply pay Councilmembers for a Ord# 3656 Cancellation of Council Meetings Packet Page Page 83 of 98 Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 2-3, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT APPROVED MINUTES February 2-3, 2012 The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 10:04 a.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2012 in the Brackett Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Thursday, February 2 Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember PUBLIC PRESENT Thursday, February 2 Bruce Witenberg Darrol Haug Ron Wambolt Harry Gatjens Al Rutledge Roger Hertrich Evan Pierce Ken Reidy Bruce Faires Jim Orvis STAFF PRESENT Thursday, February 2 Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director/Interim Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Leonard Yarberry, Building Official Rob English, City Engineer Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Tod Moles, Street Operations Manager Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Kody McConnell, Executive Assistant Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 – CALL TO ORDER Council President Peterson called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. • Introduction/Brief Preview of Retreat Agenda Council President Peterson explained in preparation for the retreat he asked the Council, Mayor and staff to identify issues important for 2012. Most of the issues were included on the retreat agenda; some will be on future Council agendas throughout the year. Mike Bailey, Redmond’s Finance Director, is ill and unable to make the presentation regarding budgeting by priorities. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will introduce the topic today. Mr. Bailey will be invited to provide a workshop to the Council in the next few weeks to explore the concept in detail. Packet Page Page 84 of 98 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2010 Page 2 Council President Peterson explained because this is a relatively young City Council with the majority of Councilmembers in their first term, roles and responsibilities of the Council was a topic that many identified. A consultant recommended by AWC will make a presentation tomorrow to review the relationship between City Council and Mayor in a strong Mayor/Council form of government. Council President Peterson briefly reviewed other topics on the retreat agenda. Councilmembers and staff introduced themselves. Audience Comments Darrol Haug, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their efforts. This is the third retreat he has attended and he enjoys the open, candid dialogue that occurs at retreats that does not happen at City Council meetings. Today is Groundhog Day; in this case the shadow looming is the budget issue. Because 2012 is not an election year, he suggested it would be a good time for the Council to continue the spirit of the retreat and establish a policy to solve the budget gap. Budgeting by priorities was studied by the levy committee and he urged the Council to consider that concept as a way to help the City. He looked forward to a concerted effort to identify policies early in the process and was hopeful the shadow of the budget gap would not be quite as looming next year. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, acknowledged the City did its best during the snow. He reported there was no mail delivery on SR 104/205th or on 76th for four days due to snow which could have been a problem for someone expecting medical supplies via mail. On the fifth day of the snow, a car hit a pole causing a power outage in the Lake Ballinger area. He suggested the situation be reviewed by the Police Chief. Next, he suggested the Council discuss the sale of Robin Hood Lanes and hold a public hearing. Council President Peterson referred to an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, regarding executive sessions. Mr. Reidy’s email cited the preamble to the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) which states in part, the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. In Mr. Reidy’s opinion, state law requires the eventual release of executive session meeting minutes to the citizens such as after real estate has been purchased, after publically bid contracts are finalized or after pending litigation has been settled and/or all appeal rights related to the litigation have been exhausted. He supported the keeping of detailed minutes of all executive sessions and offered to work with elected officials to clearly establish the point in time that executive session meeting minutes will be made available to the citizens. Discussion about Executive Sessions and the Consequences of Minutes/Notes Council President Peterson explained there has been some question about what other cities in Washington do/not do with regard to executive session minutes/notes, when those minutes/notes are made available to public, pros and cons regarding attorney/client privilege and the concept of executive sessions. City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided the following introductory comments: first, there is a clear distinction between notes and minutes. Minutes may begin as notes but become minutes when the City Council has an opportunity to review and vote to approve their accuracy and in some cases make revisions which may include reviewing the audio of the meeting. Currently in executive session the City Clerk takes notes but those notes are never reviewed/approved by the City Council so they do not have the status of minutes. Second, Mr. Taraday was not aware of any other city in Washington that keeps notes of executive session. Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC) recommends against that practice. Edmonds began keeping notes of executive sessions in 1996 when Resolution 853 was adopted. Mr. Taraday read Resolution 853, Establishing a Procedure for Keeping and Retaining Minutes of City Council Executive Sessions. Packet Page Page 85 of 98 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Taraday pointed out that although the resolution uses the term “minutes,” he does not consider the Council’s practice to be generating minutes. To the extent the Council deems that there is a public interest for making a record of what takes place in executive session, that record should be as accurate as possible. If there is a desire for a record, there should be an audio recording of executive sessions. Alternatively, the Council goes into executive session for a reason; the reason is stated before the Council goes into executive session and it is an executive session because it is a discussion that should not be public and no record should be made. Mr. Taraday recommended the Council either make a full record or make no record; to do what the Council is doing now is potentially misleading in that it is not possible to take down on paper everything that takes place in executive session. The Council raised the following suggestions/questions/topics (City Attorney’s response in italics): • As an alternative to recording, keep notes of executive sessions and the Council review the notes and possibly in the future call them minutes. The resolution seems to state the Council wants to ensure there is a record stating the Council was in executive session for the right reason. There is no way to know that an accurate record exists unless there is a recording to back up the notes. The Council also needs to vote to approve minutes; the Council cannot vote in executive session. The Council could review the minutes privately and then vote in open session to approve them. If there is an interest in a fully accurate record of what takes place in executive session, the only way to ensure that is to record it. • Why not record executive sessions? The City has always asserted that if the executive session is for the purpose of discussing pending/potential litigation and the City Attorney is present, the notes taken during executive session are attorney/client privilege protected and therefore are not subject to public disclosure. However, there is no case law and there is no guarantee the court would rule that way. Therefore in the absence of a more clear statute about note taking/minute taking/recording of executive sessions, there is some risk that a court could rule that whatever record was made should be made public. He would, of course, vehemently object to that effort and would argue that any record of a discussion regarding pending/potential litigation should be treated as attorney work product or attorney/client privilege and not subject to public disclosure. • What topics are permissible for Executive Session and why don’t other cities take notes? The reason other cities do not take notes is out of concern that the record cannot be protected from public disclosure. Mr. Taraday reviewed the permissible bases for executive sessions contained in RCW 42.30.1101(1). • The Council could continue its current practice but revise the resolution to conform to the current practice. If the current practice is continued, Councilmembers have some protection because they do not review or approve the notes taken of executive sessions. Mr. Taraday did not recommend continuing the current practice because if the goal is an accurate, complete record, it should be a record that can be verified later. • There are some issues on the list of bases for an executive session that should not have any record kept; the philosophy behind an executive session is to have an open discussion about sensitive issues such as personnel, potential litigation, and those should never be revealed to the public. The Council could record discussions regarding real estate matters; the Council could review and approve minutes in open session and possibly release them in the future. The Council would not record or take notes of all other executive session topics. The City Council could establish a policy to record certain types of executive sessions. With regard to the approval of minutes, there is no exemption from the OPMA for approval of executive session minutes; the City Council cannot go into executive session to discuss a change to executive session minutes. MRSC recommends that minutes not be kept of executive sessions because a public records request could be made for the minutes and there is no automatic exemption from disclosure that applies. • RCW 42.30.010 cited by Mr. Reidy states that the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The Council should take full and complete minutes and record executive sessions and determine what can/cannot be revealed in the future. The risk of that approach is the Packet Page Page 86 of 98 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2010 Page 4 executive session list of topics does not clearly say that a record of the executive session is not disclosable under the Public Records Act. • Why does Edmonds keep notes of executive sessions? MRSC recommends notes not be kept and most cities do not. There is no legal need to takes notes to comply with state law; it is up to the Council whether to preserve a record of executive sessions. It can be helpful in the future to check on topics the Council has discussed in the past. • Executive sessions give the Council an opportunity to have an open dialogue with staff. The philosophy of executive sessions is to have a frank dialogue, a recording would minimize that. • There may be short term reasons not to disclose executive session notes but not in the long term. If Councilmembers know what they say could eventually be disclosed, they may be more thoughtful in their questions and discussion. All executive session conversations should be disclosed in the future. The public has a right to know the information unless it is confidential and private. • Need to determine why other cities are not taking notes of executive sessions. The reason other cities do not take notes is clear in the statement on MRSC’s website; there is no automatic exemption from disclosure. There is the possibility even in the short term that a court could require disclosure of a record the City Council thought would not be disclosed. A potential option would be to have the City Attorney take notes. His notes would be easier to protect as they are an attorney work product. • It would be unpractical to have discussion in executive session if Councilmembers have to think about what could be released. Recording or taking minutes for only some topics would also be difficult. There is the potential for a lawsuit with regard to any executive session topic and the Council has the fiduciary responsibility to limit/reduce lawsuits. Prefer no minutes be kept of executive sessions. It was the consensus of the Council to clarify, revise, rewrite the resolution. Council President Peterson will schedule it for consideration by the full Council during the first half of the year and take public comment. He asked Councilmembers to provide him their suggestions. Budgeting by Priorities Presentation (working lunch) Community Services/Economic Development Director Clifton explained one of the topics at an Association of Washington Cities budget workshop was budgeting by priorities/budgeting for outcomes. Councilmember Buckshnis, Citizen Darrol Haug and he and a few others then met with Redmond Finance Director Mike Bailey who reinforced their interest in the concept and determining whether it would be an appropriate budgeting process for Edmonds. Mr. Bailey, who is ill today, will be invited to conduct a workshop with the Council in the future to describe what it was like for Redmond to implement budgeting by priorities, and how it was received by the directors, elected officials and citizens. Mr. Hunstock explained Redmond spent 1-2 years and $160,000 on consultants to put a budgeting by priorities process in place. He referred to a handout from the Government Finance Officers Association regarding a priority-driven budget process that is similar to budgeting by priorities. He provided an overview of budgeting for outcomes: 1. Determine the “price of government” (total resources) 2. Determine priorities a) Example: one of Redmond’s priorities was a safe place to work, play and live 3. Assign a portion of the “price” to each priority 4. Determine best way to delivery results by priority a) Results Team develop strategies/RFOs b) Program staff submits “offer (attempt to address goal), may be multi-department offer c) Results teams rank/scale offers 5. Results budgeting is focused on strategies to accomplish priorities Packet Page Page 87 of 98 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2012 Page 7 Association of Washington Cities and the District Municipal Court Judges Association are also working on this. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Judge Fair’s opinion about the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the use of red light cameras. Judge Fair answered he was not surprised because the legislature gave that authority to the governing bodies in their enacting legislation. The dissenting opinion was that it was a moot point because it has been resolved by the City Councils. In reality it was a good issue to resolve because it has become a concern in many cities. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the public who wished to provide comment. 9. FLOWER BASKET DONATION PROGRAM Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite announced a new program, Adopt a Flower Basket. She thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her assistance with launching the program and credited Jack Bevan for the idea. Ms. Hite distributed an Adopt a Flower Basket brochure. The program allows community members to donate $100 in support of each of the City’s flower baskets. Each basket will have a name tag stating who this basket was donated by or in memory of. Councilmember Buckshnis donated the first $100 in memory of her dog, Buddy. Ms. Hite also thanked Recreation Manager Renee McRae who worked closely with Councilmember Buckshnis on this program. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Council President Peterson explained this issue was discussed at the Council retreat. He explained there are limited reasons under RCW for the Council to meet in executive session. There is legislation under consideration regarding the recording of executive sessions and limiting what must be provided via a Public Records Request. City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided an overview of the issue. The Council adopted Resolution 853 in 1996 which is when the Council began taking notes during executive sessions. He emphasized the notes that are currently taken are notes, rather than minutes. The distinction is minutes are reviewed and approved at a subsequent meeting by the body conducting the meeting. While the notes taken of executive sessions are generally accurate, they do not have a review and approval process. That is significant because it does not provide an opportunity for a Councilmember to review them or request a change. Mr. Taraday explained he has been uncomfortable with the current practice because in his opinion if the Council records the meeting, it should be recorded completely with an audio recording so there would not be any question regarding what really happened. The Council could then discontinue the practice of note taking. He pointed out Edmonds is one of the few if not the only city in Washington who keeps notes of executive sessions. It is up to the Council to decide whether to continue or change the current practice. Council President Peterson commented his intent was to have a discussion; he did not foresee any action tonight other than scheduling it on a future meeting agenda for public comment/public hearing and potential action. Packet Page Page 88 of 98 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2012 Page 8 Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109, recently passed by the Senate 39-9, exempting video and audio recordings of executive sessions. She recognized the bill had not yet been finalized. Mr. Taraday offered to research the progress of SB 6109 and comment later in the discussion. His understanding of SB 6109 was it may give Public Records Act protection from disclosure of executive session records. One of his concerns with taking notes is that although an argument can be made that the notes are attorney-client privileged or work product protected or both, there is not a clear exemption in the Public Records Act for executive session notes. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested amending Resolution 853 because the current practice creates notes, not minutes. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council either needed to change its practices to conform with the resolution or change the resolution to conform to the practice. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she was ready to do that tonight. Councilmember Bloom advised she was ready to begin recording executive sessions now. Mayor Earling pointed out Council President Peterson’s intent that this item was for discussion only. Council President Peterson commented his discomfort with note taking, minute taking or recording executive sessions was because an executive session was an opportunity for the Council and Mayor with the City Attorney and preferably not the City Clerk to have a free flow of ideas and discussion on a limited number of sensitive topics including litigation, personnel, and real estate. He understood citizens’ concerns that things might happen behind closed doors or that deals are being struck; the Council, Mayor and City Attorney keep each other in check should the discussion drift off topic. He recognized there is distrust in government, pointing out Washington was one of the first states to have a Public Records Act. The topics that can be discussed in executive session are not intended for the public and that is one of the reasons Councilmembers are elected. The ability for Councilmembers, Mayor and City Attorney to keep each other in check ensures the system works. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the RCWs address everything Council President Peterson said. The RCW identifies when the Council can have an executive session rather than a public meeting. The advantage of recording executive sessions is it would provide proof in the event of challenge. A judge would then review the recording and determine whether the Open Public Meetings Act was violated. It was her opinion that recording executive sessions would instill more trust. She concluded it was very important for the Council to “show our work.” Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was undecided about this issue but in light of the personnel issues that occurred last year, feels note taking is the appropriate way to proceed in the future as they provide a record. Audio recording may be problematic because some Councilmembers prefer to speak less professionally in an executive session; that candor would not be possible if executive sessions are recorded. She did not support recording executive sessions unless only notes could be taken for executive session regarding personnel matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed recording executive sessions would reflect positively on Councilmembers for the purposes of openness and transparency. Conversely, she questioned why Edmonds is the only city currently taking notes. This may be a moot point depending on what the legislature does. Mr. Taraday explained SB 6109 has not yet passed the House. If it were signed into law it would exempt video and audio recordings of executive sessions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. If someone made a request for an audio recording of an executive session, under this exemption the City would not be required to provide it. Currently if someone requests notes of an executive session, a roundabout argument has to be made regarding why the notes should be exempt from disclosure. The bill would provide an exemption for audio recordings but not for notes. Packet Page Page 89 of 98 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2012 Page 9 Councilmember Yamamoto commented for each executive session he has attended, Councilmembers know the topic in advance. The Council discusses only that topic and if anyone gets off track, another Councilmember, the Mayor or the City Attorney brings them in check. He appreciated the opportunity for Councilmembers to have a frank discussion; recording executive sessions could hamper that ability. He clarified the Council only has discussions in executive session and does not make decisions. Council President Peterson suggested the Council wait to see what the legislature does. There is currently no hard and fast laws regarding what can be exempted under the Public Records Act with regard to executive sessions. Until protection was provided, he was concerned that a Public Records Request could require release of sensitive information. If SB 6109 is not passed into law, the Council can consider amendments to the resolution. 11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2), EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SUNSET DATE, AND OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council packet contains a draft ordinance and attachment which, if approved by the City Council, would amend ECC Chapter 10.75 regarding the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The Council discussed potential amendments on December 20, 2011, January 23, 2012 and March 6, 2012. During the March 6 meeting, the Council discussed four amendments: • Section 10.75.030(A)(2): insert language that the EDC would focus primarily on economic development related activities • Section 10.75.030(A): extension of the sunset date of the EDC approximately 4 years to December 31, 2015 • Section 10.75.010(B)(d): elected officials shall not be allowed to serve on the EDC but may serve as non-voting ex-officio members. This would also apply to elected Port Commissioners. • 10.750.030(C): staggering commission terms. Existing Commission members would be allowed to serve through the end of the year. Commissioners have indicated their interest in continuing to serve; approximately two-thirds expressed interest in remaining on the Commission. This will ensure some continuity and institutional memory on the EDC. Staff will advertise immediately to fill the remaining positions; terms filled this year would expire in 2014. Staff would re-advertise at the end of the year and either new Commissioners or existing Commissioners could be appointed. Appointments made in 2013 would expire at the end of 2015. Mr. Clifton explained another option related to staggering is to have terms expire at the end of the Councilmember’s term who appointed the Commissioner. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified in addition to the ordinance, the Council needs to provide direction regarding staggering of Commissioners’ terms. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Clifton explained approximately 5-6 Commissioners have stated they do not plan to continue serving on the EDC. Upon confirming existing members’ desire to continue serving on the Commission, staff will advertise to fill the vacant positions. As the former Council liaison on the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are often less than a handful of Commissioner present at EDC meetings. She suggested each Councilmember have an opportunity to appoint at least one Commissioner. As Chair of the former EDC, Councilmember Yamamoto clarified there was always a quorum present at EDC meetings. Most Commissioners informed staff when they would be absent and the absences were for legitimate reasons. He agreed there were a couple Commissioners who did not attend meetings regularly or notify of their absence. He agreed with the proposal to stagger terms. Packet Page Page 90 of 98 Minutes Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting June 12, 2012 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. by Councilmember Bloom. A. Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2012 – 2013 Interlocal Agreement Assistant Police Chief Gannon described the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the SRDGTF, he pointed out that Edmonds also participates in the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force with the cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The two task forces work closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment. Mr. Gannon requested that the committee approve the placement of the Interlocal Agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda. Responding to questions from Councilmember Bloom concerning how the fees are calculated for the Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Gannon stated the fees are based on population. Edmonds fee is $9,939 for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 (a decrease of $59 over last year’s fee). Councilmember Johnson had specific questions regarding the agreement which Mr. Gannon responded to. In particular Councilmember Johnson asked questions pertaining to the participation of certain cities/entities and why they were listed in the agreement. Mr. Gannon clarified that the interlocal agreement originates from the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office. Edmonds’ participation is just the funding. He stated that he would provide additional information following this meeting to further respond to Councilmember Johnson’s questions. Action: Assistant Chief of Police Gannon to provide additional information to the Committee. The Committee approved placing the agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda. B. Discussion Regarding Taking Minutes/Notes During Executive Session Councilmember Bloom suggested in addition to discussing whether to take minutes/notes during executive session, the discussion include whether executive sessions should be recorded. She acknowledged there may be some executive sessions that should never be recorded such as those regarding personnel. Councilmember Bloom explained Resolution 853 states the Council takes minutes of executive sessions and at some point the minutes will be available to the public if the reason for the Packet Page Page 91 of 98 executive session has expired. The issue is staff takes summary notes which are not approved by Council so they are not technically minutes. A discussion with the residents who were present ensued. Their comments included the following: Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked whether Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson had reviewed the materials from the Council retreat. Councilmember Johnson said she had and Councilmember Bloom said she was present at the retreat. Mr. Wambolt pointed out Mr. Reidy has done a great deal of research regarding this issue. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, acknowledged this was a complicated issue; taking minutes/notes was important to him because he believes citizens would get better representation by their elected officials and more honest government if the City Council and Mayor knew eventually the minutes of Executive Sessions could be released to the public in certain situations. Resolution 853 requires minutes be kept; if minutes require an audio or video recording, executive sessions should be recorded. Resolution 853 also addresses the concept of minutes being subject to release when the reason for the executive session expires. He acknowledged Edmonds is unique; he was not aware of any other cities that keep executive session minutes. This is an opportunity to build trust in local governance and for Edmonds to be a leader in transparency. He hoped the Council would go in that direction rather than to discontinue keeping minutes/notes. Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, commented a resolution was non-binding, she preferred the requirement be contained in an ordinance. She felt tensions build when elected officials know what occurs in executive sessions and citizens do not. Recording or minutes of executive sessions would bring tensions into balance and elected officials would be aware that the minutes could be released at a later date. If there are no recording/notes, executive sessions seem like secret meetings. The people’s right to know is of greater importance than elected officials’ right to discuss it without anyone looking. Ms. Talmadge said executive session minutes would also allow Councilmembers to refresh their memory if necessary regarding what was discussed in executive session. She wanted the public and the Council protected because it ultimately saved the City money. Damon Pistulka, Edmonds, commented a Councilmember could be presented information in an executive session that is later contradicted. Without documentation, there is nothing to substantiate the information provided in executive session. It was beneficial for all parties to have notes/minutes of executive sessions, especially in litigation. Current and future Councilmembers could also review notes/minutes of an executive session. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, suggested the City Attorney make a presentation at a Council meeting similar to the presentation at the retreat, including addressing public comments that have been made since that presentation. With regard to release of executive session minutes/notes, he commented that although a litigation or real estate matter may have been concluded, the City may use the same tactics and strategies in future negotiations/litigation; having that information made public could be a disadvantage to the City. The reason for the executive session and the passage of time are not the only criterion for releasing information. Other issues to consider include preserving the attorney/client privilege in an executive session and inadvertent disclosure if notes/minutes/recordings are kept of executive sessions. He suggested the City Attorney’s presentation also clarify who is the client in executive sessions. Packet Page Page 92 of 98 Mr. Reidy suggested also having a proponent of open government address the City Council in addition to the City Attorney to provide a balanced viewpoint. Even if executive session minutes are never released to the public, it is important to have executive sessions recorded and detailed minutes kept. Councilmember Bloom asked whether other cities record their executive session. City Clerk Sandy Chase said Edmonds is the only city she knows of that takes minutes/notes of executive sessions. Mr. Reidy noted Resolution 853 was passed on September 16, 1996 on the Consent Agenda; he asked whether there was any previous discussion. Ms. Chase recalled the City Council was holding a number of executive sessions at the time and there were similar concerns expressed; Resolution 853 was a response to the concerns at that time. Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109 which would have required a judge to review the audio recording if there was a public record request of an executive session to determine if it was truly necessary to hold an executive session. She asked why the Senate proposed that bill if other cities do not document their executive session. Ms. Chase stated her understanding that it may be due to efforts by Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) and others. Mr. Pistulka commented executive session notes would be helpful regardless of whether they are released. He cited the example of business board meeting notes that provide useful information. Councilmember Johnson observed there is a balance between the public’s right/need/desire to know, risk assessment and the attorney/client privilege. Resolution 853 was a compromise in an attempt to appease all parties. However, the language in the resolution does not necessarily reflect the practice. Minutes require approval, notes do not. She suggested determining whether to modify the resolution or the practice. She supported having a presentation from the City Attorney on this subject at the full Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested having a presentation from AWC and WCOG as well. Councilmember Johnson suggested MRSC as an additional resource. Other topics discussed included increased frequency of executive sessions this year, redaction of information in executive session minutes, the City Attorney’s presence at executive session, and assessing risk. Action: At next week’s meeting the City Attorney make a presentation, to be followed by Council discussion with the goal of a future public hearing and further input from AWC, WCOG, etc. C. Public Comments Public comment occurred during Agenda Item B. Adjourn: 8:21 p.m. Packet Page Page 93 of 98 Packet Page Page 94 of 98 Packet Page Page 95 of 98 Packet Page Page 96 of 98 Packet Page Page 97 of 98 Packet Page Page 98 of 98