2009.06.09 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
June 09, 2009
6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
1. Community/Development Services Committee
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A. AM-2323
(10 Minutes)
Status of request by Carla Elder concerning a home addition initially started under County
permits.
B. AM-2325
(20 Minutes)
Landmark Tree Ordinance.
C. AM-2321
(10 Minutes)
Update of the Stormwater Code (ECDC 18.30) and the Illicit Discharge Code (EMC 7.200).
D. AM-2319
(15 Minutes)
Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 6.20.040 to clarify where junk vehicles may be
stored; ECDC 17.60.040 Vehicles in Residential Zones, Subsections (A) and (B) to clarify
several scrivener's errors.
2.Finance Committee
Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room
A. AM-2320
(10 Minutes)
Alderwood Water Supply Agreement negotiations update.
B. AM-2324
(10 Minutes)
General Fund Report for the month ending May 2009.
3.Public Safety Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A. AM-2314
(10 Minutes)
RCW 35.103 Annual Compliance Report - 2008.
B. AM-2318
(5 Minutes)
Update City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives.
C. AM-2315
(5 Minutes)
End of Edmonds Fire Department Volunteer Program.
Packet Page 1 of 41
AM-2323 1.A.
Request re: Home Addition Initially Started Under County Permits
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Jen Machuga Time:10 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Status of request by Carla Elder concerning a home addition initially started under County permits.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action is required.
Previous Council Action
Carla Elder spoke during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting on May 19,
2009.
Narrative
Carla Elder, who owns the property addressed 8732 – 242nd St. SW, spoke during the audience
comment portion of the City Council meeting on May 19, 2009 stating her concerns over an
unfinished addition to her residence.
In 1993, while the property was located in unincorporated Snohomish County, the County issued a
permit to the Elders for an approximate 600 square foot second story addition to their home. Ms.
Elder’s husband was a builder and completed all of the exterior construction, but fell ill before he
was able to complete the interior work. The job card provided by Ms. Elder shows that the only
inspection approval obtained from the County was for the foundation in 1993. Following an
extension, the permit eventually expired before the Elders were able to finish the project.
The property was annexed into the City of Edmonds on October 16, 1995. The County’s records
were not transferred over to the City following annexation of the property, so the City was
unaware of an unfinished addition at this address. Mr. Elder passed away in 2006. The City had no
record of the unfinished addition until Ms. Elder recently inquired with the City in November 2008
about obtaining permits to complete the addition.
Per the Annexation Agreement, the County is to complete all permits in process prior to the date
of annexation. If a County permit expires after annexation, all vesting is lost, and a new permit
must be obtained from the City which meets current adopted codes. The Agreement requires the
County to notify the City of expired permits so that we may follow up to insure new permits are
issued. It is unknown how many other properties have been annexed over the years with expired
permits and unfinished work similar to that of Ms. Elder’s.
If a permit issued by the County expired prior to final approval and the property was in the
meantime annexed into the City, the Annexation Agreement requires the owner to obtain permits
Packet Page 2 of 41
meantime annexed into the City, the Annexation Agreement requires the owner to obtain permits
for the entire project subject to current City code requirements. In the case of Ms. Elder’s addition,
the addition was started under the 1991 Uniform Building Code, but it is now subject to the 2006
International Residential Codes. Additionally, although the addition was constructed to meet the
County’s site development standards for the R-8,400 zone at the time, which included a 5-foot
side setback, the addition is now subject to the current site development standards of the City's
RS-8 zone, which requires a 7.5-foot setback. Based on information provided by Ms. Elder, the
addition was constructed at 7’3” from the property line and includes two bump-outs that are 5’3”
from the property line. Therefore, the addition does not comply with current City setback
requirements. It is unknown at this time if the addition is in compliance with all other applicable
site development standards.
There are potential options for resolving situations similar to Ms. Elder’s, however, these options
can be expensive and some are not guaranteed. In the example of Ms. Elder’s addition, potential
options include a variance, lot line adjustment, and modifying the addition so that it meets setback
requirements. A variance is expensive and may not be possible for the addition because the
situation of reduced setbacks and an expired permit was created by the property owner. A lot line
adjustment would be expensive due to the cost of a survey and any property acquisition fees
charged by the neighbor. Additionally, a lot line adjustment is only possible if it does not put the
adjacent property out of compliance with minimum lot size and width requirements as well as the
applicable site development standards. Modifying a structure to comply with site development
standards could be very expensive.
Staff has discussed Ms. Elder’s situation as well as the potential for other property owners within
annexed areas having similar situations with City Attorney, Scott Snyder. He has advised us that
in cases like this, a new permit for the entire project is required if the permit issued by the County
expired. When a new permit is required, it must be shown that the project entirely meets current
code requirements. Mr. Snyder stated that staff does not have the discretion to approve a permit
for a project that was started under a County permit that has since expired unless all current City
site development standards and building code requirements are met.
Outside of the options available to the applicant (already discussed above), the only other solution
would be for the Council craft an ordinance to amend the City’s nonconforming code (ECDC
17.40) to help address the situation where a County building permit has expired and a structures
does not meet current site development standards -- allowing a new building permit to be issued
by the City maintaining the originally approved County site development standards (i.e. setbacks,
height, lot coverage, etc.). Current building codes must still be met. The difficulties with this
approach are the time period involved since the original approvals were granted by the county, and
the fact that it cannot be known how this type of code change could impact other non-conforming
properties.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 3 of 41
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 02:25 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/04/2009 02:35 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 02:47 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jen
Machuga
Started On: 06/04/2009 12:28
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/04/2009
Packet Page 4 of 41
AM-2325 1.B.
Landmark Tree Ordinance
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Councilmember Steve Bernheim Time:20 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Committee:
Information
Subject Title
Landmark Tree Ordinance.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Councilmember Bernheim placed this topic on the Community Services/Development Services
Committee Agenda for discussion.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 02:19 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/04/2009 02:35 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 02:47 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 06/04/2009 02:16
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/04/2009
Packet Page 5 of 41
AM-2321 1.C.
Update of the Stormwater Code and the Illicit Discharge Code
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Time:10 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Update of the Stormwater Code (ECDC 18.30) and the Illicit Discharge Code (EMC 7.200).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
On December 16, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement
with Herrera Environmental Consultants for updating the City's Stormwater Comprehensive Plan
and Stormwater Management Program.
On February 24, 2009, Staff and the Consultant briefed the City Council on the upcoming update
to the Stormwater Management Program.
Narrative
Edmonds and over 80 other communities in Washington are subject to a permit that regulates
discharges into and out of the municipal storm drainage systems. The Permit went into effect in
February 2007, and requirements are being phased in over the five-year permit term.
Two major requirements are due by August 2009:
• Regulations prohibiting illicit discharges into the storm drainage system and training of City
Staff to educate the public on this issue and enforce the regulations. Illicit discharges include
almost anything that enters the storm drainage system except rain water and snow melt.
• Regulations to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff that enters and exits
from the City’s storm drainage systems from development, redevelopment, and construction sites.
(Based on comments from various jurisdictions, the Dept. of Ecology is considering extending the
deadline for compliance with this requirement.)
The Illicit Discharge Code was last updated in 2003.
• Changes include updating the technical requirements per the Permit and strengthening the
enforcement provisions.
Packet Page 6 of 41
• Plan to go to Council in July with amended code (EMC 7.200).
The stormwater code for development, redevelopment and construction sites was last updated in
1995.
• Working on changes to meet the Permit requirements for sites with one acre or greater of
land disturbing activities (very few sites in Edmonds).
• Working on updates to code and procedures for smaller sites to bring up to Best Available
Science standards and improve review process (applicable to most sites in Edmonds).
• Will include Low Impact Development tools for stormwater management.
• Plan to go to Council in August with amended code (ECDC 18.30).
• Also working with Planning Division to incorporate additional Low Impact Development
techniques into the site planning processes, such as: changes to the Tree Code, Subdivision Code,
limits to impervious surface area, and others issues not exclusive to the Stormwater Code.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 06/04/2009 02:53 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 06/04/2009 03:29 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 03:32 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/04/2009 03:36 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/05/2009 08:48 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 06/04/2009 09:08
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/05/2009
Packet Page 7 of 41
AM-2319 1.D.
Amend ECC 6.20.040 & ECDC 17.60.040 to Clarify Provisions and Correct
Scrivener's Errors
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Submitted For:Mike Thies / Scott Snyder Time:15 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 6.20.040 to clarify where junk vehicles may be
stored; ECDC 17.60.040 Vehicles in Residential Zones, Subsections (A) and (B) to clarify several
scrivener's errors.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward the draft ordinance to the full Council for consent approval.
Previous Council Action
City Council adopted Ordinance #3720 - Public Nuisance Abatement - on December 16, 2008,
and Ordinance #3731 - Property Performance Standards - on March 24, 2009.
Narrative
The two code amendments referenced above considered and adopted separately by City Council.
This proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) corrects several scrivener’s errors and clarifies
inconsistencies where they have been noted. For reference, Exhibit 2 shows the changes being
made in underline/strikeline format.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2: Code text changes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 04:29 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/04/2009 06:07 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/05/2009 08:48 AM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 06/03/2009 01:45
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/05/2009
Packet Page 8 of 41
{WSS725475.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
4/13/09
R:4/23/09gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
6.20.040 TO CLARIFY WHERE JUNK VEHICLES MAY BE
STORED; ECDC 17.60.040 VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) TO CLARIFY SEVERAL
SCRIVENER’S ERRORS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 17.60 establishes
performance standards regarding the use of property within the City’s zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6.20 deals with nuisances, and
WHEREAS, extensive public process has been conducted regarding the changes
before the Edmonds Planning Board and the Edmonds City Council; and
WHEREAS, some clarification is needed in order to coordinate the provisions of
the Chapter given changes in various processes, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 6.20.040 Aesthetic Nuisances, subsection (D) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
6.20.041 Aesthetic nuisances.
The following nuisances are aesthetic in nature and can negatively
impact neighborhood property values and foster blight. The
following actions and/or conditions shall be a public nuisance
when located in any front, side or rear yard or vacant lot:
A. Any junk, trash, or litter.
Packet Page 9 of 41
{WSS725475.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
B. Salvage materials or lumber not neatly stacked.
C. Any broken, soiled or discarded furniture, household
equipment or furnishings.
D. Any junk vehicle, vehicle parts or other articles of personal
property which are stored, discarded or left in a state of partial
construction or repair.
E. Any accumulation, stack or pile of building, landscaping or
construction materials which are exposed to the elements or are in
disarray and which are not directly associated with a project on the
premises for which a current building permit has been obtained; or,
with respect to a project which does not require a permit, that is in
progress or which is scheduled to begin within 10 business days.
Construction materials include but are not limited to metal, wood,
wire, drywall, electrical components, and any supplies, equipment
or other items utilized for painting, landscaping, logging, roofing,
masonry or plumbing.
F. Any shopping carts, except where such shopping carts are
owned and/or utilized for their designated purpose upon the
underlying premises.
G. Exceptions. The nuisances enumerated in subsections (A)
through (D) of this section shall not apply to items or materials
when:
1. Wholly enclosed within a building; or
2. Located in a rear yard and screened from adjacent
properties and the public right-of-way by a five-foot opaque fence
or by a vegetative barrier that is between five feet and eight feet in
height and provides a visual barrier equivalent to an opaque fence.
Corner lots and Flag lots which have no rear yard may establish a
screening area which qualifies for this exemption in a side yard.
Section 2. Section 17.60.040 Vehicles in residential zones, subsections (A) and
(B) are hereby amended to correct scrivener’s errors:
17.60.040 Vehicles in residential zones
A. No more than five motor vehicles shall be parked on a
residential lot. Each motor vehicle must be currently licensed and
operable.
Packet Page 10 of 41
{WSS725475.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
1. Exemptions.
a. If more than five licensed drivers reside at the same
address, an additional motor vehicle for each licensed driver over
five may be parked at that particular address; however, each
licensed driver must have that particular address on his or her
license.
b. This regulation does not apply to:
i. Motor vehicles when parked in a rear yard
and screened from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way
by a five-foot opaque fence or by a vegetative barrier that is
between five feet and eight feet in height and provides a visual
barrier equivalent to an opaque fence. Corner lots and Flag lots
which have no rear yard may establish a screening area which
qualifies for this exemption in a side yard.
ii. Temporary parking for a duration not to
exceed seventy-two hours;
iii. Apartment or other complex with an
approved building and parking plan;
iv. Permitted construction areas; or
v. Motorcycles or mopeds.
B. No more than two recreational vehicles of any kind may be
parked outside an approved enclosed structure anywhere on a
property. If the recreational vehicle cannot be stored as described
in 17.60.040(D) due to site constraints, the recreational vehicle
shall be parked off-site during those extended times when not in
use. Only one side yard may be used for storage of recreational
vehicles. For the purposes of this chapter, “recreational vehicle”
means a vehicular-type unit primarily designed for recreational
camping or travel use that has its own motive power or is mounted
on or towed by another vehicle. The units include travel trailers,
fifth-wheel trailers, folding camping trailers, truck campers, and
motor homes.
. . .
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
Packet Page 11 of 41
{WSS725475.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 12 of 41
{WSS725475.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 5 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECC 6.20.040 TO CLARIFY WHERE JUNK VEHICLES MAY BE
STORED; ECDC 17.60.040 VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SUBSECTIONS (A)
AND (B) TO CLARIFY SEVERAL SCRIVENER’S ERRORS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 13 of 41
June 9, 2009
Ordinance amending 6.20.040 to clarify where junk vehicles may be stored and 17.60.040, subsections (A)
and (B) to clarify several scrivener’s errors.
Current Language (Changes in underline and strikethrough)
6.20.041 Aesthetic nuisances.
The following nuisances are aesthetic in nature and can negatively impact neighborhood property values
and foster blight. The following actions and/or conditions shall be a public nuisance when located in any
front, side or rear yard or vacant lot.
A. Any junk, trash, or litter,
B. Salvage materials or lumber not neatly stacked.
C. Any broken, soiled or discarded furniture, household equipment or furnishings.
D. Any junk vehicle, vehicle parts or other articles of personal property which are stored, discarded
or left in a state of partial construction or repair.
E. Any accumulation, stack or pile of building, landscaping or construction materials which are
exposed to the elements or are in disarray and which are not directly associated with a project on the
premises for which a current building permit has been obtained; or, with respect to a project which does not
require a permit, that is in progress or which is scheduled to begin within ten (10) business days.
Construction materials include but are not limited to metal, wood, wire, drywall, electrical components, and
any supplies, equipment or other items utilized for painting, landscaping, logging, roofing, masonry or
plumbing.
F. Any shopping carts, except where such shopping carts are owned and/or utilized for their
designated purpose upon the underling premises.
G. Exceptions. The nuisances enumerated in subparagraphs A through D shall not apply to items or
materials when:
1. Wholly enclosed within a building; or
2. Located in a rear yard and screened from adjacent properties and the public right of way
by a five six-foot opaque fence or by a vegetative barrier that is between five six feet and eight feet in
height and provides a visual barrier equivalent to an opaque fence. Corner lots which have no rear yard
may establish a screening area which qualifies for this exception in a side yard.
Packet Page 14 of 41
Current Language (changes in underline and strikethrough)
17.60.040 Vehicles in residential zones
A. No more than five motor vehicles shall be parked on a residential
lot. Each motor vehicle must be currently licensed and operable.
1. Exemptions.
a. If more than five licensed drivers reside at the same
address, an additional motor vehicle for each licensed driver over five
may be parked at that particular address; however, each licensed driver
must have that particular address on his or her license.
b. This regulation does not apply to:
i. Motor vehicles when parked in a rear yard
and screened from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way by a
five-foot opaque fence or by a vegetative barrier that is between five
feet and eight feet in height and provides a visual barrier equivalent to
an opaque fence. Corner lots and Flag lots which have no rear yard
may establish a screening area which qualifies for this exemption in a
side yard. Motor vehicles parked in the front yard or inside of a
lawfully permitted and constructed building or screened behind a solid
fence or vegetative barrier at least five feet in height;
ii. Temporary parking for a duration not to
exceed seventy-two hours;
iii. Apartment or other complex with an
approved building and parking plan;
iv. Permitted construction areas; or
v. Motorcycles or mopeds.
B. No more than two recreational vehicles of any kind may be parked
outside an approved enclosed structure anywhere on a property. If the
recreational vehicle cannot be stored as described in 17.60.040(D), or
in a yard or the rear yard due to site constraints, the recreational vehicle
shall be parked off-site during those extended times when not in use.
Only one side yard may be used for storage of recreational vehicles.
For the purposes of this chapter, “recreational vehicle” means a
vehicular-type unit primarily designed for recreational camping or
travel use that has its own motive power or is mounted on or towed by
another vehicle. The units include travel trailers, fifth-wheel trailers,
folding camping trailers, truck campers, and motor homes.
Packet Page 15 of 41
AM-2320 2.A.
Alderwood Water Supply Agreement Negotiations Update
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:10 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Alderwood Water Supply Agreement negotiations update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For Discussion Only
Previous Council Action
For Discussion Only
Narrative
The current water supply agreement with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District will
expire in September 2010. Edmonds staff has been attending negotiation meetings with
Alderwood along with the City of Lynnwood, City of Mountlake Terrace and the Mukilteo Water
District for over a year.
Staff will brief the committee on the overall parameters of the contract and ask for guidance or
input on the contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 12:02 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/04/2009 12:24 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 01:22 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 06/04/2009 08:15
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/04/2009
Packet Page 16 of 41
AM-2324 2.B.
General Fund Report for the Month Ending May 2009
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov Time:10 Minutes
Department:Finance Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
General Fund Report for the month ending May 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Attached you will find two documents:
1.) A brief narrative on the General Fund Revenues and Expenditures for the month ending May
2009.
2.) The General Fund forecast as of April 7, 2009.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: May 2009 GF Report
Link: April 7, 2009 General Fund Forecast
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 01:59 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/04/2009 02:12 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 02:19 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Started On: 06/04/2009 01:35
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/04/2009
Packet Page 17 of 41
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 4, 2009
To: Finance Committee
From: Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director
RE: General Fund Report For the month ending May 31, 2009
Attached you will find charts containing revenue collections and projections for the major General Fund
revenues with the exception of Property taxes. Significant revenue from Property taxes are receipted in
April and May, and October and November, therefore monthly forecasts are not prepared. The REET
forecast has also been included (page 4), however it is important to remember REET is receipted into a
stand alone fund and is not part of the General Fund.
Also included as a separate document, you will find the Strategic Outlook as of April 7, 2009. As always
we continue to monitor the status of the General fund; however, at this time there have been no significant
events that have caused us to revise the April 7th forecast.
Historically, General Fund receipts at the end of April are approximately 46.75%. As of May 31, 2009
General Fund receipts are 45.84% as compared to the current forecast.. As reported in April contributing
to this under run are Building Permits at 26.25%, and Plan Checking Fees at 16.42%. The City is just
starting to receive EMS Transport fees, to date $132,881 of the $700,000 anticipated, and will not receive
any revenue from the $20 Annual Vehicle Fee imposed by the Transportation Benefit District until the
third quarter.
General Fund expenditures appear to be on target at 38.5% of forecast. Based on an average of the last 4
years’ expenditures, as of the end of May, the General Fund has historically been at 38.62% of total
expenditures.
City of Edmonds W Administrative Services
Packet Page 18 of 41
REVISED FORECAST 4,256,274
2009 BUDGET 5,369,949
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 8.00% 10.21% 6.97% 7.32% 8.84% 7.63% 8.02% 9.17% 8.11% 8.36% 9.32% 8.06%
Cumulative Forecast % 8.00% 18.21% 25.18% 32.50% 41.33% 48.96% 56.98% 66.15% 74.26% 82.62% 91.94% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 429,335 548,390 374,517 392,854 474,530 409,507 430,853 492,198 435,495 449,074 500,562 432,634
Cumulative Forecast $ 429,335 977,725 1,352,242 1,745,096 2,219,626 2,629,133 3,059,986 3,552,185 3,987,679 4,436,753 4,937,315 5,369,949
Actual Collected $ 339,676 435,279 333,653 323,038 366,629 324,579 341,499 390,121 345,178 355,940 396,750 342,910
Cumulative Collection $ 339,676 774,955 1,108,607 1,431,645 1,798,275 2,122,853 2,464,352 2,854,473 3,199,651 3,555,591 3,952,341 4,295,251
YEAR END FORECAST 4,248,532 4,256,274 4,402,441 4,405,409 4,350,572 4,335,884 4,324,675 4,315,197 4,308,762 4,303,449 4,298,667 4,295,251
Projected YE Variance (1,121,417) (1,113,675) (967,508) (964,540) (1,019,377) (1,034,065) (1,045,274) (1,054,752) (1,061,187) (1,066,500) (1,071,282) (1,074,698)
Budget Variance % -20.88% -20.74% -18.02% -17.96% -18.98%-19.26% -19.47% -19.64% -19.76% -19.86% -19.95% -20.01%
SALES AND USE TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK Line represents Budget, SOLID RED Line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED Line represents Forecast
CURRENT FORECAST 961,262
2009 BUDGET 902,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 13.90% 14.53% 13.40% 10.77% 9.33% 6.27% 4.81% 3.40% 3.24% 3.71% 6.34% 10.30%
Cumulative Forecast % 13.90% 28.43% 41.84% 52.61% 61.93% 68.21% 73.01% 76.41% 79.66% 83.36% 89.70% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 125,365 131,103 120,905 97,136 84,116 56,588 43,376 30,660 29,240 33,430 57,180 92,901
Cumulative Forecast $ 125,365 256,468 377,373 474,509 558,625 615,212 658,588 689,248 718,489 751,918 809,099 902,000
Actual Collected $ 125,589 151,001 135,758 119,592 86,092 60,306 46,226 32,674 31,162 35,626 60,937 99,005
Cumulative Collection $ 125,589 276,590 412,348 531,940 618,033 678,338 724,564 757,238 788,400 824,026 884,963 983,968
YEAR END FORECAST 903,614 972,770 985,597 1,011,171 997,925 994,553 992,360 990,977 989,767 988,500 986,575 983,968
Projected YE Variance 1,614 70,770 83,597 109,171 95,925 92,553 90,360 88,977 87,767 86,500 84,575 81,968
Budget Variance % 0.18% 7.85% 9.27% 12.10% 10.63%10.26% 10.02% 9.86% 9.73% 9.59% 9.38% 9.09%
GAS UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK Line represents Budget, SOLID RED Line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED Line represents Forecast
General Fund Report for the Month Ending May, 2009 Page 2 of 4
Packet Page 19 of 41
CURRENT FORECAST 1,308,122
2009 BUDGET 1,353,897
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 6.22% 7.65% 10.20% 7.90% 8.06% 6.65% 9.65% 7.68% 7.98% 10.20% 7.29% 10.51%
Cumulative Forecast % 6.22% 13.87% 24.07% 31.97% 40.03% 46.68% 56.33% 64.01% 71.99% 82.19% 89.49% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 84,266 103,515 138,066 107,023 109,081 90,006 130,655 103,973 108,092 138,155 98,763 142,303
Cumulative Forecast $ 84,266 187,781 325,847 432,870 541,951 631,957 762,612 866,584 974,676 1,112,831 1,211,594 1,353,897
Actual Collected $ 61,681 180,408 114,173 29,514 140,918 86,963 126,237 100,457 104,437 133,484 95,424 137,492
Cumulative Collection $ 61,681 242,089 356,262 385,776 526,694 613,657 739,894 840,351 944,789 1,078,272 1,173,696 1,311,188
YEAR END FORECAST 991,028 1,745,454 1,480,271 1,206,601 1,315,782 1,314,691 1,313,566 1,312,913 1,312,381 1,311,853 1,311,548 1,311,188
Projected YE Variance (362,869) 391,557 126,374 (147,296) (38,115) (39,206) (40,331) (40,984) (41,516) (42,044) (42,349) (42,709)
Budget Variance % -26.80% 28.92% 9.33% -10.88% -2.82%-2.90% -2.98% -3.03% -3.07% -3.11% -3.13% -3.15%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK Line represents Budget, SOLID RED Line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED Line represents Forecast
CURRENT FORECAST 1,455,025
2009 BUDGET 1,492,400
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 9.83% 11.94% 10.34% 10.69% 8.99% 7.78% 7.24% 6.28% 6.63% 5.78% 7.47% 7.03%
Cumulative Forecast % 9.83% 21.78% 32.11% 42.81% 51.80% 59.58% 66.82% 73.10% 79.73% 85.50% 92.97% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 146,716 178,264 154,276 159,586 134,207 116,112 108,076 93,685 98,902 86,233 111,441 104,902
Cumulative Forecast $ 146,716 324,980 479,256 638,842 773,049 889,161 997,238 1,090,923 1,189,825 1,276,058 1,387,498 1,492,400
Actual Collected $ 148,433 162,088 156,732 156,636 146,543 113,204 105,370 91,339 96,425 84,073 108,650 102,275
Cumulative Collection $ 148,433 310,521 467,253 623,889 770,432 883,637 989,007 1,080,346 1,176,771 1,260,844 1,369,494 1,471,768
YEAR END FORECAST 1,509,869 1,426,001 1,455,025 1,457,468 1,487,348 1,483,127 1,480,082 1,477,930 1,476,026 1,474,607 1,473,034 1,471,768
Projected YE Variance 17,469 (66,399) (37,375) (34,932) (5,052) (9,273) (12,318) (14,470) (16,374) (17,793) (19,366) (20,632)
Budget Variance % 1.17% -4.45% -2.50% -2.34% -0.34%-0.62% -0.83% -0.97% -1.10% -1.19% -1.30% -1.38%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
General Fund Report for the Month Ending May, 2009 Page 3 of 4
Packet Page 20 of 41
CURRENT FORECAST 346,072
2009 BUDGET 750,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 7.12% 5.85% 8.32% 8.50% 7.87% 11.20% 10.73% 8.55% 10.12% 7.03% 8.35% 6.36%
Cumulative Forecast % 7.12% 12.97% 21.30% 29.80% 37.67% 48.86% 59.59% 68.14% 78.26% 85.29% 93.64% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 53,422 43,876 62,426 63,744 59,053 83,966 80,471 64,093 75,875 52,757 62,643 47,675
Cumulative Forecast $ 53,422 97,298 159,723 223,468 282,521 366,487 446,958 511,051 586,925 639,682 702,325 750,000
Actual Collected $ 33,425 13,822 21,370 34,498 38,514 40,979 37,132 29,574 35,011 24,343 28,905 21,999
Cumulative Collection $ 33,425 47,247 68,616 103,114 141,628 182,608 219,739 249,314 284,324 308,668 337,573 359,572
YEAR END FORECAST 469,257 364,191 322,197 346,072 375,976 373,699 368,725 365,884 363,323 361,900 360,488 359,572
Projected YE Variance (280,743) (385,809) (427,803) (403,928) (374,024) (376,301) (381,275) (384,116) (386,677) (388,100) (389,512) (390,428)
Budget Variance % -37.43% -51.44% -57.04% -53.86% -49.87% -50.17%-50.84% -51.22% -51.56% -51.75% -51.93% -52.06%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
BLACK line represents Budget, SOLID RED line represents Actual Collections,
DOTTED RED line represents Forecast
General Fund Report for the Month Ending May, 2009 Page 4 of 4
Packet Page 21 of 41
Packet Page 22 of 41
AM-2314 3.A.
RCW 35.103 Annual Compliance Report - 2008
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Tom Tomberg Time:10 Minutes
Department:Fire Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
RCW 35.103 Annual Compliance Report - 2008.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
As has been done annually since 2006, forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a
recommendation to approve. After Council approval, the current report is posted on the Fire
Department website.
Previous Council Action
On November 28, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133 which adopts
performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in Washington Legislature Substitute
House Bill 1756 as the Edmonds Fire Department emergency resource deployment and response
time objectives. Since adoption, SHB 1756 has been codified as RCW 35.103.
On July 8, 2008, the 2007 report was presented to the Public Safety Committee, and on July 15,
2008 the 2007 report was approved by Council on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
RCW 35.103 requires annual evaluation of Council-adopted levels of service, deployment
delivery methods, and response time objectives. Evaluation is based on data relating to the levels
of service, deployment, and the achievement of each response time objective established by
Council. Response time data is extracted from emergency information entered into the Fire
Department records management system by Department personnel.
Attached is the RCW 35.103 Annual Compliance Report - 2008 based on 2008 data. The heart of
the report appears in Sections 3 and 4, pages 6 through 12.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2008 Revenue: Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
None
Attachments
Link: RCW 35.103 Compliance Report
Form Routing/Status
Packet Page 23 of 41
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/02/2009 02:25 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/02/2009 02:29 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/03/2009 11:14 AM APRV
Form Started By: Tom
Tomberg
Started On: 06/02/2009 01:45
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/03/2009
Packet Page 24 of 41
RCW 35.103 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT – 2008
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133 adopting the
performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in Washington Legislature
Substitute House Bill 1756 as the Edmonds Fire Department emergency resource
deployment and response time objectives. Since passage by the State Legislature, SHB
1756 has been codified as RCW 35.103. The new code title will be referenced where
appropriate in the remainder of this document and in all future references.
RCW 35.103 requires the evaluation of the Council-adopted levels of service,
deployment delivery methods, and response time objectives on an annual basis. The
evaluations are based on data relating to the levels of service, deployment, and the
achievement of each response time objective established by Council. The response time
data is extracted from emergency information entered into the Fire Department records
management system by Department personnel using WebFIRS software. The evaluation
was initially delivered to the Council and the public beginning in 2008 with the
comparison of 2006 data against the adopted standards. Below is the RCW 35.103
Annual Compliance Report for 2009 based on 2008 data. The heart of the report
appears in Sections 3 and 4.
2008 COMPLIANCE REPORT CONTENTS
As required by RCW 35.103, the 2008 Compliance Report includes four Sections:
• Section 1: Council Resolution 1133
• Section 2: Five Policy Statements that prove the existence of the Fire
Department, describes services the Department provides, the Department’s
organizational structure, the expected number of Department employees, and the
functions those employees are expected to perform.
• Section 3: Comparison of 2008 response times to each adopted response
standard.
• Section 4: An explanation of why Council-adopted standards are not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, the steps
necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance.
SECTION 1……………………………………………………………………………..2
SECTION 2……………………………………………………………………………..5
SECTION 3……………………………………………………………………………..6
SECTION 4……………………………………………………………………………..10
1
Packet Page 25 of 41
SECTION 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1133
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE PERFORMANCE POLICY,
STANDARDS AND OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN
SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 AS EDMONDS FIRE
DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT
AND RESPONSE TIME OBJECTIVES.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department is legally established as a fire
department through Ordinance No. 254 approved by the City of Edmonds City Council
on October 16, 1912 to provide for the prevention of and protection from fire in the city
and whose emergency services now include fire suppression, emergency medical
services at the basic life support-defibrillator and advanced life support levels, hazardous
materials response, technical rescue response, marine rescue and fire suppression, and
disaster preparedness and response; and,
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a mission statement and
goals and objectives to guide the organization in providing emergency services that
include fire suppression, emergency medical services at the basic life support-
defibrillator and advanced life support levels, hazardous materials response, technical
rescue response, marine rescue and fire suppression, and disaster preparedness and
response; and,
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a basic organizational
structure which includes elected officials, Chief Fire Officers, Fire Officers, Firefighters,
Firefighter/Paramedics and Firefighter/EMTs; and,
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a certain number of
members now and in the future who perform the tasks required to accomplish the
response objectives; and,
2
Packet Page 26 of 41
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department is required by state law to
establish turnout and response time goals for the emergency services is provides; and,
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has evaluated the elements
identified in SHB 1756 and included those provisions deemed appropriate in the
Department’s emergency service delivery; and,
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has developed written
response coverage objectives required to comply with applicable provisions of SHB
1756; and,
WHEREAS, the response coverage document is in furtherance of the City
of Edmonds duty to the public at large and does not create a specific duty to any
individual in the event of an emergency response; and
WHEREAS, each emergency response occurs under a unique set of
circumstances and competing emergency needs may impact response in any specific
situation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds obligation to respond to emergency
incidents consistent with the Fire Department emergency resource deployment and
response time objectives may be impacted by circumstances and competing emergency
needs, the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees shall have no duty to
respond according to any specific response standard, and shall incur no liability
whatsoever for failing to do so; therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council of the City of Edmonds hereby adopts the response
coverage document attached as Exhibit A as the Edmonds Fire Department’s official
policy for determining emergency medical, fire and rescue resource deployment; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
3
Packet Page 27 of 41
The adopted response coverage document officially
defines the Edmonds Fire Department’s written policies and procedures that establish
the distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of the department; and,
This resolution was adopted at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the Edmonds
City Council for the Edmonds Fire Department on November 28, 2006.
RESOLVED this 28th day of November 2006.
APPROVED:
Gary Haakenson
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 11/28/06
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 11/28/06
RESOLUTION NO. 1133
4
Packet Page 28 of 41
SECTION 2
POLICY STATEMENTS
The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establishes the
following:
1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Resolution No. 1133.
__X__meets requirement_____does not meet
2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in Resolution
No. 1133.
__X__meets requirement_____does not meet
3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the
organizational chart adopted by Council as part of the 2008-08 biennial budget on
November 15, 2005, and the 2008-2008 budget adopted by Council on November
21, 2006.
__X__meets requirement_____does not meet
4. The expected number of Fire Department employees for 2008 is 54 as adopted by
Council as part of the 2008 biennial budget on November 21, 2006. A breakdown by
position appears in Appendix E (not shown).
__X___meets requirement_____does not meet
5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in
Edmonds Fire Department SOP 501.01 Mission Statement.
__X___meets requirement_____does not meet
5
Packet Page 29 of 41
SECTION 3
STANDARDS OF RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER)
To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events
of “brain death” or “flashover” occur, the Fire Department is required to establish
response time objectives, and compare the actual department results on an annual basis
against the established objectives. The comparison began in 2007 with a comparison of
the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of
response. This year, actual 2008 response time data is compared against the originally
established, Council-adopted 2006 standard. This section provides that comparison.
1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents
Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time
standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did
meet the turn out time objective 90% of the time; 90% of the Fire Department
incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:34 minutes/seconds.
2A. Response time off the first-arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
incident
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire
suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire suppression
incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:41 minutes/seconds
of response time.
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm
response to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department
should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm
response of 15 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire
suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm responding
personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 10:30 minutes/seconds of
response time.
6
Packet Page 30 of 41
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a
commercial fire suppression incident
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 9 minutes for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm
response to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department
should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm
response of 18 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire
suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm responding
personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 10:00 minutes/seconds of
response time.
3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher
level capability to an emergency medical incident
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with
appropriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical
incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of emergency medical
incidents had the first-arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the scene within
5:35 minutes/seconds of response time.
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit
to an emergency medical incident.
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an advanced life support unit with
appropriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS
emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the
time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of emergency medical
incidents had the Advance Life Support (two Paramedics) unit arrive at the
scene within 6:53 minutes/seconds of response time.
5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a
hazardous materials incident.
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the
time.
7
Packet Page 31 of 41
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90% of the time. 90% of hazardous materials
incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level
personnel arrive at the scene within 5:05 minutes/seconds of response time.
5A2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a
hazardous materials incident.
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately
trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on
board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet
90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90% of the time. 90% of hazardous materials
incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level
personnel arrive at the scene within 6:48 minutes/seconds of response time.
5B1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident.
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a
technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of technical rescue
incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level
personnel arrive at the scene within 5:10 minutes/seconds of response time.
5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident.
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately
trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to
a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: No reportable Incidents.
6. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine
incident.
8
Packet Page 32 of 41
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine
incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2008: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of Marine incidents had
trained and equipped firefighting personnel arrived at the scene within 5:10
minutes/seconds of response time.
.
9
Packet Page 33 of 41
SECTION 4
COUNCIL-ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET
RCW 35.103 requires an explanation when Council-adopted standards are not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, the steps necessary
to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET
Of 11 Council-adopted 2008 performance standards, five were met, five were not met,
and one standard had no reportable incidents to evaluate. The five standards not met in
2008 are:
2A. Response time off the first-arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
incident
Established: 6:30 Minutes/Seconds
Actual: 6:41 Minutes/seconds
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a residential fire
suppression incident
Established: 7:45 Minutes/Seconds
Actual: 10:30 Minutes/seconds
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a commercial fire
suppression incident
Established: 9:00 Minutes/Seconds
Actual: 10:00 Minutes/seconds
3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher level
capability to an emergency medical incident
Established: 5:15 Minutes/Seconds
Actual: 5:35 Minutes/Seconds
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an
emergency medical incident.
Established: 6:45 Minutes/Seconds
Actual: 6:53 Minutes/Seconds
PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES
Predictable consequences for the deficient standards above include the potential for
greater deterioration in the patient/victim’s medical condition, death, and increased
property loss. Although response times are measurable as a risk factor, other inherent
and varied risk factors that are less measurable also play a large role in outcomes, for
10
Packet Page 34 of 41
example, time lapse between the onset of the emergency, discovery, and reporting;
dispatch center processing; distance traveled; weather and road conditions; access; out-
of-service / unavailable status of emergency units due to training, mechanical, or other
emergencies; patients medical history and lifestyle; presence of bystanders able to
assist; emergency devices that allow bystanders to assist; built-in fire detection and
protection equipment; type of construction; and square footage. The list of variables that
directly and indirectly influence the outcome of a specific emergency incident are not
only numerous but come in various gradations and degrees.
Despite the various factors that affect outcomes that are outside the control of
emergency responders, response times are one factor in the medical chain-of-survival
and structure fire time-temperature curve that governments can affect.
Predictable consequences in four of six standards above are difficult to predict because
the time differences between eight and 20 seconds constitute a deficiency spread that
can be considered nebulous. Also, when working with a 90th percentile, only 10 percent
of the emergency calls fail to meet the time standards. At best, a mild increase in
property loss could occur on fire-related responses, and a delay in treatment for
medically-related incidents may occur.
The 2B standard with the 2:45 minute deficiency – Response time for the deployment of
full first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident, and 2C Standard
with the 1:00 Minute deficiency – Response time for the deployment of full first alarm
assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident – is attributable to the arrival of
automatic aid units and beyond practical control of the Edmonds Fire Department.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The following is a list of proposed actions currently being taken by the Fire Department
and recommendations for City Council consideration to improve overall performance:
o Awareness and Training: Awareness and training will continue to maintain the
current level of service. Training and awareness can be very effective in
improving turnout time, which has improved by 11 seconds from 2007 to 2008.
This improvement is likely attributed to using MDCs (Mobile Data Computers)
creating a more accurate account of turnout time, and the adjustment to the
paging notification system that provided a more expeditious dispatching system.
Awareness and training is not as effective in the response time categories as
station location/geography and call location dictates the successfulness of this
standard.
o Partnerships/regionalization: As mentioned above, two of the five deficient
areas are attributed to automatic and mutual aid resources which the Edmonds
Fire Department does not control. Partnerships and/or regionalizing with other
area departments will allow resources to be used more efficiently and
effectively. These efficiencies could be realized through flexibility in emergency
response resources. An example of this would be a dedicated resource that
could transport patients to the hospital keeping other resources in-service, or a
dedicated resource that would more likely be available locally for emergency
calls. These types of changes are more attainable when working in a larger
geographical area.
11
Packet Page 35 of 41
12
o Station Location: Geography and Station Location would be the most costly
change for the City, but would provide the biggest response time benefit.
Currently, all three of the fire stations are not placed in an optimal location. Site
determination for a training tower with enough room for a new fire station would
create a win-win for both Firefighter training and response location. Initial
evaluation of the data suggests the most feasible location for a replacement
Station 20, constructed in 1952, is a site near Highway 99 at 228th Street. The
second replacement choice is to move Station 17 closer to 212th Street SW and
84th Avenue W (Five Corners).
Packet Page 36 of 41
AM-2318 3.B.
Update City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Tom Tomberg Time:5 Minutes
Department:Fire Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Update City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward to Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve.
Previous Council Action
Council discussed a City strategic plan at the March 2004 Retreat.
Council approved the City Strategic Plan on August 3, 2004.
Council discussed adding a public safety statement with objectives, and other references to public
safety to the City Strategic Plan at the 2005 and 2006 Retreats.
On June 27, 2006, Council added Council Public Safety Statement II. with Objectives, and other
references to public safety to the City Strategic Plan.
Narrative
The Fire Department requests that dates be updated from the 2007-2008 biennium to reflect the
current 2009-2010 biennium in Council Public Safety Statement II. Objectives A1 and D1-D4 as
indicated by the strikethroughs on the attachment.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: City Strategic Plan Update, 6-2009
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/03/2009 11:14 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/03/2009 11:16 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 09:58 AM APRV
Form Started By: Tom
Tomberg
Started On: 06/03/2009 10:17
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/04/2009
Packet Page 37 of 41
II
.
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
y
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
:
T
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
v
i
e
w
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
a
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
t
o
p
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
s
t
r
i
v
e
s
t
o
of
f
e
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
a
m
u
n
i
c
i
pa
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
y
f
e
e
l
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
e
.
O BJ
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
T AS
K
S
D EL
I
V
E
R
A
B
L
E
S
D UE
T EAM C OST
A.
F
u
n
d
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
o
se
r
v
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
a
t
i
m
e
l
y
a
n
d
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
n
n
e
r
.
1.
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
f
o
r
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
fu
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
an
n
u
a
l
b
u
d
g
e
t
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
le
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
a
r
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
an
n
u
a
l
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
fu
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
bu
d
g
e
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
Do
n
e
1
-
1
-
07
9 t
o
1
2
-
31
-
-
0
8
10
Ma
y
o
r
a
n
d
Co
u
n
c
i
l
$ 0
B.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
P
o
l
i
c
e
a
n
d
F
i
r
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
pr
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
St
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
.
1.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
st
a
f
f
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Le
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-
2
8
-
0
6
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Re
s
.
#
1
1
3
3
Fi
r
e
a
n
d
Po
l
i
c
e
Ad
m
i
n
$ 0
2.
A
d
o
p
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
Ad
o
p
t
e
d
l
e
v
e
l
s
of
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
st
a
f
f
i
n
g
.
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-
2
8
-
0
6
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Re
s
.
#
1
1
3
3
Co
u
n
c
i
l
$ 0
C.
P
o
l
i
c
e
a
n
d
F
i
r
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
st
a
f
f
i
n
g
b
e
c
o
m
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Pl
a
n
.
1.
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
in
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Pl
a
n
Le
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
a
r
e
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
th
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-
2
8
-
0
6
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Re
s
.
#
1
1
3
3
Co
u
n
c
i
l
$ 0
D.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
W
o
r
k
P
l
a
n
s
.
1.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
m
u
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
pl
a
n
a
s
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
in
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
Mu
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
p
l
a
n
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
i
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-14
-06
Ma
r
c
h
20
0
9
Fi
r
e
a
n
d
PD
A
d
m
i
n
$ 0
2.
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
h
e
Mu
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
P
l
a
n
Mu
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
P
l
a
n
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
i
s
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-14
-06
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
$ 0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
of
41
O BJ
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
T AS
K
S
D EL
I
V
E
R
A
B
L
E
S
D UE
T EAM C OST
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
.
3-
1
0
-
0
9
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
3.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
Mu
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
P
l
a
n
.
Mu
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
P
l
a
n
i
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
.
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-14
-06
3-
1
7
-
0
9
f
o
r
2
0
0
7
9
20
0
8
10
Fi
r
e
a
n
d
PD
A
d
m
i
n
$ 0
4.
A
d
o
p
t
t
h
e
M
u
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
Pl
a
n
Mu
l
t
i
y
e
a
r
P
l
a
n
i
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
Fi
r
e
D
o
n
e
11
-14
-06
3-
1
7
-
0
9
f
o
r
2
0
0
7
9
20
0
8
10
Co
u
n
c
i
l
,
Ma
y
o
r
$ 0
E.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
wh
i
c
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
1.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ar
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Bi
e
n
n
i
a
l
l
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
$ 0
2.
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
pu
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
pu
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
si
x
-
y
e
a
r
C
I
P
.
Bi
e
n
n
i
a
l
l
y
PW
,
F
i
r
e
Ad
m
i
n
,
P
D
Ad
m
i
n
$ 0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
39
of
41
AM-2315 3.C.
End of Edmonds Fire Department Volunteer Program
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:06/09/2009
Submitted By:Tom Tomberg Time:5 Minutes
Department:Fire Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
End of Edmonds Fire Department Volunteer Program.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve.
Previous Council Action
On October 16, 1912, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 254 formally establishing a Fire
Department. In 1998, Council approved a Fire Department proposal to remove the Paid Reserves
from "combat," that is, no wearing of self-contained breathing apparatus and no interior
firefighting. In 2003, as part of City-wide cutbacks, the Paid Reserves were converted to non-paid
Volunteers through the budget process.
Narrative
Until the 1960s, all City "Firefighters" were unpaid "Volunteers." In 1965, the City hired its first
"paid" Fire Chief, and a Sleeper Program was established. "Sleepers" would spend five nights out
of the week in a fire station and be compensated for the number of alarms to which they
responded. Over time, the Sleeper Program evolved into the Paid Reserve Program. "Paid
Reserves" did not sleep in fire stations but responded if available when summoned by career
personnel to emergency incidents. Reserves were paid the minimum hourly wage for training and
emergency response.
The 1998 Council action to withdraw the Paid Reserves from combact was taken because of the
difficulty in keeping the Paid Reserves current in their training as required by the State of
Washington. The 2003 Council action converting the Paid Reserves to unpaid Volunteer status was
prompted by severe budget problems.
There are currently four unpaid Volunteers. Over the years the program has suffered for a variety
of reasons:
(1) removal from combat status; (2) conversion from paid status to unpaid Volunteers; (3)
program turnover;
(4) continuing budget problems; and (5) the general drop in fire service volunteering in this area
and in urban areas nationally.
However, Edmonds Volunteers will continue to serve the City and Southwest Snohomish County.
Effective September 30, 2009, the four remaining Edmonds Volunteers will leave the program and
Packet Page 40 of 41
Effective September 30, 2009, the four remaining Edmonds Volunteers will leave the program and
affiliate with the Snohomish County Fire District #1 Volunteer Program. Due to its size, District
#1 is able to support a Volunteer Progam that provides: (1) assignment to one of four platoons
(shifts) for emergency call-out purposes; (2) a rank structure; (3) assignment to a specific
emergency function such as Air Support, Rehabilitation, Staging, etc.; (4) compensation based on
an earned points system; and (5) training and emergency response opportunities throughout the
response area served by Fire District #1 and its automatic aid partners (including Edmonds).
When the four Edmonds Volunteers transfer their affililation to Fire District #1 on September 30,
their annual pension payment ($60 per person) and annual insurance payment ($30) will be current
with the Washington Board of Volunteer Firefighters.
The City and the Fire Department appreciate the dedicated service of the many, many Volunteers,
Sleepers and Reserves who have served Edmonds citizens in one form or another as Volunteers
since 1904.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2010 Revenue: 0 Expenditure: 0
Fiscal Impact:
When the Edmonds Volunteers transfer their affiliation to the Fire District #1 Volunteer
Program, the annual 2010 progam budget of $5,310 will be discontinued.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/03/2009 11:14 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/03/2009 11:16 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/04/2009 09:58 AM APRV
Form Started By: Tom
Tomberg
Started On: 06/02/2009 02:31
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/04/2009
Packet Page 41 of 41