2019-06-04 City Council - Full Agenda-2365o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 4, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2019
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation "Orca Action Month" (5 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing and Action Regarding Nonconforming Building Code Amendments (40 min)
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. Authorization to Purchase - 2019 Cues Sewer Video Inspection Truck (20 min)
2. Approval of Resources for Recording Housing Commission Events (20 min)
3. Approval of Timeframe Target for Housing Commission Start-up (20 min)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1).
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 4, 2019
Page 1
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
05-28-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 2
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
May 28, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Scott James, Finance Director
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Rob English, City Engineer
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmembers Nelson, Mesaros and Buckshnis.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO MOVE ITEM 9.1, AUTHORIZATION TO
PURCHASE -2019 CUES SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION TRUCK, TO A FUTURE MEETING
WHEN THE FULL COUNCIL IS PRESENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (2-2),
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the motion would fail for lack of a majority. The Mayor has the right
to vote to break a tie.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED NO, AND THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2-3).
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2019
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
4 318 HOWELL ST. DEDICATION
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. ANNUAL REPORT -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE
Acting Fire Chief Doug Dahl reported last week after 41 years of service, Fire Chief Steadman chose to put
his family and health in front of his career. He is currently on medical leave and intents to retire at the end
of the leave. He introduced Deputy Chief Bob Eastman, Fire Commissioners Jim Kenney (Chair), Ben
Goodwin, David Chan, Jim McGaughey, and Bob Meador.
Acting Chief Dahl reported the Board placed him in an acting/interim role and will begin the process for
selecting a permanent fire chief. He began his career in Edmonds and it was never in his permanent plan to
be the fire chief but he is proud to represent South County Fire until a new chief is selected. South County
Fire has a great team, it's business as usual and they will proceed with the same goals put in place by Chief
Steadman.
Tonight he will present the annual report and return on June 251 for a joint meeting with the Commission,
City Council and staff to provide the Council time to digest the information and develop questions. He
played a South County Fire Introduction You Tube video. Highlights of the video included:
• Automatic aid agreements in the 1970s made it possible to systematically dispatch the closest
available fire unit for 9-1-1 calls
• Eventual consolidation brought additional benefits such as:
o Elimination of duplicate positions
o Economics of scale both in lowering costs and in organizational effectiveness
o Ability to provide services that small departments cannot provide
• Timeline for bringing together five departments
0 2000: Fire Districts 1 and 11 merge
0 2005: Mountlake Terrace Fire Department consolidates with FD1 and Mountlake Terrace and
Brier contract for service from the Fire District
0 2010: Edmonds Fire Department consolidates with FD 1 and contracts for service from the
District
0 2017: Voters in FD1 and Lynnwood create a regional fire authority combining FD1 and
Lynnwood Fire Department to form a new entity - South County Fire
South County Fire
o Serves more than 250,000 residents in Brier, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and
unincorporated South Snohomish County
0 300 employees include 260+ firefighters who respond to approximately 30,000 9-1-1 calls a
year
o Able to expand services and do things as a regional provider that would not be possible as
individual departments such as:
■ Daily staffing for hazmat and technical rescue responses and marine fire and rescue
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
4.1.a
■ Neighborhood fire and injury prevention programs
■ Regional fire training
■ National award -winning EMS
■ Innovative programs such as Community Paramedics who provide non -emergency follow-
up to help frequent 9-1-1 callers access social services and assistance
■ ACT to Save a Life, a new approach to first aid training
o Regional agency but roots remain in neighborhood fire stations. Firefighters take an active role
in community events
o The neighborhood fire station has the support and resources of an entire regional fire service.
■ Critical calls where seconds count require a lot of resources. For example:
- High performance CPR requires a minimum of 11 firefighters/EMTs and paramedics
working together to administer CPR, apply and operate a defibrillator and provide
critical medications
- A house fire requires a minimum of 15 firefighters to contain a fire to the room of
origin
o The lifesaving advantages of a regional fire authority connected to the local community and its
neighborhoods.
Acting Chief Dahl assured South County Fire is Edmonds' fire department and they want to ensure the City
takes advantages of all the services they offer. He reviewed:
• Map with South County Fire Regional Fire Authority service area and staffing at each fire station
• Serving our citizens
o Fires
o Medical emergencies
o Motor vehicle collisions
o Hazardous materials incidents
o Rescues
o Marine response
o Other hazards and emergency situation
Emergency medical services (EMS)
0 86% of calls are dispatched as EMS
o All firefighters are emergency medical technicians or paramedics
o Nationally recognized for excellence and innovation
■ 2018 save rate for CPR was 60%, the highest in the nation, State save rate was 37%
Community Paramedics
o Non -emergency services to help reduce 911 calls and hospital use
o Serves older adults, mental health patients, disabled people, homeless and veterans
o Breaks down barriers and create access to care (visits, emails, calls, texts)
ACT: Reinventing first aid
o Aligning first aid with threats to today's citizens
o In just one hour, ACT teaches 3 skills you can use to save a life in those first few minutes
before firefighters arrive:
Antidote for opiate overdose
CPR/AED for cardiac arrest
Tourniquet for bleeding control
0 4,000 people trained this year
o Will be a national program that started at South County Fire
Disaster Preparedness
o Programs offered include:
■ Neighborhood Ambassador workshops to help neighborhoods prepare
■ Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
4.1.a
Fire Prevention
o Inspections
■ New business: 195
■ Maintenance/follow-up:1,314
■ Construction Permits: 530
■ Special events: 36
■ Residential sprinkler: 90
0 490.75 hours of plan reviews
■ Major projects:
- Magic Toyota
- Westgate Apartments
- Westgate Center Fire Alarm and Sprinkler Retrofit
- Senior Center
- Post Office Complex
- 85C Bakery Fire Alarm Complex Retrofit
- Madrona Elementary
- Port of Edmonds Connector
Prevention Education
o Smoke alarm assistance: 84 installations in Edmonds
o Child car seat checks
o Bike helmets at all fire stations
o Falls prevention education
o School programs: 1,075 students reached in Edmonds
o Community presentations: 540 people reached in Edmonds
Community Involvement
o Neighborhood Night Open House at Station 17
0 9/11 Memorial Ceremony
o Station 17 Tour
o July 4 Parade and Waterball
Regional Training
o Working with other county departments to regionalize training
o Two major initiatives
■ Recruit Training Academy - Started March 19, 2018
■ Snohomish County Training Consortium
o Sharing instructors and expertise
o Reduced duplicated efforts
o Breaking down borders with neighboring fire agencies will allow us to work together more
effectively on mutual aid incidents
Emergency Responses - 2018 by the numbers and contract -required metrics
o How many calls?
■ Total incidents in the City of Edmonds in 2018: 5,555
■ 2014: 4,718
■ 2015: 5,291
■ 2016: 5,294
■ 2017: 5,215
■ 2018: 5,555 - 6.52% increase
Response Times
o Looks at 8-minute response time in four categories
o This measures from time of 911 call to arrival
o Comparisons of data for 2017 and 2018
o Response times are getting longer
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
■ Percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less
- 2016 82.14%
- 2017 79.99%
- 2018 75.72%
Response time on 90 percent of calls in this category
- 2106: 0:08:53
- 2017: 0:09:13
�►.LII E:1 i17 i11� i►.L•]
First Watch - Live response time compliance
o Launched April 1, 2019
o If the 2:15 response time standard is not met, the company officer and battalion chief gets an
alert
o Allows tracking by station and crew
Turnout Time
o Measures the time from when 911 call is dispatched to the time the apparatus leaves the station
o Standard in the contract is different from the standard in the 1756 compliance report: 2:15 vs.
2:45
■ Turnout time percentage at 2:15
- 2016 80.86%
- 2017 76.20%
- 2018 75.44%
■ 90% turnout time
- 2016 2:36
- 2017 2:46
- 2018 2:49
o Since the implementation of FirstWatch, turnout time has significantly improved
o For April 2019, compliance to the standard was 84.7% with a turnout time 2:29 minutes on
90% of emergency responses
• Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor
o What it evaluates:
■ Response of units across jurisdictional boundaries
o What the numbers mean:
■ 100% = an equal balance of cross jurisdictional response
■ Contract considers 90%-110% to be within balance range
■ Over 100% = units from neighboring jurisdictions are responding into Edmonds more than
Edmonds units are responding outside the city
o Why does this matter?
■ We have a regional emergency delivery system
■ This evaluates if level of service decisions in one jurisdiction negatively impact a
neighboring jurisdiction
• Neighboring Unit Utilization
2016
2017
2018
Mountlake Terrace
147.20%
135.30%
133.07%
Lynnwood
199.20%
148.30%
202.06%
RFA
--
--
147.61 %
o Neighboring fire units respond into Edmonds more than Edmonds units respond into
neighboring jurisdictions
■ Mountlake Terrace units: 33.07% more into Edmonds
■ Lynnwood units: 102.06% more into Edmonds
■ FRA Units: 47.61 % more into Edmonds
• Unit Hour Utilization Factor
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
4.1.a
o What it evaluates: Percentage of time a fire unit is on a call
o What the numbers mean: The higher the number, the busier the unit is
o Unit Hour Utilization Factor is up for Edmonds station, but within compliance with contract
standards
o This number is up at all Edmonds fire station
0 20% is the trigger to start looking at deployment options and additional resources
Unit Hour Utilization
2016
2017
2018
Station 16
9.90%
15.10%
15.06%
Station 17
13.20%
14.60%
13.11 %
Station 20
13.50%
16.30%
17.36%
Transport balancing factor
o These numbers show Edmonds units are doing more out -of -city transports than out -of -city units
are doing in Edmonds
o A factor of 1.0 means = in balance
o The difference is not large: 11 patients in Q2, 31 in Q3 and 20 in Q4
o Jan -June 0.955
o July -Dec 1.140
0 2018 1.046
Jan -Jun
Jul -Dec
2018
RFA transports in the City
213
245
458
Edmonds transports not in the City
223
215
438
TBF
0.955
1.140
1.046
Note: The regional fire authority was formed October 1, 2017, so Q4 includes the City of Lynwood
and responding units from Lynnwood fire stations
Other required metrics
o Transport fees billed and collected in Edmonds and Esperance
Edmonds Billed
Edmonds Collected
Esperance Billed
Esperance Collected
2016
$1,980,534
$862,360
$109,901
$48,587
2017
$2,095,695
$781,506
$100,894
$44,978
2018
$2,374,490
$1,013,928
$135,776
$53,080
o Shoreline units into Edmonds
■ 2016 107
■ 2017 69
�/�IIF:1iGIi?
o Edmonds unit into Woodway (measured in seconds)
■ 2016 2,220
■ 2017 9,738
■ 2018 164
• Standards of Cover Compliance
Standard
2016
2017
2018
Turnout Time in Standard of Cover
2:45
2:36
2:46
2:49
Turnout time in contract
2:15
2:36
2:46
2:49
First arriving engine to a fire
6:30
6:17
7:19
7:32
Full first alarm assignment at residential fire
7:45
8:43
18:06
8:32
Full first alarm assignment at commercial fire
9:00
11:24
11:55
10:57
BLS response
5:15
5:57
6:13
6:00
ALS response
6:45
7:11
7:15
5:40
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
4.1.a
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed the Council's sorrow at the loss of Commissioner Schrock.
She referred to the increase in calls in Edmonds and asked what type of calls had increased and whether it
was related to opioids. Deputy Chief Eastman said 86% of calls were dispatched as EMS; they did not see
anything different in the reason for calls in Edmonds, but the increase was primarily in EMS calls. Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked if that increase was seen in other cities. Deputy Chief Eastman said
Edmonds was the only jurisdiction with an increase, all others had had a decrease and overall the RFA had
125 fewer calls in 2018 compared to 2017. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there was any
overriding reason. Deputy Chief Eastman said based on the percentages, it was an increase in EMS
responses.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the neighboring unit utilization factor, and asked how it relates to fire
station locations. The neighboring unit utilization factor graph appears to indicate it is out of balance if
more units respond from Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace and the RFA into Edmonds. Acting Chief Dahl
agreed it was out of balance. Things they look at are whether the stations in in the right locations, whether
calls in one area of the City require neighboring units to cover, etc. Councilmember Johnson said it was
difficult to tell from the numbers the exact dynamics of the situation. Acting Chief Dahl expected there
would be discussions in the future regarding options to address this.
Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in those discussions, in understanding what Edmonds needs are
and what resources there are. She wondered it was related to the aging population in Edmonds; Lynnwood
has a younger population. Edmonds was the only city whose call volume increased and it increased by
approximately 350. There may be some relationship between the attractiveness of Edmonds as retirement
community and the number of EMS calls. Acting Chief Dahl agreed that was possible, but sometimes
jurisdictions simply have a bad year. This was the first year the total number of calls did not go up. If the
number of calls in Edmonds continues to increase, further analysis may be warranted.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the number of calls in Edmonds in 2018, pointing out the increase in
Edmonds was 6.52%, dramatically higher than the rate of population growth. He asked if there was any
correlation between the increase in calls and population growth. Deputy Chief Eastman said overall in 2014-
2017, there has been a 12% increases in call demand and there was not a correlation to population growth.
They have studied a number of factors but were unable to determine why call demand outpaced population
growth. Historically the number of calls could be estimated based on population. Looking at Edmonds
specially, they were unable to point to anything that caused an increase.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to section 2.4 of the contract, Review of Service Delivery Objectives,
which states, "It has been recommended that the parties move toward a performance based contract where
the city pays for a particular level of service that is measured by service delivery objectives such as response
time instead of a particular number of positions." He asked the status of that. Acting Chief Dahl said there
are things that bring the parties to the table such as compliance numbers. Those discussion will need to
happen again and have occurred in the past with staff. The board may have more insight during the joint
meeting with the Council on June 25'. Councilmember Teitzel asked if other fire districts across the state
or the country have performance based contracts. Acting Chief Dahl answered not that he knew of, private
ambulances companies do but not fire service.
Councilmember Teitzel pointed out the contract requires quarterly updates on metrics as well as an annual
report by the end of March each year; this report is being provided at the end of May. He asked the reason
for the delay and the downside if those standards were not met. Acting Chief Dahl said the first quarterly
report was provided in March. There was a lot of confusion regarding when they would make a presentation.
Councilmember Teitzel said it was important the quarterly reports were provided in a timely manner so the
Council could analyze the metrics and make adjustments if necessary. The contract requires the district to
provide the reports, and it was not clear what the downside was if those reports were not provided. City
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
4.1.a
Attorney Jeff Taraday said that was a fair point, but did not see any real downside other than the City could
claim some sort of default but that would take the parties into a dispute resolution process that is probably
unnecessary. Better communication on both sides may result in the reports being submitted in a timely
manner.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed his appreciation to South County Fire for providing equipment and
personnel for events such as the 4t1i of July parade, the Easter Egg hunt, etc. He asked whether those units
were offline or did they respond from events and how that impacted response time. Acting Chief Dahl said
it depends; for example, the ladder truck is at the front of the parade so it can respond in a major emergency.
The apparatus and personnel at Waterball are off duty/out of service and other crews backfill. Apparatus
and personnel at tours and ribbon cuttings are in service and respond as necessary. At Edmonds Night Out,
the rigs and personnel are out of service and another crew backfills but they could respond if something
major happened.
Mayor Earling suggested having a discussion about the timing of the annual meeting. He observed the
South County Fire Board of Commissioners also meets on Tuesday evenings and recalled on at least one
occasion, the chief was not available. Acting Chief Dahl agreed and assured the quarterly reports will be
provided in a timely manner.
6. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Teitzel reported:
Disabili , Board: A third LEOFF 1 retiree was recently moved into long term care. The City reimburses
for long term care costs that are medically necessary and not covered by insurance. The cost for long term
care is $6,000-$7,000/month, so the total cost is a substantial budget issue. There are about 25 LEOFF 1
retirees who are in their 70s and 80s and more will be requiring long term care.
Port of Edmonds: Working with Sound Transit to access potential parking options. Looking at a potential
parking structure for Edmonds and Mukilteo. The Port wants to ensure a parking structure does not result
in a net loss of parking for Port tenants. Developing an informational mailer that will be sent to residents in
the Port District as many residents do not understand what the Port does. First quarter 2019 finances indicate
the Port is in good financial shape. Bonds used to purchase Harbor Square will be retired in early 2020
which will directly enhance the Port's bottom line. Permanent moorage at the marina is 95% full and Harbor
Square is 98% occupied. Moving toward more environmentally friendly weed control to reduce toxic runoff
into the Edmonds Marsh and Puget Sound. Installing containers filled with crushed oyster shells to filter
stormwater. Planning to beautify the boardwalk and the entrance to the marina piers. Beautification project
on the corner of Dayton/SR-104. The 2-3" transition between the concrete sidewalk and the gravel path on
the corner is not ADA compliant and will need to be resolved. The Port feels they have invested enough in
the project and because it is City property, thinks it should be addressed by the City. Perhaps it can be
handled by the new concrete crew.
Councilmember Tibbott reported
Alliance for Housing Affordability: Had a report from neighboring cities regarding their plans for
affordable housing. Two House bills were passed by the legislature. HB 1406 allows each city to determine
a tax rate by resolution to collect funds that would be used for affordable housing. AHA will provide a
report on the bill and a sample resolution. A detailed report was provided regarding housing data in
Snohomish County. Although housing construction has returned to a level higher than during the recession,
it is not high enough to accommodate the new population moving into the area which puts pressure on the
cost of housing and drives some people into unstable or incompatible housing. He expected the AHA
director will provide a full report to the City Council in the future.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
4.1.a
Health District: Considering what to do with their building in Everett. The offer to purchase the building
fell through.
Housing Commission: She appreciated Councilmember Tibbott's assistance. Ms. Hope will provide an
update to the Council in two weeks. The deadline for applications was extended as some residents indicated
they had not received postcards announcing the commission.
Councilmember Johnson reported:
Historic Preservation Commission: Planning an exhibit at the Edmonds Historical Museum. Another issue
of the Preservationist is being developed that describes how to preserve your home and details about
windows in historic buildings. Reviewing several applications for properties to be added to the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
8. REPORTS
MARCH 2O19 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Assistant Finance Director Dave Turley provided quiz questions, advising the answers will be revealed at
the end of his presentation. He reviewed the 1st Quarter 2019 Summary Financial Report
• The City has many funds we have to keep track of. They are grouped into about 6 categories
o General Fund 41 %
o Enterprise Fund — the Utilities 38%
o Parks & Street Construction 9%
o Special Revenue Funds 8%
o Internal Service Funds 3%
o Other 1 %
• General Fund Q 12019
o General Fund revenues are $42,000 (0.6%) ahead of last year and $391,000 (5.3%) behind
budget
o General Fund expenses are $666,000 (6.7%) ahead of last year, and $1.5 million 13.1 % behind
budget
o Overall reasonable results for the first three months of the year
• Graph of General Fund 6 Month Trend - Revenues and Expenses Budget to Actual
• Graph of General Fund Revenues vs. Expenses, 6 Month Trend
• Graph of sources of Sales Tax Revenue
o Sales Tax at 27% of 2019 budget
• General Fund 3 months — other noteworthy revenues
o Property Taxes are lagging 32% behind Q 1 of last year. The County began sending us our
property taxes 14 times per year rather than 24 times. This lag will even itself out.
o Building Permit revenue is down from $148,000 this time last year, to $105,000 this year.
o Nothing has occurred to date that would disrupt the Council's 2019 priorities
• Graph of Interest Income 2013-2018
• Graph of General Fund Fund Balance last four quarters (General Fund alone and subfunds of the
General Fund)
• Summary
o We have had almost 10 years of recovery from the Great Recession, characterized by low
inflation and mostly slow growth in the regional and national economies.
o Edmonds is in good financial shape.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
4.1.a
o We currently have sufficient reserves to weather an unexpected downturn in the economy.
Mr. Turley revealed the answers to the quiz questions:
• Question 1: How many active funds does the City have to account for?
o Answer: Thirty-five.
• Question 2: Out of all the City funds, how many have a 2109 expenditure budget of more than
$5M?
o Answer: Five.
■ General Fund: $44AM
■ Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund: $17.3
■ Water Utility Fund: $12.2M
■ Storm Utility Fund: $9.7M
■ Street Construction: $6M
■ Total: $90M
• Question 3: What is the single biggest source of revenue to the General Fund? Property Taxes,
Sales Tax, Licenses and Permits or something else?
o Answer: Property tax. The original 2019 budget forecast included $10.5M for property taxes,
$7.8M for sales taxes.
Mr. Turley highlighted awards the City received:
• Awards
o CAFR Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and
o PAFR Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Turley for his entertaining presentation, commenting it
helps the Council remember facts. Mr. Turley said it is important that the City Council and Mayor have a
good understanding of the City's finances.
9. ACTION ITEMS
1. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE -2019 CUES SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION TRUCK
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the proposed purchase of a new sewer truck to replace
truck #62, the Sewer Division's video inspection truck that has been in service for the last decade. The
purchase was included in the 2019 approved budget at $425,000, the net cost after selling the existing truck.
The actual purchase of the truck, less the sale of the existing truck to Cues is $412,999.59. An additional
$2400 will be used to purchase lights for the truck that will be sent to Cues to be installed when the truck
arrives. The total cost is approximately $414,000. This was presented to the Planning & Public Works
(PPW) Committee in April and it was forwarded to full Council due to the large purchase price. It was
pulled from the April 16' Council agenda and referred back to the PPW Committee for further Q&A and
again forwarded to the full Council. He offered to respond to any additional questions.
Councilmember Johnson agreed with Mr. Williams' summary to date. The truck was authorized in the 2019
budget but the Council has a second opportunity to approval at the time of the contract. The cost of vehicle
is $462,999.59, plus after -market addons of $2400 for a subtotal of $465,399.59 less the $50,000 trade-in
for a total of $415,399.59 which is below the budgeted amount. The video camera and radio will be salvaged
from the existing truck. The existing truck is 10 years old and has low mileage and uses a generator. The
new truck has a useful life of 12 years. The camera is relatively new and will be salvaged. Mr. Williams
answered the DUC camera will be retained. During the 10 years the City has owned the truck, camera
digital technology has advanced and the DUC camera was purchased about five years ago. The DUC
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
camera, a high definition camera with a wide angle lens operates on tractors and fits in an 8-inch sewer
pipe, takes a series of photographs which requires a great deal of processing and computer power.
Councilmember Johnson summarized the camera will salvaged. Mr. Williams said it will be a backup to a
new DUC camera. The cost of the replacement truck is $100,000 higher due to the new DUC camera.
Everything else will remain on the existing truck that will be traded in. The intent was to leave the truck
fully equipped with cameras so a smaller city or private company could use it.
Councilmember Johnson said this truck will be dedicated to the Sewer Division and another division also
owns a truck. Mr. Williams said the Storm Utility also has a truck. Councilmember Johnson recalled when
staff was asked why they could not share the truck, they said there were scheduling problems. She suggested
it may be more cost effective to hire a scheduler than to purchase a new truck. Mr. Williams clarified it was
not a scheduling problem, the Sewer Division uses their truck constantly. To test whether a Sewer inspection
truck would work for the Storm Division which has a different piping system with many more flaws in the
pipe, staff tried sharing it for about 1 %2 years. The truck provided a lot of good information regarding the
storm system but there were not enough hours available on the truck to meet the needs of both divisions.
The Council approved a video inspection truck for the Storm Division in a previous year's budget. The
alternative was to hire Bravo Environmental to do initial video inspections which would cost $3M and have
taken 3 years. The Sewer Division has always had a video inspection truck; this is simply the replacement.
Councilmember Johnson said she was trying to balance the needs and the cost. If the City could get 12
years out of the new truck and the existing truck is 10 years old, possibly it could be retained for 1-2 more
years. The City needs to get the best value from its equipment and not just look at a replacement schedule.
It's important to ask critical questions to ensure this is what the City really needs. She anticipated
technology will change sooner than 12 years and she wanted to ensure the City was not purchasing a truck
too soon and was getting the most out of the existing equipment. She clarified she was not questioning the
need for the truck but when it needed to be purchased. Mr. Williams said mileage is a non -issue, it is the
hours on the equipment after daily use for 10 years. The generator has already been replaced once which
was a very expensive repair.
Councilmember Johnson said if the truck has low mileage and the camera is salvageable, possibly it could
be used for another 1-2 years. Mr. Williams said that is not his recommendation. Councilmember Johnson
reiterated her question was whether the existing truck could be used for another 1-2 years. Mr. Williams
reiterated he did not recommend it. Councilmember Johnson said she was sure he would like to have brand
new, state of the art equipment, but the Council needs to be mindful of the ratepayers. This is an enterprise
fund and although there are funds available, the ratepayers need to be protected and ensure they are getting
the best value as $400,000 is a lot of money. Mr. Williams said the life expectancy of the new truck was
increased to 12 years. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the time period for the existing truck was not
being extended. Mr. Williams agreed it was not, because it was not providing the necessary level of service
and its downtime has been increasing.
Councilmember Johnson said she had not seen those figures; she was only using the information available
to her. Mr. Williams said the amount of time the truck has been down in the last couple years has not been
acceptable. One of the reasons was the difficulty of the new camera interfacing with the existing equipment.
The value of the information provided by the camera is very high, but the camera is a better fit with the
new version of the Cues truck. The City got 10 years out of the existing truck as expected. The City often
keeps vehicles longer than their expected service life; this one has not worked out that way. It is scheduled
to be replaced in 10 years and it needs to be replaced. He was hopeful the next one would last 12 years. He
summarized this type of vehicle is complicated and requires a lot of maintenance. Councilmember Johnson
said this is why she wanted to discuss it and why she brought it back to the PPW Committee.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
4.1.a
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the final price will be less than the amount budgeted and
it was approved in the 20109 budget. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott asked if it was
Mr. Williams expert opinion that the truck could be used immediately if was available. Mr. Williams
answered certainly.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PURCHASE (1) 2019 CUES VIDEO
INSPECTION TRUCK FROM CUES, THROUGH HGAC CONTRACT #SCO1-18.
Councilmember Teitzel, a member of the PPW Committee, agreed with Councilmember Johnson referring
the purchase back to the PPW Committee for further Q&A. He was comfortable Mr. Williams and his team
have resolved all the questions. He recalled at the PPW Committee staff stated the cost of the truck was
$100,000 and the remaining cost was the electronics, camera, generator, etc. The existing equipment is
obsolete and difficult to repair. He summarized the City needs this tool to ensure the sewer system, a critical
piece of the infrastructure, is top notch. It was approved in the 2019 budget, questions have been answered
and he was prepared to proceed.
MOTION TIED (2-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING
NO.
Mr. Taraday said the Mayor is allowed to break a tie on matters that are not ordinances or resolutions for
the payment of money. There is not a resolution in the packet; this is a purchasing decision that is outside
the Mayor's normal contracting authority. Mr. Williams said it is before the Council because it is over
$100,000; it was approved in the budget. Mr. Taraday commented this is a gray area; the statute regarding
the Mayor breaking a tie states the Mayor cannot break a tie on ordinances and resolutions for the payment
of money. The statute does not go into detail about a resolution for the payment of money; there is no
resolution in the packet and the City does not typically approve contracts by resolution. In his opinion the
Mayor was allowed to break a tie but he was not 100% certain.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling this item on the June 4t' agenda Council agenda.
At Mayor Earling's request, Mr. Taraday agreed to explore the issue during the next agenda items.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling advised interviews for Interim Human Resources Director will be held this week and he was
hopeful an appointment could be made early next week. The HR Director position was published last
Thursday and applications will be accepted for three weeks.
Mayor Earling reported the Memorial Day service at the cemetery was attended by hundreds. He apologized
to Councilmember Johnson for not announcing that she was present. Another celebration at the Veterans
Plaza, attended by a couple hundred people, included the dedication of an information kiosk where veterans
can access information.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Tibbott reported on the Memorial Day celebration, commenting it was the first time he had
attended, and found it a wonderful celebration. His lasting memory will be the wind that blew during the
raising of the flags. It was a majestic day in Edmonds and he encouraged others to attend the event in the
future.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 14
4.1.a
Councilmember Teitzel reported he attended and enjoyed both Memorial Day events. He recognized Olivia
Olson, a former Edmonds-Woodway High School student, who made a great speech without notes. He also
applauded her mother who is in tonight's audience. The event at the Veterans plaza had a special focus on
Korean War Veterans which had special meaning to him as his father was a veteran of the Korean War.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she also attended the Memorial Day ceremony, commenting it
brings back memories of both her parents who served in WWII. She relayed the bookstore on 4r' Avenue,
Reread Books, is closing and have asked people to bring bags and boxes to remove books.
Council President Fraley-Monillas read a statement in response to last week:
"I wanted to make a statement to the comments by the Mayor at last week's Council meeting. I am
concerned by the way the administration is game -shipping in a heated election year, particularly calling out
specific elected officials on camera. This administration has spent many, many years cultivating an us
versus them attitude between the staff and the three different Councils I have served on within the City.
The Council has served well during all administrations. It has endured that staff do not have good working
relationships with most of Council, particularly those Councilmembers that disagree with the
administration's decisions that have appeared to have been made based upon special interests and outside
City influences under the guise of being a regional player. We the electeds have been undermined, plotted
against, besmirched, embarrassed and joked about behind closed doors. We have been vilified, victimized
and bullied into decisions that do not benefit the citizens of this great City.
What must be understood is that we are not the administrative part of the City. We direct the legislative
branch, we create the laws, ordinances and rules of our City including full control of the budget. It is clear
that our authority has not been respected and moreover, has been actively worked against. Everyone on this
dais has election year favorites but for those electeds to run interference when they will no longer be serving
the City is out of line. I believe campaign influences including those representing outside groups, inject a
negative tone to what should be a civil discourse. Facts are stubborn things, says John Adams. I have been
in touch with the Public Disclosure Commission and will be publicly filing complaints for potential
investigations in the future.
Are the seven members of this Council perfect? Heck no. We make mistakes as any human beings do. But
our mistakes are made with the best intentions of our City. I wish I could say this about all the electeds. I
think there was an attempt last week to undermine the hardworking Council. The City Council does not
appreciate being set up, publicly shamed and bullied with grandstanding statements. I urge citizens to speak
out against bully behavior. We've had enough of this coming from Washington D.C.
I must say, every member of this Council thinks the staff are good people who try the best to move the City
forward in a positive manner. Unfortunately, they can become pawns. Who is the man behind the curtain?
Maybe it's time to pull the curtain back and be recognized."
With regard to whether the Mayor could break a tie regarding the purchase of the Cues Sewer Video
Inspection Truck, Mr. Taraday said there are only two cases about the statute and neither are helpful. He
read the applicable portion of the statute: "The mayor shall have a vote only in the case of a tie in the votes
of the councilmembers with respect to matters other than the passage of any ordinance, grant or revocation
of franchise or license or any resolution for the payment of money." The question is what does "resolution
for the payment of money" mean? There is no guidance in caselaw regarding what that means. Technically,
there is no resolution so one could make the argument that there is no resolution for the payment of money.
On the other hand, Mr. Taraday said he is mindful the Mayor's contracting authority comes from the City
Council. If this is before the Council because the contract exceeds the Mayor's contracting authority, it
seems reasonable it should require a majority vote of the Councilmembers. He acknowledged it was a very
close call. In a close situation like this where he is not able to provide a definitive opinion, he suggested
waiting until additional Councilmembers are present to take the vote. He has never been shy about telling
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 13
Packet Pg. 15
4.1.a
the Mayor when he has the authority to break a tie but was not sure he did tonight. Mayor Earling said he
was simply searching for the right answer. Based on Mr. Taraday's comments, Mayor Earling said he was
not willing to break the tie and be the deciding vote and therefore the motion fails.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 28, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 16
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of replacement claim checks #237048 through #237050 dated May 29, 2019 for $589.29, claim
checks #237051 through #237142 dated May 30, 2019 for $1,145,869.81 and wire payment of $417.67.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
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.
Attachments:
re -issued claims 05-29-19
claims 05-30-19
wire 05-30-19
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 05-30-19
Packet Pg. 17
vchlist
05/29/2019 10 :17:15AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
237048
5/29/2019 067594 BROWN, MICHAEL
BC94818
SICK LEAVE BUYBACK
REIMBURSEMENT FOR 14.65 UNPF
422.000.72.531.70.11.00
Total
237049
5/29/2019 076634 EVELYN ROGERS
3-16200
#40205824-807-CR4 UTILITY REFUI
#40205824-807-CR4 Utility refund -
411.000.233.000
Total
237050
5/29/2019 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN
14063
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
14779
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
Total
3 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total
3 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers
4.2.a
Page: 1
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 18
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
237051
5/30/2019
041695 3M XAM3522
9760087721
TRAFFIC - FILM ROLLS
Traffic - Film Rolls
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Tota I :
237052
5/30/2019
070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
15-66356
INTERPRETER - FARSI-
INTERPRETER - FARSI-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-70281
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-70829
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-70843
INTERPRETER - KOREAN-
INTERPRETER - KOREAN-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-71116
INTERPRETER - PUNJABI-
INTERPRETER - PUNJABI-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Tota I :
237053
5/30/2019
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
21149
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
21224
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST COW
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Tota I :
237054
5/30/2019
061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
519357
P&R LEAGUE SHIRTS
P&R LEAGUE SHIRTS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
4.2.b
Page: 1
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 19
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237054 5/30/2019 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX (Continued)
237055 5/30/2019 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 27733
237056
237057
237058
5/30/2019 077074 ALL AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INT 04092019
5/30/2019 065473 APSCO LLC
5/30/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
05062019
21205
1991229537
4.2.b
Page: 2
PO # Description/Account Amoun
c
10.4% Sales Tax
d
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
31.0 1 >,
Total:
329.8E a
m
PM: BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TEST:
3
PM: BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TEST:
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
120.0(
Total :
120.0( Y
U
INTERPRETER - ASL-
t
INTERPRETER - ASL-
U
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
110.4z
INTERPRETER - ASL-
INTERPRETER - ASL-
o
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
110.4z R
Total:
220.81 o
L
Q
WWTP: OMEGA BLOWER SYNTH. (
Q-
Q
OMEGA BLOWER SYNTH. OIL
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
63.4,
DOMED OIL SIGHT GLASS CPL
o
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
M
28.3E 0
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
6.6( E
10.4% Sales Tax
M
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
2.9E U
Total :
101.1 r-
m
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
t
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
m
r
001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6- Q
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1-
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1-
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 20
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237058 5/30/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 3
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
c
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1- E,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
a
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1 - L
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
3
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
sa
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1, Y
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z U
10.4% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z R
10.4% Sales Tax
,-
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
>
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6" Q
1991229538 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
M
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
c
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� M
FLEET DIVISION MATS
o
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1( E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9E
1991253681 WWTP: 5/22/19 UNIFORMSJOWEL
t
Mats/Towels
m
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
r
47.8E Q
Uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 4.9f
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 21
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 4
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237058 5/30/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
E,
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.3(
1991253682
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
f°
a
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
L
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
51.5" .3
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
c
5.3(
1991259403
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
(n
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
U
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6' �
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1' 2
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
,U
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1 - O
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
>
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1' o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
a
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1' Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
rn
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.Of c
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1 -o
10.4% Sales Tax
E
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6,
10.4% Sales Tax
m
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.61 t
10.4% Sales Tax
r
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.61 Q
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6'
1991259404
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 22
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 5
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237058
5/30/2019
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2�
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1(
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9 "
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9E
Total :
247.2°
237059
5/30/2019
071377 ARGUELLES, ERIN
5/20/2019
EAC SUMMER CONCERTS COORD
EAC SUMMER CONCERTS COORD
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
1,540.0(
Total:
1,540.0(
237060
5/30/2019
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
60033
ROUGH BOX - MOORE
ROUGH BOX -MOORE
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
543.0(
60190
ROUGH BOX - GOOD
ROUGHBOX-GOOD
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
543.0(
Total :
1,086.0(
237061
5/30/2019
001527 AWWA
7001671294
WATER - MBR ANNUAL RENEWAL
Water - Mbr Annual Renewal
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
2,109.0(
Total :
2,109.0(
237062
5/30/2019
075217 BASLER, ANTHONY
37352
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
106.4�
38552
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
106.4�
Total :
212.91
237063
5/30/2019
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
10530
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 581 GAL
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 23
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237063
5/30/2019 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
(Continued)
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 581 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,104.5, >%
10546
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 590 GAL
f°
a
Fleet Auto Propane 590 Gal
L
.3
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,122.0(
1108407-IN
UNITS E161,162,163EQ - AUTOGAS
c
Units El61,162,163EQ - AutoGas
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
17,499.3( Y
10.4% Sales Tax
U
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
1,819.9'
Total:
21,545.8' E
.ii
237064
5/30/2019 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
7276 7280 YOGA
7276 7280 YOGA INSTRUCTION
U
7276 YOGA GENTLE WED INSTRU(
o
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
448.8(
7280 YOGA INSTRUCTION
o
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
233.5E 0-
7284 7272 CLASSES
7284 7272 YOGA AND PILATES INS-
Q
7284 PILATES INSTRUCTION
rn
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
394.6f
7272 YOGA WED W/ KERRY CLASS
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
841.5( c
Total:
1,918.5:
E
237065
5/30/2019 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE
052819
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WA DC TRH
2
Mileage to/from SeaTac for trip to WA
U
001.000.11.511.60.43.00
34.8(
Ubers and Taxis in WA DC
E
001.000.11.511.60.43.00
54.3E U
Parking at SeaTac Airport
f°
001.000.11.511.60.43.00
43.0E Q
Diane's food & beverage in WA DC
001.000.11.511.60.43.00
77.3�
Total:
209.6E
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 24
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 7
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237066
5/30/2019
077034 BURLEY, SHANNON
5/24/2019
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - 2019 NIM;
REIMBURSE MILEAGE EXPENSES
001.000.64.571.22.43.00
32.9z >,
Total:
32.9' a
m
237067
5/30/2019
076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC
5599987
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
3
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
564.7"
10.0% Sales Tax
Y
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
56.4 � u
5601759
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
E
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
27.7( O
5602131
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
o
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
206.2( a
10.0% Sales Tax
Q
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
20.6, M
5602483
ROADWAY - ASPHLAT
Roadway - Asphlat
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
457.2, c
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
45.7, .
Total:
1,655.6° TU
237068
5/30/2019
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
20099588
CONTRACT CHARGE
r-
CONTRACT CHARGE
E
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
147.4 1 U
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
15.3z Q
20099590
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 5/1/1
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 5/1/1
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
772.0,
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 25
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237068
5/30/2019
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
80.3(
20099600
RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS C
RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS C
f°
a
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
32.4, (D
10.4% Sales Tax
3
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
3.3E -0
Total:
1,051.0: M
237069
5/30/2019
075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION 90
COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT/
U)
U
Consulting: Communications and
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
2,500.0( E
Total:
2,500.0( ii
z
237070
5/30/2019
076994 CASEY & DONLEY INC
1234
RAW APPEAL-
o
RAW APPEAL
'ii
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
784.3( o
Total:
784.3( a
a
237071
5/30/2019
075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON
7100184327
WWTP: 5-2019 JANITORIAL SERVIC
Q
JANITORIAL SERVICE
r'
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
514.0( o
Total :
514.0(
0
237072
5/30/2019
070673 CROSS MATCH TECHNOLOGIES INC
301335
INV 301335 CUST 4069 MAINT.6/1/1
E
MAINT GUARD 200 AND 300
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
671.0(
MAINT 2 LAPTOPS
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
544.0E E
MAINT LSMS SUB SOFTWARE
t
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
181.3E
MAINT LSMS CONFIG
r
Q
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
544.0E
FIRST DAY ONSITE IMPL
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
2,266.8E
SUBSEQUENT DAY TRAINING
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 26
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 9
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237072
5/30/2019
070673
CROSS MATCH TECHNOLOGIES INC
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
918.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
533.0�
Total:
5,658.4E
237073
5/30/2019
075925
CROSSROADS STRATEGIES LLC
1014053
FEDERAL LOBBYIST FOR APRIL 20
Federal lobbyist for April 2019
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
6,000.0(
1014077
FEDERAL LOBBYIST FOR MAY 201
Federal lobbyist for May 2019
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
6,000.0(
Total:
12,000.0(
237074
5/30/2019
076849
DE SANTIS, ANNE
37709
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
103.8(
Total :
103.8(
237075
5/30/2019
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
19-3934
5/21/2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5/21/2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
374.5(
Total :
374.5(
237076
5/30/2019
007253
DUNN LUMBER
6339765
PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027
PM SUPPLIES: WOOD FASTENERS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
191.5(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
20.1
Total:
211.6'
237077
5/30/2019
063037
EARLING, DAVE
052819
WA DC TRIP
mileage to and from airport
001.000.21.513.10.43.00
37.4,
parking at airport
001.000.21.513.10.43.00
79.8 ,
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 27
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 10
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237077 5/30/2019 063037 063037 EARLING, DAVE
(Continued)
Total :
117.3'
m
237078 5/30/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
3-01808
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S
E
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
sa
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
a
55.6< m
3-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
3
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
392.6,
3-07490
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
104.2E t
3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
U
E
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
55.6< Z
3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
14-
o
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
55.6' o
3-09350
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
L
a
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
Q"
Q
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
104.2E M
3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
M
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
55.6< <n
3-29875
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
N
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
51.2, 12
3-38565
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
51.2, E
Total:
926.1' U
m
r
237079 5/30/2019 068803 EJ USA INC
110190026149
SEWER - CLEANOUTS
Q
Sewer - Cleanouts
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1,252.6E
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
50.0(
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 28
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237079 5/30/2019 068803 EJ USA INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
237080 5/30/2019 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR135230
237081 5/30/2019 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES
AR 135645
7057 DANCE CLASS
7058 DANCE CLASS
237082 5/30/2019 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI 9050568
237083 5/30/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
Total :
METER CHARGE
METER CHARGE
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
Maintenance for printers 05/21/19 -
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total
7057 FRIDAY NIGHT EAST COAST 1
7057 FRIDAY NIGHT EAST COAST [
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
7058 FRIDAY NIGHT TWO STEP DA
7058 FRIDAY NIGHT TWO STEP DA
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
W WTP: METHOD 30B TRAP ANALY
METHOD 30B TRAP ANALYSIS (WO
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
EDH851497 CITY ORDINANCE 4147
CITY ORDINANCE 4147
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH853285 CITY ORDINANCE 4148
CITY ORDINANCE 4148
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH854109 CITY ORDINANCE 4149
CITY ORDINANCE 4149
4.2.b
Page: 11
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 12
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237083
5/30/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
(Continued)
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
30.7
EDH856446
CITY NOTICE LIMITED NONCONFO
CITY NOTICE LIMITED NONCONFO
f°
a
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
47.0E L
Total:
125.5: '3
237084
5/30/2019 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
0757757
WATER METER INV #2027 M-METEI
Water Meter Inv #2027 M-METER-02
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
3,160.5z u
#2024 M-METER-0.625-010
t
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
U
3,155.8E E
10.4% Sales Tax
ii
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
656.9" u
0757765
WATER METER INVENTORY #2024
0
Water Meter Inventory #2024
�a
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
450.8z o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
46.8� Q
0757767
WATER INVENTORY #0476 W-VALV
M
Water Inventory #0476 W-VALVBR-0;
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
446.5E roi
10.4% Sales Tax
LO
0
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
46.4z
0761319
WATER - PIPE SUPPLIES
E
Water - Pipe Supplies
fd
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1,072.8(
10.4% Sales Tax
(D
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
111.5, E
Total:
9,148.4; m
r
237085
5/30/2019 065023 FLUKE ELECTRONICS
39723189
WWTP: CALIBRATE CLAMP METER
Q
CALIBRATE CLAMP METER
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
96.0(
Total :
96.0(
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 13
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237086 5/30/2019 011900 FRONTIER
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
r
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
c
E,
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
31.1 ,
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
f°
a
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
L
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
162.7- .3
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
302.1,
253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
Y
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
U
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.8
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.9( n
253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
U
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
O
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
47.0z >
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
o
L
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
87.3E a
425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
Q
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
M
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
73.2- c
425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA}
�?
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA)
Q
0
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
138.&
509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI
E
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI
R
U
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.4,
Total:
925.6: aD
E
237087 5/30/2019 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
212906/1
WATER - RESETTER FOR 303 EDM
U
Water - Resetter for 303 Edmonds St
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
225.6z Q
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
23.4,
K12900/1
WATER - 2" BLOWOFF VALVE DAY1
Water - 2" Blowoff Valve Dayton St
Page:
13
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 14
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237087
5/30/2019
069733
H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1,449.7',
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
150.7,
K213216/1
SEWER SUPPLIES
Sewer Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
838.8�
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
87.2,
Total :
2,775.7-
237088
5/30/2019
012560
HACH COMPANY
11473286
WWTP: 5/19/19-5/18/20 HACH 3954;
5/19/19-5/18/20 HACH 395434 SRV
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
12,771.8<
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
1,328.2�
Total :
14,100.1:
237089
5/30/2019
074804
HARLES, JANINE
May 2019
PHOTOGRAPHY - MAY 2019
Photography for May 2019
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
200.0(
Tota I :
200.0(
237090
5/30/2019
076333
HASA INC
639593
WWTP: 5/20/19 SOD. HYPOCHLORI
5/20/19 SOD. HYPOCHLORITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
3,940.1(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
409.7,
Tota I :
4,349.8
237091
5/30/2019
010900
HD FOWLER CO INC
I5072205
WATER - 2" BLOWOFF VALVE FOR
Water - 2" Blowoff Valve for Dayton S
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1,485.3(
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
152.9F
Total:
1.638.21
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 15
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237092 5/30/2019 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
2018-156
TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKI
r
Tourism promotion and marketing for
c
m
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
1,666.0( �%
Tourism website maintenance for Mai
a
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
200.0( L
Total:
1,866.0( .3
237093 5/30/2019 061013 HONEY BUCKET
0551066414
SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET C
ea
SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET C
Y
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
-55.8' u
0551066415
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551072718
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
o
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
607.6,
0551072719
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
o
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
a
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
309.2' Q
0551072720
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
233.7E
0551072721
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
c
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
N
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E .
0551072722
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E
0551072723
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
E
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
U
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
215.0E
0551072724
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B(
Q
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B(
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E
0551072725
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
Page:
15
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237093 5/30/2019 061013 HONEY BUCKET
237094
237095
237097
5/30/2019 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
5/30/2019 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC
5/30/2019 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
0551072726
0551072727
300-10057290
047
7890 KINDERMUSIK
7892 KINDERMUSIK
7893 KINDERMUSIK
5/30/2019 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR 10240
4.2.b
Page: 16
PO # Description/Account Amoun
c
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,394.2(
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
E
>,
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
f°
a
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E
L
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
3
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E
Total :
3,146.3E
(n
U
UNITS E161,162,163EQ - PARTS
t
Units E161,162,163EQ - Parts
U
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
900.0E
M
10.4% Sales Tax
z
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
93.6'
o
Total :
993.6E
1i
0
STATE LOBBYIST FOR MAY 2019
a
State lobbyist for May 2019
Q
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
3,358.0(
Total :
3,358.0(
r'
7890 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
0
M
LO
7890 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
o
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
334.9E
E
7892 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
7892 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
287.1(
7893 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
E
7893 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
430.6E
tea,
Total : 1,052.7( Q
PM: SEAVIEW PARK KIDS PLAYARI
PM: SEAVIEW PARK KIDS PLAYARI
125.000.64.594.76.65.41 2,500.0(
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237097 5/30/2019 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR (Continued)
237098 5/30/2019 073780 KAMINS CONSTRUCTION INC
237099 5/30/2019 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
E7CD.Pmt 1
05172019-02
237100 5/30/2019 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW 27202
237101 5/30/2019 019582 MANOR HARDWARE
27203
27204
27205
962399-00
4.2.b
Page: 17
PO # Description/Account Amoun
c
10.4% Sales Tax
m
E,
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
260.0(
Total:
2,760.0( a
m
E7CD.PMT 1 THRU 5/01/19
3
E7CD.Pmt 1 thru 5/1/19
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
107,152.0(
E7CD.Ret 1
Y
126.000.223.400
-5,357.6( u
Total :
101,794.4(
CITY CAR WASHES
E
City Car Washes
2
U
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
10.1 o
Total :
10.1 ' Ta
GARRIS - 9Z0438057
a
GARRIS - 9Z0438057
Q-
Q
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
300.0(
WICHELS - 8Z1124048
M
WICHELS - 8Z1124048
0
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
M
300.0( 0
WICHELS - 9Z0192253
WICHELS - 9Z0192253
E
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
300.0( .�
WICHELS - 8Z112407
WICHELS - 8Z112407
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
300.0( E
Total:
1,200.0(
m
STREET - SUPPLIES
Q
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
8.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
0.9(
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 18
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237101
5/30/2019
019582 MANOR HARDWARE
(Continued)
970271-00
STORM - SPRAYER
Storm - Sprayer
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
125.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
13.1,
970403-00
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
Traffic - Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
5.3,
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
0.5(
Total :
153.4<
237102
5/30/2019
074099 MARTIN, GARY
4/25/2019
4/25/2019 YOGA SUB CLASS 7280
4/25/2019 YOGA SUB CLASS 7280
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
75.0(
Total :
75.0(
237103
5/30/2019
077076 MAYLOR, UNEEK
05202019
DMCMA CONFERENCE-
DMCMA CONFERENCE-
001.000.23.512.50.43.00
649.8<
Tota I :
649.8:
237104
5/30/2019
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
303245
PM: EXCAVATOR, TRAILER
PM: EXCAVATOR, TRAILER
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
2,250.4E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
234.0E
303786
PM SUPPLIES: CIRCULAR SAW
PM SUPPLIES: CIRCULAR SAW
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
264.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
27.4(
Total :
2,775.9E
237105
5/30/2019
076498 MOGLIA & LARRIPA LAW FIRM PLLC
20180584
CONFLICT COUNSEL
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237105 5/30/2019 076498 MOGLIA & LARRIPA LAW FIRM PLLC (Continued)
237106 5/30/2019 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
PO # Description/Account
CONFLICT COUNSEL
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total :
0535148-IN SEWER LS 12 - IR SENSOR
Sewer LS 12 - IR Sensor
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
0539899-IN STORM - EARPLUGS
Storm - Earplugs
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
0540040-IN WATER SEWER - SAFETY VESTS
Water Sewer - Safety Vests
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
Water Sewer - Safety Vests
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
Total
237107 5/30/2019 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1037295
237108 5/30/2019 073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING 3337
UNIT 11 - HAZ-LOCKS
Unit 11 - HAZ-Locks
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total ;
TRAFFIC - HYDROSTRIPPING INCL
4.2.b
Page: 19
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 20
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237108
5/30/2019
073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING
(Continued)
Traffic - Hydrostripping includes
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
275.2' �%
Total:
275.Z a
m
237109
5/30/2019
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 916
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
3
Planning Board Minutes (5/22/19)
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
185.0(
Total :
185.0( Y
U
237110
5/30/2019
002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
00093323
FLEET - WIRELESS BELLYPACK FA
a)
Fleet - Wireless Bellypack Factory
U
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
1,170.4, •9
Freight
z
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
150.0( p
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
137.3' o
Total :
L
1,457.7° p.
a
Q
237111
5/30/2019
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
18-T1074878
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
°)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0( M
18-T1074905
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0( E
18-T1074943
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0(
18-T1075120
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
E
E
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0(
18-T1075154
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
Q
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
84.0(
18-T1075180
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
237111
5/30/2019
027060
PACIFIC TOPSOILS
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Tota I :
237112
5/30/2019
069873
PAPE MACHINERY INC
11466880
UNIT 106 - WATER PUMP
Unit 106 - Water Pump
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
11479322
UNIT 106 CORE FEE RETURNED
Unit 106 Core Fee Returned
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
11479330
UNIT 138 CORE FEE RETURNED
Unit 138 Core Fee Returned
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
11479335
UNIT 138 - RETURN
Unit 138 - Return
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
237113
5/30/2019
027450
PAWS
APRIL 2019
ANIMAL SHELTERING APRIL 2019- 1
12 ANIMLS @ $200 -$170 RECLAIM
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
Tota I :
237114
5/30/2019
008350
PETTY CASH
5/29 PARKS PETTY CSH
5/29/19 PARKS PETTY CASH
PARKER: Home Deport: Preschool
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
4.2.b
Page: 21
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 22
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237114 5/30/2019 008350 PETTY CASH
(Continued)
PARKER: Joann: Preschool supplies:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
8.3 1 >,
PARKER: Hobby Lobby: Preschool sc
a
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
15.9E L
LEACH: QFC: Watershed Fun Fair sL
3
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
11.9z
BURLEY: Costco: Snohomish County
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
41.9E Y
LEACH: Dollar Tree: Ranger Station
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
2.2- U
ANDERSON: Costco: Health & FitneE
E
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
8.8' R
LINDSAY: QFC: Flower program Plan
,-
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
15.8' o
LINDSAY: Starbucks: Flower prograrr
>
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
18.7-
LINDSAY: Edmonds Bakery: Flower p
a
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
27.0E Q
LINDSAY: Starbucks: Flower prograrr
M
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
19.8, c
LINDSAY: Edmonds Bakery: Flower F
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
24.2( c
Total:
208.41,
237115 5/30/2019 076892 PNCWA
2840
WWTP: ERIC DUENAS+ROBERT SL
U
ERIC DUENAS+ROBERT SLENKEP
+%
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
100.0( aD
2844
WWTP: PRANDOLPH, EDUENAS+E
E
t
PRANDOLPH, EDUENAS ($75 each
m
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
240.0E Q
Total :
340.0E
237116 5/30/2019 064088 PROTECTION ONE
1988948
PROJECT COSTS - ANDERSON CE
Project Costs - FRANCES ANDERSC
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
1,740.5,
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 23
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237116 5/30/2019 064088 PROTECTION ONE
(Continued)
291104
PROJECT COSTS & ALARM MONIT(
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
24.1 , a
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
L
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
24.1 - .3
ALARM MONITORING FOR Edmond
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
103.1(
ALARM MONITORIING FOR Wastew
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
103.1( (D
ALARM MONITORING FOR Public &
U
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
103.1( E
Fire Inspection - Old Public Works
ii
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
16.5, ,-
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
O
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
86.3" >
Yost Pool - Fire Inspection
o
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
18.1( a
Project Costs - Edmonds Historical
Q
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
1,078.4E cn
Project Costs - Wastewater Treatmen
c
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
1,486.8(
Fire Inspection - Fire Station #20,
LO
o
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
21.4, E
Project Costs - Public Safety
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
2,238.2-
Total :
7,043.9,
m
237117 5/30/2019 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
200000704821
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
E
t
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
m
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
852.3E Q
200002411383
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,048.0z
200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
Page:
23
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237117 5/30/2019 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 24
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
c
E
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
93.4
200009595790
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
a
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
L
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
285.9, '3
200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
ca
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
83.7' Y
200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
U
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
116.6E E
200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
M
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
254.4,
200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
_0
>
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
0
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
192.7' a
200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
Q
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
M
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
93.4�
200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
M
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
0
0
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
65.8E N
200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
12.0, +:
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
45.8E E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
m
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
45.8E Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 45.8E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 45.8E
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 25
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237117
5/30/2019
046900
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
m
E,
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
45.8E
200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
f°
a
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
L
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
142.4, .3
Total:
3,470.5f
ea
237118
5/30/2019
070809
PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
19-0871
SECURITY - MRT OVER
SECURITY - MRT OVER
U
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
41.2E
SECURITY
E
001.000.23.523.30.41.00
2,310.0E
19-0935
SECURITY - MRT OVER
SECURITY - MRT OVER
o
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
82.5(
SECURITY
o
001.000.23.523.30.41.00
687.5( 0-
Total :
3,121.2E Q
237119
5/30/2019
072370
QUIET ZONE TECHNOLOGY
P101701
ESAA.SERVICES THRU 4/15/19
°r'
ESAA.Services thru 4/15/19
M
126.000.68.595.70.65.41
14,427.0( c
ESAA.Services thru 4/15/19
N
126.000.68.595.70.65.00
208,261.0, E
Total:
222,688.01, 2
237120
5/30/2019
062657
REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY
0000052715
STORM STREET SWEEPING DUMP
r-
STORM STREET SWEEPING DUMP
m
E
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
1,653.5E u
Total:
1,653.5( r
Q
237121
5/30/2019
072387
RUSSELL SIGN CO
23866-2
OLYMPIC BEACH VISITOR STATION
OLYMPIC BEACH VISITOR STATION
136.200.64.573.30.35.00
2,237.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 26
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237121
5/30/2019
072387 RUSSELL SIGN CO
(Continued)
136.200.64.573.30.35.00
232.6£
Total:
2,469.61
237122
5/30/2019
033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL
2449144
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
2,137.2(
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
222.2 ,
Total :
2,359.41,
237123
5/30/2019
067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO
637604
INV 637604 CUST. 1733 EDMONDS
SECURI-BLANK 5.56MM - 500 CASE
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
679.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
70.6,
Total :
749.61
237124
5/30/2019
070495 SEPULVEDA, PABLO
38268
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
INTERPRETER - SPANISH-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
105.3z
Total :
105.3z
237125
5/30/2019
063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
0987-0
PM PAINT SUPPLIES
PM PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
150.4E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
15.6E
Tota I :
166.11
237126
5/30/2019
036955 SKY NURSERY
T-1375715
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
233.7�
10.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
23.8E
T-1390752
PM: MULCH
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237126 5/30/2019 036955 SKY NURSERY (Continued)
237127 5/30/2019 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 05072019
237128 5/30/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PO # Description/Account
PM: MULCH
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8Z0838872 - NELSON-
8ZO838872 - NELSON-
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total :
Total ;
200348233
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200386456
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200468593
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
200493146
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200748606
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201265980
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201327111
PINE ST PARK
PINE ST PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
4.2.b
Page: 27
Amoun
c
760.0( E,
�a
a
79.0z L
1,096.61 .3
c
ea
N
7.OE U
7.0!
E
2
U
33.6( o
R
0
52.7E a
0_
Q
214.7(
0
M
Lf)
17.1, N
E
2
16.6( U
m
E
57.1 £ U
m
Q
127.0,
16.6(
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237128 5/30/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 28
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
201374964
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
c
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
19.2< a
201594488
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
L
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
3
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
16.6<
201611951
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
Y
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
30.5, uw
201656907
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN!
E
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
107.4E 'm
201751476
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
O
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
39.7< >
201782646
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
o
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
a
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
16.0' Q
201907862
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
M
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
29.1( M
202289120
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
0
0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
52.8( .
202421582
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
70.4' (D
202807632
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
E
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
m
17.9�
203097787
WWTP: 4/17-5/15/19 METER 10001�
Q
4/17-5/15/19 200 2ND AVE S / METE
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
23,436.6<
Total :
24,372.2(
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 29
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237129
5/30/2019
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
1000500089
INV 1000500089 CUST SSH00095 E[
r
GUN RANGE 4/22/19 9HRS
c
E,
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
522.0(
GUN RANGE 4/23/19 9HRS
f°
a
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
522.0( L
GUN RANGE 4/29/19 9HRS
3
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
522.0( c
GUN RANGE 4/30/19 9HRS
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
522.0( Y
Total:
2,088.0( (D
t
237130
5/30/2019
037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE
EDMS 2019-6
JUN-2019 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA
U
E
Jun-2019 Fire Services Contract Payi
M
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
614,893.1,
Total:
614,893.1 , O
237131
5/30/2019
074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC
5987
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR MN
'ii
p
Social media services for May 2019
a
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
300.0( Q
Total :
300.0( rn
237132
5/30/2019
065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
23739
WATER 5 CORNERS TROUBLESHC
o
Water 5 Corners Troubleshooting
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
533.5( N
Total:
533.5( E
M
237133
5/30/2019
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV42223
PM SUPPLIES: YOST POOL SHOW[
U
PM SUPPLIES: YOST POOL SHOWS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
11334.5( E
10.4% Sales Tax
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
138.7� r
Total :
1,473.25 Q
237134
5/30/2019
070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA
2019-210780
BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD SEA -
Business recruitment ad in June 201
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
1,750.0(
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237134 5/30/2019 070744 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA
237135 5/30/2019 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
76310
237136 5/30/2019 077077 UNITED VOLLEYBALL SUPPLY LLC 118163
237137 5/30/2019 064858 VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS DEV CORP 19-105 LTAC
237138 5/30/2019 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
237139 5/30/2019 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
19-124
119-377
4.2.b
Page: 30
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
Total :
1,750.0(
m
STORM DUMP FEES
E
Storm Dump Fees
a
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
270.9, m
PARK MAINTENANCE DUMP FEES
3
PARK MAINTENANCE DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
360.0(
Total:
630.9: u)
PM: MARINA BEACH VOLLEYBALL (
U
m
t
PM: MARINA BEACH VOLLEYBALL (
U
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
914.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
U
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
95.0� o
Total :
1,009.4' -ii
TOURISM ADVERTISEMENT SNO C
P
a
Tourism advertisement Sno Co Visitoi
Q-
Q
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
2,395.0(
EAC: SNO-CO GUIDE AD
r'
EAC: SNO-CO GUIDE AD
c
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
250.0( LO
Total :
2,645.0(
INV. 62769 EDMONDS PD CASE 19-
E
TOW S94478 VW PASSAT
z
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
189.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
m
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
19.8E t
Total:
208.8E
r
PM: TREE REMOVAL WADE JAMES
Q
PM: TREE REMOVAL WADE JAMES
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 850.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 88.4(
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
05/30/2019 7:52:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 31
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237139
5/30/2019
067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
(Continued)
119-381
PM: TREE SERVICE AND REMOVAL
PM: TREE SERVICE AND REMOVAL
>%
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
2,800.0( a
10.4% Sales Tax
L
.3
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
291.2(
Total:
4,029.6(
237140
5/30/2019
075283 WAVE
8136 50 211 00055035
FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF
Y
High Speed Internet service 06/01/19
U
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
816.0(
Total:
816.0( E
237141
5/30/2019
070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
19-EDM0005
MAY-19 RETAINER
R
U
Monthly Retainer
o
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
23,870.1( R
Total :
23,870.1( o
L
Q
237142
5/30/2019
051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
27888
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
Q
Traffic - Supplies
v
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
448.7E
Freight
M
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
19.0E 0
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
48.6E E
Total :
516.4< .�
92
Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
1,145,869.81
m
92
Vouchers in
this report
Total vouchers :
1,145,869.81 E
U
m
r
Q
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 49
4.2.c
vchlist
05/30/2019 8:09:43AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
5302019 5/30/2019 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
0
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun
Jun 2019 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN(
d
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - June 2
E
001.000.39.542.64.45.00
417.E 1
Total:
417.6�
m
L_
Bank total :
417.6�
3
c
Total vouchers :
417.6�
f°
N
m
t
U
E
M
U
4-
0
�a
0
L
Q
a
0
M
LO
O
d
L
3
c
Cl)
E
U
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 50
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E61FE
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
ESGA
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13
y
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STR
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i032
EBDA
Q'
a�
L
STR
2018 Overlay Program
i030
EBCB
3
SWR
2018 Sewerline Overlays
i035
EBCE
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
Y
U
STR
2018 Traffic Calming
i027
EBAA
WTR
2018 Waterline Overlays
i034
EBCD
E
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
2
U
STIR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
4-
G
STR
2019 Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
c
L
STR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
CL
0.
STR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
Q
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
rn
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
0
LO
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
N
L
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
M
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
Z
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
o
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
m
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
j
2,
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
a�
a
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
i
u_
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
a�
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
E
t
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
Q
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
Revised 5/23/2019
Packet Pg. 51
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Fundinq
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5J13
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
E5DB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E51KA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E8MA
STR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s011
E5GB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
EYE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E71FA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
ElDA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
PRK
Waterfront Restoration
m103
E7MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
c
m
E
M
a�
L
3
c
M
Y
V
N
t
E
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
a
i
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 52
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Protect Title
STR EOCA
i042 2020 Overlay Program
STIR E1CA
c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
E2FC
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
■ STIR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STM
E3FE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
E4FC M"
�illow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FEB
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citvwide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
E4MB
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STIR ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
iSTIR ESDA
Bikelink Project
STIR ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR ESGA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
andard Details Upda
STIR E6AA
s014
Hwv 99 Gatewav Revitalization
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
1
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM
E61FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
SWR
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 53
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
m
STIR
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
�,
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
M
=
a�
L
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
3
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
M
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
Y
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Restoration
aUi
t
STIR
E8AA
i027
2018 Traffic Calming
E
STIR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
v
STIR
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
c
STIRE8CB
i030
2018 Overlay Program
>
0
STIR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
Q
WTR
E8CD
i034
2018 Waterline Overlays
Q
SWR
E8CE
i035
2018 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E8DA
i032
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
M
STIRE8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
o
STIR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STM
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
E
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
Z
0
L
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
>'
c
UTILITIES
E8J13
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
0
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
a
i
LL
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
c
STIR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
E
STIR
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
STIR
HAD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
Q
STIR
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 54
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
E1 CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
m
STM
EYE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
E,
M
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
=
a�
L
STR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
3
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
M
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
Y
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
t
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
E
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
v
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 1
c
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
>
0
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
a
a
STR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
Q
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
a'
STR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
M
STR
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
L6
c
U)
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
a�
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
E
0
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
Z
0
L
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 11
a
STM
E6FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
i
LL
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
E
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
0
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
Q
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 55
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
m
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
�,
STR
EBAA
i027
2018 Traffic Calming
M
=
a�
L
STR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
3
STR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
M
STR
EBCB
i030
2018 Overlay Program
Y
STR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
t
STR
EBDA
i032
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
E
STR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
U
WTR
EBCD
i034
2018 Waterline Overlays
c
SWR
EBCE
i035
2018 Sewerline Overlays
>
0
STR
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
a
a
STR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
Q
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
a'
STR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
M
STR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
L6
c
STR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
E
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
Z
0
L
STR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
d
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Restoration
>'
c
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
a
LL
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
c
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
E
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
Q
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STR
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 56
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
PRK
Waterfront Restoration
m103
E7MA
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E61FE
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E61FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
EYE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E71FA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
STIR
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i032
EBDA
STIR
2018 Overlay Program
i030
EBCB
STIR
2018 Traffic Calming
i027
EBAA
STIR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
STIR
2019 Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
STIR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
STIR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
STIR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STIR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
c
m
E
M
a�
L
3
c
M
Y
V
a�
t
v
E
v
4-
0
0
L
CL
om
i
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 57
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
E8DB
STIR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
iO4o
E9DA
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
E5DB
STIR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
E8AB
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
SWR
2018 Sewerline Overlays
i035
E8CE
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
E8GA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
E5GB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02o
E8JB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
WTR
2018 Waterline Overlays
i034
E8CD
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
E8JA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5J13
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E51KA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
c
m
E
M
a�
L
3
c
M
Y
V
a�
t
v
E
v
4-
0
0
L
CL
om
i
Revised 5/23/2019 Packet Pg. 58
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Proclamation "Orca Action Month"
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
In May 2019, after signing five new bills aimed to help reverse the Southern Resident orcas' free fall
toward extinction, Governor Jay Inslee declared June "Orca Action Month."
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
In support of Governor Jay Inslee's declaration of June as "Orca Action Month", and to bring attention to
this cause, Mayor Earling will present a proclamation to Edmonds resident and passionate orca
photographer Janine Harles.
Attachments:
Orca Action Month
Packet Pg. 59
IP rlarfamaf ton
O
City of Edmonds * Office of the Mayor
o:UN)j
ORCA ACTION MONTH
A
WHEREAS, the Southern Resident orcas were listed as endangered in November 2005 under the Endangered
Species Act; and
WHEREAS; major factors in the decline of the Southern Resident orca population include captures for marine parks in
the 1960s and 70s, declining salmon runs, toxic pollution, loss of habitat, and increasing vessel traffic and
noise levels in Puget Sound and the ocean; and
WHEREAS, during the month of June, the Orca Network, the Orca Salmon Alliance, and other organizations working
on these issues will join together in a month -long focused effort to educate the public and take action to
improve conditions for the survival of the Southern Resident orcas; and
WHEREAS, bringing attention to the orcas will also bring attention to the need to clean up Puget Sound, and restore
and conserve important Puget Sound habitats and Chinook salmon spawning grounds; and
WHEREAS, we are blessed to have this "urban" community of orcas in our midst, know them as individuals and pods,
and watch them from our ferries, boats, and many miles of shoreline; and
WHEREAS, we have only begun to learn about the intelligence and social capabilities of orcas; and
WHEREAS, Washington State supports efforts to recover this endangered population of Southern Resident orcas;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor of the City of Edmonds do hereby proclaim June as
ORCA ACTION MONTH
In Edmonds, and I encourage all people in our community to focus attention on the plight of the fragile Southern
Resident community of orcas, honor their presence in our waters, and speed up efforts to recover the population
co��� --�i
David O. Earling, Mayor — June 4, 2019
Packet Pg. 60 1
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Public Hearing and Action Regarding Nonconforming Building Code Amendments
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
In the City of Edmonds, some properties have existing multifamily buildings (including condominium
developments) that were built in conformance with prior City codes, whereby the buildings were
permitted to have more units or height than allowed under the City's current development codes.
Existing multifamily buildings that have more units or different dimensions than currently allowed are
considered "nonconforming". Nonconforming buildings are not allowed to be rebuilt if they are
damaged to 75% or more of their value --UNLESS the rebuilding would fully meet the City's current
development codes.
A significant problem has arisen for condo owners who are in "nonconforming buildings" that have more
existing units than are now allowed under current code. When they try to sell their units, banks are
refusing to finance the purchase by a new owner. This is becoming a serious problem for those owners
that need to sell (for example, a senior who wants to move to an assisted living facility) and for people
that want to buy the existing condos.
At the April 8 meeting of the City Council's Planning, Public Safety, and Personnel Committee, the
Committee reviewed the issue, including the staff's recommendation for working with the Planning
Board on a possible code amendment, and concurred that the proposal should go to the full City Council
for direction at the next available meeting time.
On April 16, the City Council discussed and concurred that an amendment to the nonconformance code
was the logical way to address the issue. The amendment might include addressing building dimensions
and setbacks for existing multifamily buildings, as well as the number of units (density).
The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 4149 on April 23rd which provided short term solution
to allow nonconforming multifamily residential building to be restored to the same density, height,
setbacks and coverage as existed before the damage or destruction occurred.
The Planning Board discussed the nonconforming building issue at its April 241" meeting and held a
public hearing on potential code amendments on May 22"d
Staff Recommendation
Adopt ordinance provided in Exhibit 1.
Narrative
Packet Pg. 61
7.1
The Planning Board's recommended code changes for nonconforming multifamily residential buildings
largely mirror the intent of the interim ordinance in that multifamily residential buildings may be
restored to the same density, height, setbacks or coverage as existed be the destruction or damage
occurred, but is structured slightly different. In the existing nonconforming building (ECDC 17.40.020),
two sections address reconstruction. ECDC 17.40.020.F is the section that contained the "75 percent
rule" for reconstruction consistent with current zoning standards and ECDC 17.40.020.G dealt with
residential buildings in commercial zones. In the Planning Board's recommendation, ECDC 17.40.020.F
and 17.40.020.G are combined in to one section. Additionally, a new section is added to the building
code in ECDC 19.00.045. This new structure and code sections are detailed below.
ECDC 17.40.020.F.1 applies to all nonresidential nonconforming buildings and would require that
nonresidential nonconforming buildings that are damaged more than 75 percent of their replacement
value be reconstructed in full conformance with the code. If a nonresidential nonconforming building is
damaged less than 75 percent, it may be restored provided a complete building permit application is
submitted within 18 months of the date of the damage, with the ability of the director to grant a 180
day extension to the initial 18 month time period.
ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 applies to nonconforming multifamily residential buildings or mixed use buildings
containing multiple residential units. As with the interim ordinance, this subsection allows
nonconforming multifamily residential buildings to be constructed to the same density, height, setbacks
or coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred; but only if, a complete building
permit application is submitted within 18 months of the date of destruction or damage with the
possibility of a 180 day extension to the initial 18 moth time period.
ECDC 17.40.020.F.3 addresses the right of restoration for all nonconforming buildings. Subsections a
and b are from the existing nonconforming code and notes that the right of restoration does not apply
due to an unlawful act of the owner or due to ongoing neglect. Subsection c is new and notes that the
right of restoration does not apply if a building is demolished for the purpose of redevelopment.
ECDC 19.00.045 is a new section added to the building code. The City has adopted the 75 percent rule in
the nonconforming code as a policy for determining whether building permit on a structure (regardless
of whether said structure is nonconforming) is considered new construction versus a remodel. This new
section codifies this policy and also includes a reference to the nonconforming code in Chapter 17.40
ECDC.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Draft Nonconforming Ordinance
Exhibit 2: Planning Board Recommended Code Amendment for Nonconforming Buildings
Exhibit 3: April 24, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 4: May 22, 2019 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 5: Written Comments submitted during Planning Board Review
Exhibit 6: Interim Ordinance No. 4149
Packet Pg. 62
7.1.a
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATING TO THE ABILITY TO REBUILD CERTAIN
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are free within certain constitutional limitations to
establish their own standards for the regulation of nonconforming structures; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal D states that the City should
maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older
housing stock in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Goals also state that City ordinances and programs should be
evaluated to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Supreme Court has held that although found to be
detrimental to important public interests, nonconforming uses may be allowed to continue under
certain conditions based on the belief that it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to
require an immediate cessation of a nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, in the event of a disaster such as a fire or earthquake that destroyed
nonconforming condominiums and multi -family structures, the Edmonds City Development
Code did not allow the same number of housing units to be rebuilt, causing undue hardship,
particularly in cases where units in multi -family structures are each separately owned; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, the City adopted Ordinance 4149 on April
23, 2019 to address these issues on an interim basis; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has since considered these issues further and has held a
public hearing on May 22, 2019; and
WHEREAS, after its public hearing, the Planning Board recommended that the City
Council adopt the following amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 17.040.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Nonconforming uses," is hereby amended to read as set forth on Attachment A hereto which is
Packet Pg. 63
7.1.a
incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
strikethrough).
Section 2. Section 17.040.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Nonconforming building and/or structure," is hereby amended to read as set forth on
Attachment A hereto which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough).
Section 3. A new Section 19.00.045 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Reconstruction of damaged buildings," is hereby adopted to read as set forth on Attachment A
hereto which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted
text is shown in strikethrough).
Section 4. Repealer of Interim Ordinance. Ordinance 4149 is hereby repealed.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to
the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after
passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
:•
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
Packet Pg. 64
7.1.a
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 65
7.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2019, 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, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATING TO THE ABILITY TO REBUILD CERTAIN
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 12019.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 66
Edmonds
Page 1/4
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once allowed by applicable land use regulations, but is no
longer allowed, due to the passage or later change of the ordinance codified in this chapter or a prior ordinance.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (C) of this section,
but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of employees,
equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.050.
C. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied
by the former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance. Uses such as agricultural uses, which
vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent
with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its
replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests
as provided in ECDC ' 9�1519.00.025(G), et seq., is filed within 18 months of the date such damage
occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180-day extension may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (C)(2) of this section shall not apply if
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's
agent; or
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
the owner's agent.
In the event that subsection (C)(3)(a) or (b) of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall be abated if
damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as provided in ECDC
17.40.020(F).
D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed
to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the use. However, the use may not be expanded, as
provided for in subsection (B) of this section, without obtaining a conditional use permit. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development
standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or
amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a
structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an
accessory dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence
conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property
that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city
of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued, unless required to be
abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the
degree of nonconformity of the building except as expressly provided in subsections (C) through (I) of this section.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a
building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register
of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places,
or is listed in a council -approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the
same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 67
Edmonds
Page 2/4
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction
of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted.
2. Solar Energy Installations on Buildings That Exceed Existing Height Limits. A rooftop solar energy
installation mounted on a nonconforming building that exceeds the existing height limit may be approved as a
Type II staff decision if.
a. The installation exceeds the existing roof height by not more than 36 inches.
b. The installation is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar access while
limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties.
3. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk
standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be permitted.
4. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commercial and multifamily
zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access easement or public right-of-way not
more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements may also be permitted in nonconforming side or rear
yard setbacks only if they intrude not more than 30 inches nor one-half of the distance to the property line,
whichever is less. "Minor architectural improvements" are defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves,
chimneys and architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and decorative trim. Such improvements shall be
required to obtain architectural design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt such
improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire Codes.
5. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety regulations
shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any reason for any distance,
it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage requirements for the zone in which it is
located. Provided, however, that a building or structure may be moved on the same site without full compliance if
the movement reduces the degree of nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement alone of a
nonconforming building or structure to lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to
bring the building or structure into compliance with other bulk or site development standards of the city applicable
to the building or structure.
F. Restoration.
1_If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or
more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in
full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of
replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable
as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of
replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as
existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for
a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.01519.00.025(G) et seq. within ene-y a
months of the date such damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180 dam
a written extension request has been received from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18
months. This right f restoration shall not ply if:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 68
Edmonds
Page 3/4
2. C—Residential Buildings i Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in
use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or
reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections{} (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if,
the following conditions are met:
J a. If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or a mixed use building containing multiple
residential units is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost, the building may be
restored to the same density, height, setbacks or coverage as existing before the destruction or damage
occurred if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC
19.00.025(G) et seq. is filed within 18 months of the date the damage occurred. The director may
grant a one-time extension of up to 180 days if a written extension request has been received from the
applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months. The remodel er- oeans,..ueti n takes place
within the footprint ef the original building e. "F-etffifit" shall mean a-H area equal to the
smallest r-eetangular area in a Plane Pafallel_tj "ieh the existing building eatild be
feetprifft ef the building or- stnde�ffe shall net be expanded by mere than 10 pereen4 and is feund by the
fib. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use
under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such
remodel or reconstruction.
3 c. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to
nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
4A. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building
envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style
and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the
city as a Type II staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the Architectural
Design Board (ADB) rather than to the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and
appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
3. The right of restoration shall not apply i£
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the
owner's agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross of the owner or
owner's agents; or
mac. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment
H. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall
be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the
accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1,
1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption
may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
I. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing residential
structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the BD5 zone, conforming
and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 without
being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B).
J. The antenna and related equipment of a nonconforming wireless communication facility may be completely
replaced with a new antenna and related equipment; provided, that, upon replacement, the applicant shall use the
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 69
Edmonds
Page 4/4
best available methods and materials to enhance the appearance of the antenna and related equipment and/or screen
it from view in a manner that improves the visual impact or the conspicuity of the nonconformity. [Ord. 3961 § 3,
2014; Ord. 3866 § 2, 2011; Ord. 3781 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 13, 14, 2009; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
NEW 19.00.045
19.00.045 Reconstruction of damaged buildings. For any structure that is destroyed, damaged or
demolished in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost of the time of destruction,
the reconstruction shall be considered to be under the category of "New" construction. Determination of
replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be
gppealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. The "New"
construction will be subject to all applicable requirements of the Edmonds Community Development
Code for a new building, including but not limited to zoning, utilities and site -related features; provided
that Chapter 17.40 ECDC also applies to certain requirements for nonconforming buildings and uses.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019.
Packet Pg. 70
7.1.c
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
SUMMARY MINUTES
April 24, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2019 AND APRIL 10, 2019 BE
APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, reported that, on April 17`t', he emailed City Officials a memorandum regarding nonconforming uses
dated June 8, 2006 from former City Attorney Scott Snyder to the City Council and Mr. Chave. Because the memorandum
was not attached to the Board's Staff Report, he delivered it to the Planning Board in person as he felt it would be helpful in
the Planning Board's discussion. The memorandum discusses the basic legal concepts behind nonconforming uses and their
status under Washington State Law. It notes that, in some cases, the City has lightened the burden for property owners
regarding nonconforming uses by creating exceptions, but at other times, past City Councils have been extremely restrictive.
The memorandum states that, as defined by the Washington Supreme Court, a nonconforming use is "a use which lawfully
existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance,
although it does not comply with the zoning restrictions applicable to the district in which it is situated. " Mr. Reidy said he
finds that the word "nonconforming" can cause confusion, and he prefers to use the word "grandfathered." Grandfathered
uses are typically uses that lawfully existed prior to a change in land use regulations. As discussed in the memorandum,
however, it is more complicated than that in Edmonds.
Packet Pg. 71
7.1.c
Mr. Reidy explained that, in Edmonds, the City Council has grandfathered other items by creating exceptions, and examples
include the Council's decision to establish a grace period for enforcement purposes for accessory buildings that existed on or
before January 1, 1981 (ECDC 17.40.020(A) and (H) and the Council's decision to grant amnesty to certain long -existing
wireless communication facilities (ECDC 17.40.023). He said history shows that the City has struggled with the application
of grandfathering laws. He can provide an example where the City allowed a new structure to be grandfathered under
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.020 even though no zoning laws had changed. In its decision, staff
stated that owners are usually required to bring such structures into compliance with the existing zoning code, and they didn't
say why this particular owner was not required to do so. He said history also shows that the City has required removal of an
accessory building that existed in 1968 and was grandfathered under the grace period provided by ECDC 17.40.020(A) and
(H), and he can provide the details to interested Planning Board Members.
Mr. Reidy said he points out these situations to show that the City's historical conduct in this area is messy and complicated.
The City has a history of different rules for different people even after grandfathering laws have been passed. An exception
is not needed for the multifamily buildings being discussed tonight, as those buildings are already grandfathered. The
solution to that problem is much more complicated. Thankfully, the City Council has broad legislative powers. As the
memorandum also states, the City has certain buildings or housing stock that do not qualify for historic status, and the City
Council could find that these buildings, whether commercial or residential, are worthy of preservation for cultural or other
reasons such as a desire to preserve affordable housing stock. Therefore, the City Council is not obligated to adopt a one -size -
fits -all category.
Mr. Reidy said he hopes the Planning Board can give this topic deep consideration and help the City Council adopt a
permanent solution that works for the multifamily buildings and is comprehensive and solid. He also hopes any new laws
adopted are fairly and faithfully enforced.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the updated Development Services Director's Report and invited Board Member
comments and questions.
At the request of the Board, Director Hope shared details relative to the Housing Commission. She recalled that housing has
been an issue in the City for quite some time, and there have been various efforts to provide some solutions, some of which
have involved the Planning Board. Because a variety of people have voiced concern that their perspectives were not heard
and the issues were not clearly understood, the City Council determined that a new process was needed. On April 16", the
City Council adopted a resolution to establish a Citizen's Housing Commission. The resolution lays out how the
Commission will function, how the participants will be seated, etc. In order to make sure that representation is citywide, the
City Council used a census -based map to divide the City into seven districts, all with approximately the same population. As
per the resolution, each Council Member would be assigned to a district and asked to select two candidates out of a pool of
applicants, as well as an alternative, to serve from that particular district. The Council President will assign the Council
Members to districts. Any resident of Edmonds can submit an application to serve on the Commission, but the adopted
resolution states that preference will be given to residents who are not already serving on a City Board or Commission.
However, on April 23', the Council discussed going one step further to state that those currently serving on City Boards and
Commission will be ineligible to participate on the Citizen's Housing Commission. They will consider an amending
resolution at their next Council meeting.
Director Hope reported that the City is nearly ready to launch the application process. The application form will ask for
standard information, as well as some specific questions related to which district the applicant lives in and whether they are
renters or owners. She clarified that it is not the City Council's intent to discriminate against either renters or owners, but
they recognized it will be good to have a mix. She explained that each assigned City Council member will select their
preferred applicants. The timeline for this process will depend on how many applications are received and whether or not all
districts are represented. She advised that, in addition to the 14 members (2 from each district) and 7 alternate members (1
from each district), the Mayor will also be invited to select one candidate from the pool of applicants after the City Council
has appointed their members. The Commission will consist of 15 members and 7 alternates. The alternatives will not be
voting members, but could step in if a representative from their district is absent.
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 72
7.1.c
2. APPROVAL OF THE STREET MAP AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE OR INFER APPROVAL
OF THE SUBDIVISION BEING PLANNED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN IN
ATTACHMENT 5.
BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INTRODUCTION TO NONCONFORMING BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS (ECDC 17.40.020
Director Hope said these potential amendments are related to nonconforming multifamily buildings and not a sweeping
review of the nonconformance code at this time. She explained that the issue was brought to the City's attention when a
long-term resident of Edmonds experienced problems selling her unit when banks refused to lend to a prospective buyer
because the property is nonconforming and cannot be rebuilt to its current density if a major disaster were to occur.
Mr. Lien said the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.020.A defines a nonconforming building as "one
which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer
conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the City of Edmonds or the
application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the City. " He also reviewed ECDC 17.40.020.17, which is
the section that caused the funding problem referenced earlier by Director Hope. Based on this provision, "if a
nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement
cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the
Edmonds Community Development Code. " This means that the reconstructed building must meet all of the current code
standards for height, setbacks, density, etc.
Mr. Lien said the issue arose when a bank appraiser called the City to ask if the building could be reconstructed. Staff
referred to ECDC 17.40.020.17, which caused the condo sale to be put temporarily on hold. Since the problem was first
brought forward, staff has identified 23 additional sites where the provision could be a problem, but it is not an exhaustive
list. The sites identified so far have all been condominium buildings, but the provision would also apply to apartment
buildings, and the owners may not be aware of the situation. The 24 sites represent 633 units that may be impacted due to
financing issues.
Mr. Lien reviewed how the Zoning Code has changed over the years:
• 1956 — 1964. The City's first zoning ordinance was enacted in 1956, and it was in place until 1964. There was no
specific multifamily zone, and some of the existing buildings along 5`h Avenue were built during that time period when
the property was zoned C-1, which was a mixed -use zone that had no density requirement or limitation. For example,
one of the buildings has 20 units where the current zoning would only allow 10.
• 1964 — 1970. The City adopted its first multifamily zones, which were Multiple Residential, Low Density (RML) and
Multiple Residential, High Density (RMH). The density in both of these zones was calculated differently than the City's
current method.
• 1970 —1978. The method for calculating density was changed a bit, with an additional option for a density bonus.
• 1978 —1980. The option for a density bonus was eliminated for the RML and RMH zones.
• 1980 — Today. In 1980, the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) was established along with most of the
zones that are currently in place. There are three multifamily zones today: RM-1.5 (one dwelling unit per 1,500 square
feet of lot area), RM-2.4 (one dwelling unit per 2,400 square feet of lot area), and RM-3.0 (one dwelling unit per 3,000
square feet of lot area).
Mr. Lien said that only one of the 24 properties that have been identified so far is nonconforming with regards to being
annexed into the City. The remaining 23 were constructed under the older RM zones.
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 73
7.1.c
Mr. Lien explained that 1964 was the City's first opportunity for a nonconforming building, and that is when the first
nonconforming code was adopted. Over the years, nonconforming situations has been addressed in a variety of ways:
• 1964 — 1979. The nonconforming code said that if a nonconforming building was destroyed in an amount of 50% or
greater, it must be rebuilt consistent with the current zoning standards.
1979 — 1980. In 1979, a primarily nonresidential building had to be reconstructed to the current zoning standards if it
was destroyed more than 50% of its value, and a primarily residential building could be rebuilt to the same density, bulk
and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage. That same nonconforming code also included an
abatement requirement that said the nonconforming buildings were required to come into conformance by reducing the
number of units or purchasing an adjacent property so the density requirement could be met. Interestingly, that same
code also allowed one of the units that exceeded density to apply for "innocent purchaser" status, but the rest of the units
had to be eliminated.
• 1980. The abatement requirement was eliminated, but the reconstruction provisions still applied. That meant that
primarily residential buildings could only be rebuilt to the same density, bulk and dimensional standards regardless of
the extent of damage and primarily nonresidential buildings had to meet the current zoning standards if destroyed more
than 50% of their value.
• 1981. The code was changed to allow any nonconforming building to be rebuilt to the same density, bulk and
dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage.
• 1982 — 2008. The provision was amended to say that any building that is destroyed in an amount of 50% or more of its
replacement cost must conform with zoning standards if reconstructed.
• 2008 — Present. The nonconforming code was last updated in 2008 and required that any building that is destroyed in an
amount of 75% or more of its replacement cost must conform with the current zoning standards if reconstructed. The
memorandum provided by Mr. Reidy has some discussion about the 75% requirement. An additional provision was
added in 2008 that allows all residential buildings in commercial zones to be reconstructed regardless of the 75% rule,
but they must be reconstructed in the same footprint. The buildings would not have to comply with the current height
requirements, and the footprint could be expanded by 10%.
Mr. Lien advised that the Comprehensive Plan contains some policies and goals related to the topic of nonconformance:
• Housing Goal D — Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older
housing stock in the community.
Housing Policy D — Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older
buildings.
Mr. Lien reported that the City Council passed an interim ordinance on April 23' that provided an exception for
nonconforming multifamily buildings. As approved, ECDC 17.40.020.17 would read:
"F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75
percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be constructed except in
full conformance with the provision of the Edmonds Community Development Code, PROVIDED THAT a
multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks,
and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for a building permit is
submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred "
Mr. Lien said the City Council has remanded the issue to the Planning Board to review the impacts of the interim ordinance
and provide a recommendation for a permanent ordinance. Issue and options to consider for the long-term ordinance include:
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 74
7.1.c
• Should the provision "grandfather" only the number of residential units? From 1956 to 1980, multifamily zones had a
maximum height limit of 35 feet. The height limit was reduced to 30 feet in 1984. Therefore, in addition to density,
many of the existing older multifamily developments are also nonconforming in regard to height. If the long-term
ordinance only grandfathers the number of residential units, some of the flat condominiums that were built to 35 feet
could be reconstructed with the same number of units, but the units might have to be smaller.
• Should the provision "grandfather" both density and building dimensions and setbacks? The interim ordinance addresses
both density and bulk and dimension requirements.
• Is one year sufficient time for a property owner to apply for a building permit to rebuild a structure? If a building burns
down, it will take time to work with insurance companies, draw up new plans, etc. Currently, both the nonconforming
code and the interim ordinance have a 1-year time limit to submit a building application.
• Should specific reference to the Building Code be included? If the buildings are going to be reconstructed, the
assumption is that they will be rebuilt to the current Building Code standards.
• Should the rebuild be required to comply with current design standards? The current design standards require a 4:12
pitched roof in order to obtain the additional 5 feet in height above 25 feet. If both the density and height are
grandfathered, buildings that are currently 35 feet could be rebuilt and the impact could be significant.
• Should the provision apply to mixed -use buildings that have residential components? The interim ordinance includes an
exception specifically for all residential buildings, and the Board should consider whether it would be appropriate to also
include mixed -use buildings with residential components.
• How will the long-term ordinance impact other related code sections? For example, the nonconforming code that is part
of the interim ordinance provides an exception for residential buildings (ECDC 17.40.020.17). If the ordinance is
expanded to include mixed -use buildings with mixed -use components, it would override ECDC 17.40.020.G, which
covers residential buildings in commercial zones.
Mr. Lien concluded his presentation by stating that staff is looking for the Board to begin its discussion on the issues and
options related to a long-term ordinance. Staff will use feedback from the Board to draft amendments for a public hearing on
May 81h. If the Board follows the public hearing with a recommendation to the City Council, a tentative public hearing
before the City Council is scheduled for May 141h
Given that the interim ordinance is in place for 180 days, Chair Cheung asked if the permanent ordinance really needs to be
on a fast track. Director Hope responded that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to look at the issue
expeditiously. It may be necessary for the Board to extend its process beyond May 81h, but the idea is to focus on multifamily
development and provide ideas and options for staff to write up in code format. Other issues outside of multifamily
development can be discussed as a separate matter.
Board Member Crank asked if the owners of multifamily developments were notified when the various zoning changes were
being considered. Director Hope said staff does not have all of the information needed to answer that question. As much as
she wants to fix the current situation expeditiously, Board Member Crank said it is also important to think about how to avoid
having the problem coming up again. Director Hope commented that, whatever happened in the past, does not mean it has to
happen that way now. The City's intent is to notify the owners of the known addresses, publish press releases and be very
proactive about letting people know of the proposed amendment. As a former investment banker, Board Member Crank said
she learned that every mistake costs money and it is up to whoever created the mistake to bring that person whole.
Hopefully, the City can make that happen without having to come back down that road at some point in the future. Director
Hope agreed that is something the Board should consider, and they should feel confident that staff has been researching the
issue a lot by reviewing historical information and looking at what other cities have done. They have identified the things
that are most obvious that need to be considered. At this time, staff is seeking feedback about whether the permanent
ordinance should only deal with the density, or the bulk and dimension standards, too. They are also seeking feedback about
whether or not the provision should be expanded to include mixed -use buildings with residential components and if the
rebuild should be exempt from certain design standards?
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 75
7.1.c
Board Member Lovell suggested that the first step should be to notify property owners and make them aware that their
properties are nonconforming. Director Hope cautioned that a comprehensive analysis would require a lot of work to
examine every building. They may not be able to give exact information to every property owner, but they can notify the
ones they know about.
Board Member Lovell asked what the banks are complaining about. Director Hope said the risk is too great for them to loan
money to finance the purchase of a nonconforming property based on the current code. That means the current owners have
no value in their property. For example, the person who brought the issue to the City's attention is unable to sell her
condominium unit because the bank won't authorize the loan. Board Member Lovell asked what criteria the bank used to
determine they would not authorize the loan. Director Hope said banks typically have appraisers who research zoning, etc.
In the past, they didn't look as closely at the density, bulk and dimension standards. If questions come up, financial
institutions contact the City to determine the status of the property and whether or not it can be rebuilt if a major disaster
were to occur. The City cannot control what happens in the banking world, but it can at least allow the possibility for people
to be made whole and to preserve the existing housing stock.
Board Member Lovell presumed that the drawings and plans for all development within the City are on file. Mr. Lien
commented that the buildings in question were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and the City's records are not extensive,
and he cannot easily determine the height of a structure.
Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that if a property owner decides to demolish and rebuild or add onto an existing
nonconforming structure, they should be subject to the current Development Code standards. If a structure burns down, the
insurance company, under the terms of the policy, would only guarantee replacement exactly the way it was. They won't pay
to upgrade it to code or increase the height and/or density. Their goal will be to keep the costs as low as possible. He
questioned why it wouldn't be possible to assure the banks that, should a catastrophe occur and the structure is considered a
total loss and needs to be rebuilt, it can only be replaced in fact. Director Hope said it is not the City's intent to allow a
property owner to tear down and rebuild a nonconforming building to the same density and bulk. The provision in the
permanent ordinance would only apply to structures that are destroyed by a natural disaster.
Mr. Lien explained that, currently, nonconforming buildings that are destroyed less than 75% of their replacement value can
be reconstructed to their original height, density, etc. If the destruction goes beyond 75% of the value, the 2008 policy
decision was that the building could only be reconstructed consistent with the current Development Code standards.
Nonconforming buildings can be maintained based on the current code, and the ordinance is intended to address situations
where structures are significantly destroyed and need to be completely rebuilt. Board Member Lovell asked how many
situations of this type have occurred in the City over the last 10 years, and Director Hope cautioned that the issue is not
whether it actually occurs, but whether there is a risk of it occurring.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the concept of "making property owners whole again." The thought came to her
mind that, even though the provision would allow them to rebuild, the new structure would have to meet the current Building
Code requirements and it might not be possible to obtain the same density as existed in the previous building. Director Hope
explained that the interim ordinance will expire in 180 days, and a full public process is required before a permanent
ordinance can be adopted. She believes the City Council was interested in providing relief to not only density, but the bulk
and dimensional standards and setbacks, too. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that so many variables would come
into play, such as the width of hallways and the space designated for utility rooms, community rooms, etc. Director Hope
cautioned that the ordinance may not need to respond to every potential variable. The big issue is whether or not the City
wants to provide a statement that becomes part of the code that allows for rebuilding nonconforming residential structures to
basically the same number and size so they can get financing. All of the variable issues could get decided if and when a
nonconforming building is destroyed, and that is why it may require longer than 1 year to submit the building permit
application. She suggested that 1.5 years would be a more reasonable time frame. Some may take longer, and the City could
provide for a potential extension if requested under special circumstances.
Board Member Rosen applauded the City Council and staff for working to address the issue quickly. After the discovery of
the unintended consequence and the idea of making people whole, the City is trying to do right by the residents. It is the
Board's intention to do exactly the same thing.
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 76
7.1.c
Board Member Rosen commented that the rush is needed to address a real situation where a person is trying to get funding
but is hung up by the City's code. The interim ordinance shows great intent by the City Council, but banks will still likely be
concerned about funding a purchase based on an ordinance that is only good for 6 months. They will want to have a more
secure resolution. It has been discovered that at least five other property owners are facing a similar problem. At this time,
they only know of some of the buildings that are impacted. As they work to raise awareness, they could also caution people
to be more aware of and understand the agreements they are asked to sign when purchasing a condominium. This situation is
not unique to Edmonds and is an issue in many other areas of the country.
Board Member Rosen asked if the ordinance would apply to all residential structures with more than one unit. Director Hope
said staff would check to see if it would apply to structures with just two units. She explained that, under the Building Code,
two units do not count as multifamily, but the zoning code actually does consider a two -unit structure to be multifamily. Her
interpretation is that the ordinance would apply to all residential structures with more than one unit, with the exception of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Board Member Rosen commented that many things can impact the size of a unit (setback, height, density, open space, etc.).
If the motivation is to protect the individual's investment, where do they stop. There could always be something that isn't
included, and perhaps the ordinance should be more specific. Director Hope agreed that is a concern, and that is why staff is
proposing specific language in the ordinance. They aren't trying to decide what the total square footage of the building needs
to be, simply that they can rebuild to the same bulk and density. It will be up to the property owner to decide if they want to
rebuild with a different layout or unit count. However, the ordinance would not allow them to exceed the existing density.
Board Member Rosen commented that, as the City develops and amends its regulations moving forward, they should work
hard to identify the potential unintended consequences of each one. The ordinance could have significant impacts that the
Board is unaware of at this time. Director Hope commented that, even in the best of circumstances, the City will not be able
to identify everything that might happen in the future. However, they can try harder and learn a lesson from this experience.
Board Member Rosen voiced concern about the perception of fairness if a nonconforming building that is destroyed can be
rebuilt to the same density and dimensional and bulk standards, but an adjacent nonconforming property that is still intact
would not have this same opportunity. The latter would be held to the current code requirements, and the former would not.
Director Hope agreed that is a fair point, and the purpose of the nonconforming code is to deal with existing buildings and
uses. Some jurisdictions do not allow any nonconforming buildings to be rebuilt unless they meet the current standards, but
many times jurisdictions allow for some exceptions.
Board Member Rosen commented that if the City does not adopt a permanent ordinance to solve this problem, it will be
setting itself up for legal consequences down the road. The City also has a moral obligation to address the issue
appropriately. If the ordinance is motivated by the reaction of banks, he asked if there is a way for the City to test whether
the ordinance would resolve the problem. It would be a shame to go through all of this work without some assurance that the
problem will be addressed. Director Hope said the City can never guarantee that banks will not come up with new concerns
to deny loans, but it is common for banks to approach cities if there is any doubt as to whether or not a structure can be
rebuilt. They typically ask for zoning confirmation and/or verification letters as routine business. She expressed her belief
that the ordinance, as discussed, would satisfy the requirement of banks. Board Member Crank pointed out that the interim
ordinance allows the Planning Division to write rebuild letters to banks, and this could be considered a test as to whether it
will resolve the issue or not.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the Architectural Design Board would be involved when a nonconforming residential
structure is rebuilt. Director Hope answered that Architectural Design Board review will be required. Board Member
Rubenkonig suggested that the Architectural Design Board could propose some upgrades to update the structure. Board
Member Monroe agreed that design review is important to ensure that more modern buildings are constructed.
Board Member Monroe said he is fine with allowing the ordinance to apply to both density and bulk and dimensional
standards, but he wants to be fair to the adjacent property owners by not allowing the building dimensions to expand. He
supports allowing a structure to be rebuilt to the existing height and setbacks, but they need to also allow the outside features
of the buildings to be updated.
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 11
Packet Pg. 77
7.1.c
Mr. Lien advised that staff would be back before the Board in two weeks with some draft code language for a public hearing
The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:53 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:57 pm.
ROLE OF PLANNING BOARD
Director Hope recalled that, at their retreat, the Board requested she provide a presentation on the Planning Board's roles,
responsibilities and limitations, as well as how the Board can better assist local officials and staff. She said that, broadly
speaking, there are a lot of variations on how planning boards/commissions are comprised and what they do. In Washington
State, planning boards/commissions play a very active role in long-range planning and code development and reviewing
some types of development.
Director Hope referred to Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) 10.40, which defines the roles, responsibilities and operating
practices of the Planning Board. As per EMC 10.40, the Planning Board:
• Advises on Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes and development regulations.
• Advises the Mayor and City Council on parking matters related to development regulations. Sometimes parking and
transportation issues have loomed up, and it was recognized that the Planning Board, which looks at all of those issues
together, could play a useful role in addressing parking matters.
• Serves as an ongoing Parks Board and advises on all matters related to acquisition or development of City parks and
recreation facilities.
• Conducts research on specific projects assigned by the Mayor and City Council with the option to present findings and
recommendations.
• Carries out other duties per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.63, except those duties that are delegated to the
Hearing Examiner, other agencies or staff.
Director Hope also referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01, which specifically assigns the
Planning Board the authority to make recommendations to the City Council on site -specific rezones and development
agreements, as well as legislative matters such as zoning text amendments, area -wide Zoning Map amendments,
Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations, and development regulations.
The Planning Board's responsibilities include holding regular meetings (2aa and 4' Wednesdays, 7 p.m.) that are open to the
public and public hearings as needed. The Board also meets with the City Council periodically to review and update
Planning Board agendas and stimulate "continuing communication" amongst the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Board in
an effort to identify and solve the problems facing the City. However, this conversation would not limit the items placed on
the Board's agenda nor the topics the Board may consider. The Board has specific responsibility for adopting internal rules
and procedures and rules governing the election and duties of Planning Board officers. Prior to 2010, the Board was also
responsible for reviewing and considering strategies for economic development in coordination with the Economic
Development Commission. This last responsibility sunset in 2010 and was replaced with, "May work with the Economic
Development Commission."
Director Hope advised that the City's Planning Division provides regular staff services to the Planning Board, and other City
departments provide staff services as requested. The City Council establishes an annual budget for Planning Board
operations, and this funding is typically provided via the Planning Division to provide services the Board needs. The
Planning Board can request funding for special needs as appropriate.
Director Hope said there are certain limitations that apply to the Planning Board. For example, their work should focus on
planning issues, and their recommendations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board must also
recognize the authority of state laws and City codes and follow the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and Open Public
Meetings Act. If Board Members are involved in situations that might appear to be unfair, they should recuse themselves
from the discussions. They must also avoid conducting secret meetings that are not open to the public and avoid conducting
business outside of meetings via email, etc. She reminded them that the Board is a creature of the City and not an
independent body. The Board operates under the broader authority of the municipal government.
Planning Board Minutes
April 24, 2019 Page 12
Packet Pg. 78
7.1.d
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Lien recalled that this public hearing was originally scheduled for May 8', but was postponed until May 22nd because the
meeting room was overbooked. He explained that, as per ECDC 17.40.020.A, a nonconforming building is "one which once
met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to
such standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the City of Edmonds or the application of such
ordinance in the case of a structure annexed into the City. " The code section in question prior to the interim ordinance is
ECDC 17.40.020.F. It says that "if a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to
75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be constructed except in full
conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. "
Mr. Lien explained that the situation came forward when banks started to refuse financing for the purchase of condominiums
that were constructed prior to the City's major zoning change in the 1980's. Many of these developments exceed the current
bulk standards (density, height and setbacks). He provided a map of properties that might be impacted, but noted that the
map has not been updated since the last meeting. Staff identified 24 sites but did not evaluate all residential buildings within
the City.
Mr. Lien advised that the City Council passed an interim ordinance on April 23`d that added an additional sentence to ECDC
17.40.020.17, which reads, `PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and
to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for
a building permit is submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred. "
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board discussed this issue on April 24" and provided direction similar to the language
contained in the interim ordinance. The Board felt a property owner should be restored in full if something were to happen to
his/her property. Based on the Board's feedback, staff drafted the proposed amendments. He reviewed each of the changes as
follows:
• ECDC 17.40.010.F.1. This section refers to a code section that is no longer relevant. The proposed amendment
would update the language to provide the correct reference (ECDC 19.00.025(G).
ECDC 17.40.020.F and G. ECDC 17.40.020.17 deals with restoration of all nonresidential nonconforming
buildings, and ECDC 17.40.020.G deals with restoration of all nonconforming residential buildings in commercial
zones. The proposed amendment combines Section F and G and breaks it into three separate sections. The majority
of the proposed changes match the interim ordinance. However, the interim ordinance had a one-year timeline for
submitting a building permit application, and the Board requested that it be increased to 18 months, with an
opportunity to extend for an additional 180 days.
• ECDC 17.40.020.F.1 would apply to all nonresidential nonconforming buildings and would require that
nonresidential nonconforming building that are damaged more than 75 percent, must comply with all of the current
zoning codes. Buildings damaged less than 75 percent can be restored if a building permit application is submitted
within 18 months of the date such damage occurred.
ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 would apply to all nonconforming multifamily residential buildings or mixed -use buildings
containing multiple residential units. The Planning Board will need to make a recommendation on whether or not
this provision should be limited to multi -family residential or include mixed -use buildings that also contain
residential units, as well. Some of the old nonconforming code applied to buildings that were primarily residential.
The provision would allow nonconforming multifamily residential buildings or mixed -use buildings containing
multiple residential units to be restored if damaged in excess of 75 percent if a building permit application is
submitted with 18 months of the date the damage occurred.
• ECDC 17.40.020.F.3 pertains to the right of restoration and would apply to both nonresidential nonconforming
buildings and residential nonconforming buildings. As written, the right of restoration would not apply if -
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 79
7.1.d
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's
agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
owner's agent;
c. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment.
Item c is a new item that is intended to address the situation of an existing apartment building that is nonconforming
(exceeds density and height) and a developer wants to tear it down and construct another building. Staffs thought is
that the building should be required to comply with the current zoning standards.
• ECDC 19.00.045 is a new section that was added to the Building Code. The City has a policy for determining when
a project is considered new construction versus a remodel. Different standards and fees apply whether a project is
new or a remodel. Many developers try to retain 25 percent of a structure's value and do a remodel instead of a
rebuild. This amendment would codify the policy and add a specific reference to the nonconforming section to
make it clear that the nonconforming code would still apply.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the City Council wants to address this issue fairly quickly, and they are seeking a
recommendation for the Board prior to their public hearing, which is scheduled for June 4'.
James Forrer, Edmonds, said he lives in the condominiums that abut 4" and 5" Avenues South, and his primary concern is
that many of the owners are between 80 and 90 years old and have lived there since the project was built in 1979. If the issue
is not resolved in the right way at a time when they might need medical care, assisted living or a nursing home, a lot of their
net worth is tied up in their condominiums and a lot of that would be obliterated if people cannot get bank loans or cash
purchasers do not come in to replace the bank loans.
Cami Morrill, Director of Government and Public Affairs with the Snohomish County and Camano Association of
Realtors, offered support for the draft code language, which will allow the nonconforming buildings to be restored to the
same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred.
Wendy Kondo, Windermere Real Estate, said she brought this situation to the City's attention when her transaction
wouldn't close. The bank would not lend money for the condo when it was discovered it could not be rebuilt. That means
they are unwarrantable and underwriters won't purchase the loans. This is a very dangerous situation, especially with the
banks and government getting tighter and tighter with lending. Most cities she checked into have grandfathered these types
of buildings because they already exist and people already own them. She asked that the City change its code language to
allow these structures to be grandfathered in so the owners can sell their condominiums and people can still get loans to
purchase them. There is no reason not to allow them to be rebuilt. The buildings are already there and they won't be built
any differently than they currently are.
Board Member Rosen referred to ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 and asked if it would be possible to apply the proposed provisions to
just the residential portion of a nonconforming building and require that the nonresidential portion must meet the current code
standards. Mr. Lien answered that it would be very difficult to have different provisions for the commercial versus
residential space because there are number of ways a building can become nonconforming.
Board Member Monroe asked if it would be possible to include a provision that would lock a development into the current
ratio of commercial versus residential. He wouldn't want to allow a property owner to significantly change the ratio. Mr.
Lien clarified that the proposed amendments would not open the box to allow a property owner to maximize the density that
existed in 1980 or when the building was constructed. It allows the building to be restored to the same density, height,
setbacks, etc. that existed before the destruction or damage occurred and the nonconformity could not expand.
Board Member Lovell said he supports the proposed amendments. However, it is important to understand that if a building is
lost, the insurance company will be responsible for making the owner whole and not the City. Regardless of how long that
process takes, he doesn't understand how that is the business of the City. While the banks can raise concern about the
nonconforming issue, he doesn't believe they would deny the loan if the purchaser wants to go forward anyway. The unit
would still be livable even if it was built to an earlier code standard.
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 80
7.1.d
Board Member Lovell observed that, although the amendment would allow a property owner to restore a structure to the
same bulk and setback standards, the restoration would have to meet the current Building Code requirements. All the
amendment offers is a one -for -one replacement of the space in whatever configuration it existed in before the building was
lost.
Mr. Lien agreed that most owners will have insurance and if a condominium burns down, they will receive X amount of
money from the insurance company and the owner could technically purchase a condominium in another location. However,
that may not make an owner who has a condominium on 5`t' Avenue with a view whole. It would not give the property owner
back what he/she had at the same location. He summarized that the proposed amendments are not intended to solve the
insurance and banking issues. The intent is to allow a property owner to be made whole, and it is more than just providing a
new place to live. It is providing a new place to live in the same location that they were.
Chair Cheung asked if the proposed amendments have been run by any insurance companies or banks to solicit feedback on
whether or not they will resolve the issues. Ms. Kondo reported that the interim ordinance addressed the bank's problem and
the purchaser was able to obtain a loan to purchase the unit. Mr. Lien summarized that the interim ordinance addressed the
situation that raised the issue initially, but the proposed amendments have not been presented to financial institutions for
feedback.
While some may be looking at this as an opportunity to address a number of things at one time, Board Member Crank
recommended they fix the immediate issue of grandfathering nonconforming condominiums first. She supports applying the
proposed provisions to nonconforming mixed -use buildings with residential units, and she is opposed to having a different
standard for the commercial portion of a mixed -use building. They need to address this issue expeditiously. Edmonds is a
bedroom community, which means the majority of condominium owners are older. Time is of the essence in making sure
they rectify the situation. She said she supports grandfathering in those buildings that have been identified as
nonconforming, including those that are mixed -use. She encouraged them to right the ship first before making other potential
changes to zoning.
Vice Chair Robles asked who would adjudicate the "rights to restoration" matter. While it is obvious when there is a fire,
earthquake, etc., there are more ways by which buildings can lose substantial value. For example, they may need a new roof,
new siding, and new piping. Together these costs might exceed the value of the building, in which case the owners may
decide to demolish it and build a new one. He asked if this would fall within the definition of gross negligence. Mr. Lien
explained that a property owner would provide a list of all the materials needed to reconstruct the building, and the Building
Official would make the final determination of whether or not it equates to 75 percent. The property owner can appeal the
Building Official's decision to the Hearing Examiner. A building that needs a new roof, siding, wiring, etc. would fall into
this category if the work exceeds 75 percent. He commented that some property owners try to save at least 25 percent of a
building so it can be considered a remodel rather than replacement so that different permits, codes and fees can apply.
Vice Chair Robles asked if staff feels the proposed amendments adequately cover every eventuality. He asked how "gross
negligence" would be defined. Every building has a service life, at which point it needs to be brought down. Mr. Lien said
"gross negligence" includes situations of ongoing neglect. A building that hasn't had any maintenance done to it for the past
40 years would not necessarily fall into this category, but it could fall into the "ongoing neglect" category. Mr. Chave added
that if the Building Official finds that a building is uninhabitable or dangerous, it likely got there by gross negligence.
Chair Cheung asked if Section F.3.a would cover situations where someone intentionally damages a building in order to
collect insurance money. He asked if it has to be an unlawful act in order for F.3.1 to apply. Mr. Lien responded that
accidents happen, and that is what the amendments are intended to address. Section F.3.a is intended to address situations
where property owners intentionally damage their buildings.
Vice Chair Robles asked if the adjudication process could include a third -party review to access negligence. Mr. Lien said
the Building Official is the City's qualified expert to make that call. If the property owner disagrees, the Hearing Examiner
would be the third -party review. The Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to Superior Court. Vice Chair Robles
voiced concern about forcing a condominium owner into an appeal process that will require money to pay for attorneys and
experts. That money could be better spent repairing the building. Mr. Lien said that, as a professional, he follows a code of
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 81
7.1.d
ethics, and the same is true for the Building Official. The Building Official tries to make ethical decisions, and requiring a
third -party will add an upfront cost that may not be necessary. Even if a third -party review is required, there must still be an
avenue of appeal. He cautioned against adding this unnecessary step.
Board Member Monroe asked what happens if one condominium owner intentionally burns down his/her unit and it catches
the entire building on fire. Would this trigger ECDC 17.40.020.F.3.a. Mr. Lien said he doesn't believe that situation would
fall under this provision since the action would be out of the hands of the other owners in the building. Board Member
Monroe asked who would make that determination. Mr. Lien said a number of people would be involved in the decision.
Board Member Monroe suggested that ECDC 17.40.020.F.3.c be changed to read, "the building was intentionally
demolished." Chair Cheung suggested that ECDC 17.40.020.F.3.a also be changed to replace "unlawful" with "intentional."
Mr. Lien agreed to consider these two changes to make the language clearer.
Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 and asked if the restored building would be required to meet all four
of the standards (density, height, setbacks and coverage). Mr. Lien said these are all different aspects for why the building is
nonconforming. They represent the bulk and dimensional standards for what a structure can be rebuilt to. Board Member
Monroe suggested this could be clarified by replacing the word "and" with "or." Mr. Lien agreed.
Board Member Monroe commented that in addition to making property owners whole, the proposed amendments will also
make the community whole. If a building burns down, the community will lose residents and businesses, etc.
Board Member Lovell said he supports correcting the alleged short fall within the provisions to make it possible to rebuild,
but it should be clear that the amendments have nothing to do with insurance, banking or the value of a unit before, after or
during loss. The amendment simply enables a property owner who has a nonconforming building to rebuild in accordance
with the new Building Code, but to the preexisting density, setback and height.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH ONE CHANGE TO AMEND ECDC
17.40.020.F.2 BY REPLACING "AND" WITH "OR." BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave advised that the amendments, along with the Board's recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a
public hearing on June 4t'
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung advised that the June 12' agenda will include a legislative update and a Vision 2050 update. Mr. Chave
advised that staff would also present an update on development activities around the City.
Chair Cheung reminded the Board Members of the joint meeting with the City Council on June 18t''. Topics of discussion
will include housing and improving the lines of communication between the Planning Board and the City Council. Mr.
Chave said the Board will also be meeting jointly with the Architectural Design Board soon to discuss the design review
process.
Since there are few items on the extended agenda for June and July, Board Member Monroe suggested that they consider
adding some of the items included on the "Pending" list. For example, staff could provide an update on Highway 99
Implementation.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung reported that he and Vice Chair Robles presented the Planning Board Report to the City Council. He told them
the Board was excited to have more topics coming their way. He explained how the Board Members try to get their
comments in the minutes from their meetings and hope that the City Council Members take the time to read them. A few
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 82
7.1.e
May 21, 2019 2:37 PM
Planning Board:
Thank you for your consideration in rectifying the zoning issue which would impact many of us
Edmonds residents. Please implement zoning which grandfathers in the zoning requirements as they
were when older condo buildings were built. I respectfully urge you to give this matter your top
priority.
Carol M. Wilson
The Carmel - #302
655 Main St
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 83
7.1.e
From: Brian Potter <1eneada@gmai1.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:50 PM
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Nonconforming units comments
Mr. Lien:
Please consider the following as my comments on the proposed code revision.
First, I appreciate the urgency with with the city council and city staff have addressed this issue.
It is one that I and many other owners in my condo building are quite concerned about, and it
affects the value of all Edmonds mutifamily residential structures.
I see the modifications to the code appear in three primary sections. I cannot exactly tell the
section numbers, with the edits, but they appear to be F.1 ("If a nonconforming building or
structure is destroyed..."); 2.a ("If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or
mixed..."), and the new section 19.00.045. I will refer to them by these specifications hereafter.
Section 2.a appears to be the portion that remedies the existing concern, by saying that buildings
damaged in excess of 75% may be restored to density, height, setback, etc. The remainder seems
reasonable, though in the event of a major earthquake in the region I suspect finding architects
and engineers to draft plans to submit for a new permit may take more than 18 months. Still,
there is a clause that covers that with the option of an extension. If more than one extension were
needed, I hope the Council would have addressed that by then, so the limit of one extension in
the draft doesn't worry me.
The main concern I have is that as written, there is no reference in these three sections to indicate
which one or ones supersede which other(s). It would be a simple matter to amend F.1. to read:
"If a nonconforming building or structure other than a multifamily residential building or mixed
use building containing multiple residential units is destroyed or is damaged..." And while
19.00.045 cites Chapter 17.40 at the end, beginning the passage with that reference of
exclusion/exception would be more direct. Amending it to read "Chapter 17.40 of ECDC also
applies to certain requirements and supersedes this section..." would further clarify the
prioritization of the three sections.
My other major thought is that the wording of 2.a. seems unnecessarily complex."damaged in
excess of 75 percent" is unnecessary, and could be replaced by something like "damaged up to
100 percent". The only reason to state 75 percent would be if buildings damaged less than 75
percent are not subject to the same restrictions in some way (such as parts b-d). (I see nowhere
that describes the terms for repairs when damage is below 75 percent.)
A point of lesser concern to me, personally, is that the way 2.a. is written, along with 2.c., it
sounds as though, if a multi -use building were damaged over 75 percent, and code for the
nonresidential part had changed since the construction, the nonresidential part could not be
rebuilt to original specifications. The two phrases "primary residential use" and "accessory
buildings" do not cover all parts of such a structure/property- some of the primary building use is
not residential, yet it is not an accessory building.
Finally, my impression is that this returns the code to the 1980 version you presented at the 16
April city council meeting. That seemed much simpler than the many components in the draft
text published on the city website.
Packet Pg. 84
7.1.e
Lien, Kernen
From:
Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:46 AM
To:
Earling, Dave; Hope, Shane; Monillas, Adrienne; Buckshnis, Diane; Teitzel, Dave; Nelson,
Michael; Tibbott, Neil; Mesaros, Thomas; Johnson, Kristiana; Cunningham, Diane; Lien,
Kernen
Cc:
edmondseditor@yourbeacon.net
Subject:
Re: Tonight's agenda item - Condo's
Ordinance No. 3696 enacted Chapter 17.40 ECC on August 31, 2008. Prior legislation: Ords. 2292, 2429, 2936, 3024,
3153, 3247, 3283, 3300, 3327, 3353 and 3515.
Ordinance No. 3696 was a 2 year plus process that started around the time of Scott Snyder's memorandum to Rob
Chave.
On February 26, 2008, the City Council held a work session on the code rewrite update. The related minutes document
much discussion of the damage percentage concept.
The following is from the February 26, 2008 meeting:
Council President Plunkett suggested 90 or 100% versus 75%. Mr. Snyder explained non -conforming use provisions were
intended over time to bring structures into compliance with the code. There may be structures the Council would like to
have preserved but others that if damaged 75% they would prefer be replaced. He noted 100% did not provide a tool for
long term compliance with the zoning code. Council President Plunkett suggested allowing structures damaged 100% in
the BD1 zone or eligible for historic registry to be allowed to be reconstructed. Mr. Snyder advised that was a policy
issue for the Council.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board discussed 100% for the BD1 zone or on the list of historic
structures. Mr. Bowman advised structures on the historic list were identified by the language, pointing out language in
this section, shall prevent the full restoration and reconstruction of a building or structure which is either on the
National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural
Resource Inventory, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places or is listed in a city approved historical survey meeting the
standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The Planning Board wanted to recognize
that buildings were valuable and property owners may want to retain the existing buildings and that was why they
increased the percentage from 50 to 75. He noted the Planning Board acknowledged if a building was totally destroyed,
it should be rebuilt in compliance with the code.
The approved City Council Meeting Minutes for June 3, 2008 document a discussion of changing the damage percentage
from 50% to 75%. There is also a discussion regarding residential buildings in commercial zones that may be of interest.
I hope this information is helpful.
Ken Reidy
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:52 AM
To: Dave Earling; Shane Hope; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Diane Buckshnis; Dave Teitzel; Michael Nelson; Neil Tibbott;
Thomas Mesaros; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Cunningham; Lien, Kernen
Cc: edmondseditor@yourbeacon.net
Subject: Re: Tonight's agenda item - Condo's
Packet Pg. 85
7.1.e
I submit the following information Re: Nonconforming Uses, written by former City Attorney W. Scott
Snyder. I hope the information is helpful. I highlighted one section which may be food for thought on the
current condominium situation. Ken Reidy
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 8, 2006
To: Edmonds City Council Members
City of Edmonds
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
cc: City of Edmonds
From: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
Re: Nonconforming Uses
As the City Council discusses amendments to the City's nonconforming use provisions, it might be helpful to
review the basic legal concepts behind nonconforming uses and their status under the Washington law. As we
have discussed, the City's nonconforming use section is one which badly needs revision. There have been a
wide variety of changes over the years. There are gaps between the existing categories (nonconforming lots,
nonconforming buildings and nonconforming uses). In some cases, the City has lightened the burden for
property owners regarding nonconforming uses by creating exceptions. The best example is the decision to
permit flexibility regarding construction on nonconforming lots (lots which are below the minimum lot size in a
particular zone.)
At other times, the past City Councils have been extremely restrictive. An example, the City has abated or
phased out nonconforming commercial uses in residential areas acquired through certain annexations.
NONCONFORMING USES
A nonconforming use is defined by the Washington Supreme Court in this way:
A nonconforming use is a use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is
maintained after the effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with the zoning restrictions
applicable to the district in which it is situated.
Rhod-A-Zalea and 35th, Inc. 136 Wn.2d at 6 (citing One Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 601
(Kenneth H. Young edition, 4th Ed. 1996); University Place v. McGuire, 144 Wn.2d 640, 648, 30 P.3d 453
(2001). _
Nonconforming uses are "not favored in law..." Andrew v. King County, 21 Wash. App. 566, 579, 586 P.2d
509 (1978). As the Washington Supreme Court discussed in the Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark
County case:
Nonconforming uses are disfavored under the law. The policy of zoning legislation is to phase out a
nonconforming use. Where a nonconforming use is in existence at the time that a zoning ordinance is enacted,
and thus allowed to continue, it "cannot be changed into some other kind of a nonconforming use."
140 Wn.2d 143, 9995 P.2d 33 (2000) (Citations omitted.)
The policy reasons behind phasing out nonconforming uses were noted with approval in Anderson v. Island
County:
It has been pointed out in several cases that the ultimate purpose of a zoning ordinance is to confine certain
classes of buildings and uses to certain localities; but since the continued existence of those which are
nonconforming is inconsistent with that object, it is contemplated the conditions should be reduced to
conformity as completely and speedily as possible with due regard to the special interests of those concerned,
Packet Pg. 86
7.1.e
and that where suppression is not feasible without working a substantial injustice, there shall be accomplished
the greatest possible amelioration of the offending use which justice permits; and that the generally accepted
method of accomplishing this result is to prevent any increase in the nonconformity and, when changes in the a,
premises are contemplated by the owner, to compel, as far as is expedient, a lessening or complete suppression
of the nonconformity. `o
81 Wn.2d 323. r-
0
To summarize the current state of Washington law:
1. Nonconforming uses are those which were legally established prior to regulation by a zoning Z
code.
2. Although nonconforming uses (buildings, lots, etc.) may be continued, the use, building or other
regulated facet of property may not be expanded in any way. A person who expands a nonconforming use can
lose the right to continue it.
3. Cities have the right to abate uses, that is, to require that they be phased out over a period of
time.
POLICY CHOICES
The original provisions of the City's nonconforming use section as established in 1980 were clearly aimed at
phasing out nonconforming uses. Over time, the City ordinances have been amended in a number of respects to
provide flexibility for the reconstruction of nonconforming properties damaged in fires or other similar
disasters, to permit the use of undersized building lots if they are within the range deemed appropriate by the
City Council, and to permit renovation of nonconforming buildings so long as the degree of nonconformity is
not expanded. The latter provision means that a property owner with a home that is too close to the west side
yard property, can renovate the home by expanding in other areas (such as the rear front or east setback) so long
as the nonconforming aspect is not expanded.
That having been said, rewriting the current nonconforming use provisions does not mean that the City Council
is limited in its policy approach. The City Council could:
1. maintain strict nonconforming use provisions;
2. provide for more flexible nonconforming use provisions that would permit some expansion or
reuse of nonconforming properties (see, for example, your current nonconforming lot provisions); or
3. adopt different nonconforming use standards for different neighborhoods, or categories of uses.
As we have discussed, the City has certain buildings or housing stock which do not qualify for historic
status. The City Council would find that these buildings, whether commercial or residential, are worthy of
preservation for cultural or other reasons, such as a desire to preserve affordable housing stock. Therefore, the
City Council is not obligated to adopt a one -size -fits -all category.
Remember however, that if you choose to permit continuation of expansion of nonconforming uses, those
regulations will need to be equally applicable to "good" and "bad" buildings. That is, subjective determinations
that one property with a use category could be expanded or continued and another in the same category abated
would be difficult to justify legally.
One commentator has observed that the basic rationale behind prohibiting the expansion of nonconforming uses
is to preserve the overall integrity of the zoning code. The commentator analyzed the problem in terms of "spot
zoning." A "spot zone" refers to an illegal zoning decision by a City Council which inserts one particular use or
property in a zone or area where other properties do not enjoy the same privileges. The commentator
analogized allowing expansion of nonconforming uses to allow individuals to spot zone their properties. He
noted that nonconforming uses can be the basis for variance applications by others under the rationale that they
should enjoy the same privileges as their neighbors. That a nonconforming use, rather than being disfavored
and abated, could become the basis for an expansion of the use throughout a neighborhood undercuts the entire
purpose of the zoning code: it would allow the exception to gradually swallow the rule.
That having been said, the City Council has a number of policy options. We look forward to your direction.
WSS:gjz
3
Packet Pg. 87
7.1.e
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:49 PM
To: Dave Earling; Shane_ Hope; Adrienne Fraley-Monillas; Diane Buckshnis; Dave Teitzel; Michael Nelson; Neil Tibbott;
Thomas Mesaros; Kristiana Johnson; Diane Cunningham
Cc: edmondseditor@yourbeacon.net
Subject: Tonight's agenda item - Condo's
To all,
Mayor Earling, City Staff and all City Councilmembers are well aware of the City's history related to the application of
grandfathering laws under ECDC Chapter 17.40. From City Staff concluding a developer gets grandfathering protection
for new construction when no laws have changed - to City Staff and City Attorney choosing to not inform the Hearing
Examiner that Ordinance 3696 grandfathered my setbacks, the underlying theme has been Different Rules for Different
People.
Mayor Earling, City Staff and all City Councilmembers are also well aware of the City's inability to complete its long
overdue code rewrite. Duane Bowman told Rick Gifford in 2006 that it took him six years to get funding to re -write the
code. That funding has been provided several times yet here we sit without a completed code re -write. My requests for
a status update have not been responded to and the related page on the City's website hasn't been updated for over 3
years.
Now, we have a new issue swirling about related to grandfathering. This is a very big deal and I hope the City gives this
full, prompt attention. Staffs recommended Option D is a possible starting point.
Ken Reidy
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Packet Pg. 88
7.1.f
ORDINANCE NO.4149
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBSECTION 17.40.020(F) OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND/OR
STRUCTURES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are free within certain constitutional limitations to
establish their own standards for the regulation of nonconforming structures; and z
WHEREAS, The City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal D states our city should
maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older
housing stock in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Goals also states for our City to evaluate City ordinances and
programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings; and Q
WHEREAS, the WA State Supreme Court has held that although found to be detrimental
to important public interests, nonconforming uses may be allowed to continue under certain
L
conditions based on the belief that it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to require an
immediate cessation of a nonconforming use; and
WHEREAS, in the event of a disaster such as a fire or earthquake that destroyed a
nonconforming condominiums and multi -family structures, the current Edmonds City
Development Code does not allow the same number of housing units to be rebuilt, causing undue
hardship and leaving residents without a home; and d
z
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an °;
emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; and CU
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection 17.40.020 (F) of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Restoration," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text
is shown in strikethrough).
Packet Pg. 89
7.1.f
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is
damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the
time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full
conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the
same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed
before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for building permit is
submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred. Determination of
replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building
official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may
be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as
existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the
filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in
ECDC 19.00.015 et seq. within one year of the date such damage occurred. This
right of restoration shall not apply if:
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful
act of the owner or the owner's agent; or
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or
gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents.
Section 2. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective
date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after which
point it shall have no further effect.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists
necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus
one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum.
Packet Pg. 90
7.1.f
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 3, as long as it is approved by a majority plus
one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted
by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an
emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
Section 6. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts as findings of fact in support of
the adoption of this ordinance the "whereas" clauses above.
APPROVED:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 19, 2019
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 23, 2019
PUBLISHED: April 26. 2019
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 2019
ORDINANCE NO. 4149
Packet Pg. 91
7.1.f
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4149
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 23rd day of April, 2019, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4149. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBSECTION 17.40.020(F) OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND/OR
STRUCTURES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE..
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2019.
x
2
._ a
ERK, SCOTT P—A,9SEY
Packet Pg. 92
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Authorization to Purchase - 2019 Cues Sewer Video Inspection Truck
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Royce Napolitino
Background/History
The Sewer Division operates Unit #62-SWR, a 2009 Cues Video Inspection Truck. It is budgeted for
replacement in 2019. On 4/9/19 this truck was presented to the committee and was approved to be an
action item on 4/16/19. At the 4/16/19 council meeting it was asked to be removed from the agenda
and moved back to committee. On the 5/14/19 committee meeting it was approved to move to the
action agenda on 5/14. On 5/14, after some discussion, a vote was taken. It was a tie (2 to 2). It was
suggested to revisit this item with all council members present.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to the Department of Public Works to purchase (1) 2019
Cues video inspection truck from Cues, through HGAC, contract #SC01-18.
Narrative
Unit #62-SWR, a 2009 cues video inspection truck was budgeted for replacement at $425,000 and
approved to be replaced in 2019 with B-Fund monies. The new Cues video inspection truck will have a
net cost, after trade-in, of $412,999.59.
This truck includes 4 new cameras: DUC HD300 digital, Lamp LM936-6 main, Lamp LM936 lateral, and
ZZ3 pole cameras. This price includes a $50,000 trade-in from Cues. We will retain the DUC camera from
our 2009 Cues as a spare. We replaced the 2009 Cues truck at 10 years due to compatibility issues once
the DUC camera was added in 2016. A 12-year life cycle will be set for the new truck.
We will purchase the LED traffic advisors and perimeter warning lights from our vendor at state contract
pricing ($2,400) and send them to Cues for installation. After we receive the truck from Cues we will
transfer the VHF radio and install City of Edmonds decals.
Packet Pg. 93
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Approval of Resources for Recording Housing Commission Events
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The May 21, 2019 City Council meeting included discussion about resources and options for supporting
the Citizens' Housing Commission. Council members agreed that a consultant for meeting facilitation
should be sought and that specific community engagement services could be provided by a consultant
and/or a part-time additional staff person. Staff would begin a process for this. However, for the
recording of Housing Commission meetings and other events, a conclusion was not reached. Staff
promised to come back with more options for this.
Staff Recommendation
For Council to indicate whether to have videotaping services for the Housing Commission and if so, at
what level to commit budget resources
Narrative
The City Council has expressed its intent to have at least some of the Housing Commission's future
meetings in locations other than City Hall --including locations in different parts of the City outside of the
"Bowl" area. The type of record to have of these meetings is the issue for which Council direction is
being sought now.
The Housing Commission will have monthly meetings, at least some of which could be held at the
Edmonds City Hall, where different recording options are available. Some monthly meetings might be
held at locations in other parts of the City, where recording options may be more limited.
The Housing Commission will also host other public events (for example, open houses) at least once per
quarter. Some or all of these would occur in locations other than City Hall. Again, away from City Hall,
recording options are more limited.
At its May 21 meeting, the City Council gave direction that, for the Commission's monthly meetings,
formal meeting minutes should be taken by a professional minute -taker. This would require additional
resources estimated at $2100 in 2019 and $3600 in 2020 ($5700 total).
Council members also wanted to know more about videotaping options. Staff undertook research on
this, based on the expectation that each event would require up to 3 hours of video recording time (1/2
hour for preparation and set-up in advance of the meeting or event; 2 hours for the meeting or event;
and 1/2 hour for any additional meeting time plus take -down).
Packet Pg. 94
8.2
Staff research so far shows that:
For City Hall use, videotaping could be done (assuming the use of existing equipment and the ability to
have extra time from a current part-time staff person) for about $200 a session, counting indirect costs.
This would include indexing of the video.
For all locations (in or out of City Hall), videotaping could be done by contacting for the services, with a
cost range of $300 per session to about $1900 per session. These costs reflect different levels of
services. For example, using one camera and one microphone, with a week to deliver the recording, is in
the $300 to $350 range per session. The higher end of these options includes one microphone per
Commissioner, an additional microphone for the public, and three cameras to show different views.
NOTE: All of the contracted services would include video editing. Indexed videos could be delivered in 5
days or less. One firm indicated it could also produce live streaming video.
Options
Options include those below or some combination of them:
A. (None) No use of resources for videotaping; instead rely on audio taping and posted meeting minutes
B. ("All In at Low End") Use of private services for all meetings inside and outside City Hall at the low
end of the cost range (meaning minimal microphone and camera coverage)
C. ("All In at Mid to Higher End") Use of private services for all meetings inside and outside City Hall at
the mid -to -higher end (meaning more microphones and cameras)
D. ("Mixed Level") A combination of Option A for City Hall meetings and Option B or C for all meetings
or events outside City Hall.
NOTE: The cost range identified in this memo is based on informal quotes. Depending on Council
direction about the level of desired service, City staff would seek formal quotes and proceed with a
contract --or wait to see what videotaping services could be provided by a vendor that might provide
other community engagement support.
Attachments:
Att. 1: Council Minutes Excerpt from May 21
Packet Pg. 95
8.2.a
Fraley-Monillas asked if that was the area with the wildlife corridor. Mr. Lien said there are critical area on
the site, slopes of greater than 40% which are potential landslide hazard area and slopes of 15-40% that are
erosion hazards. The previous subdivision process also identified a small wetland. Council President Fraley-
Monillas relayed her understanding the street vacation was not in the wetland. Mr. Lien answered it was
not, it does pass through the steep slope, there would not be a straight road from Olympic View Drive.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1430, SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF 84TH STREET SW BETWEEN 80TH
AVENUE W AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE FOR JULY 16, 2019. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATION OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT
City Engineer Rob English reviewed:
• 2018 Report
Beginning Balance
$$551,215
Impact Fees
$201,348
Expenditures
220t' St Loan payment
(1st loan paid off 2022 & 2' loan paid off 2024)
($40,515)
76'/212' Intersection
($43,878)
76t''/220t' Intersection
$54,453
Ending Balance
$613,717
• History of Traffic Im act Fees
Year
Impact Fees
2004-2009
$554,772
2010
$554,772
2011
$34,873
2012
$307,678
2013
$156,652
2014
$202,295
2015
$66,334
2016
$139,031
2017
$372,481
2018
4201,348
Total
$2,055,430
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the timeframe for spending the ending balance. Mr. English
answered the funds must be spent five years from the time they are collected which is monitored by staff.
This fund is often used to match federal grants such as the 76t''/220t' intersection or any of the other capacity -
related projects used in the calculation of the TIP. Councilmember Tibbott summarized there would be no
problem spending the $600,000. Mr. English answered no, he wished there was more.
5. APPROVAL OF RESOURCES FOR HOUSING COMMISSION
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
• Background
o Housing Commission application process has begun
■ Received 90+ applications so far from every area of City
o Looking for direction on resources to support Housing Commission work
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 96
T
N
0
2
E
0
a
L
d
x
w
d
0
c
c
0
t�
Q
c
d
E
z
U
cc
a
8.2.a
• Assumptions for Existing Staff Resources
Other Workload (examples)
Housing Commission Support
Development Projects
Advertising for consultant
Customer Service
Negotiating Contract
Code updates (esp. trees & subdivisions)
Overseeing process & timelines
Climate goals project
Reporting to Council
UFMP completion & implementation
Coordinating with consultant(s)
Snohomish County Tomorrow & PSRC
Arranging and noticing meetings
Coordination with transit agencies
Pulling together housing data
Buildable Lands analysis
Researching topics as needed
Support for other boards and commissions
(Planning, ADB, Historic Preservation, Tree
Board)
Making or arranging presentations
Obtaining ants and awards
Preparing agenda, memos, reports
SEPA process
Overseeing website info
Research & training
Responding to citizen inquiries
Organizing Commission's
recommendations for publication
0 Need for Additional CHC Resources
Meeting Facilitation
Community Engagement
Facilitate CHC monthly meetings to help them run
smoothly and stay on track
Develop approaches for maximizing
community outreach
Facilitate other community events
Surveys (design, collection, results)
Prepare & debrief before/after meetings/events)
Website info
Communicate & coordinate with staff
Flyers & announcements
Display boards & other graphics
Designing community events & input
opportunities
Tracking public comment
Options for Meeting Facilitation and Community Engagement (Each of the three options could
adequately support CHC's work)
o Option A
■ Separate meeting facilitator (consultant)
■ Half-time temporary staff person for community engagement and other CHC staff support
■ Key Advantages
- Would help offset workload of existing staff to support CHC
- Staff could change direction if needed w/o contract amendment
o Option B
■ Separate meeting facilitator (consultant)
■ Separate community engagement specialist (consultant)
■ Key Advantages
- May allow meeting facilitator to "get on board" prior to community engagement work
o Option C (variation of Option B)
■ One consultant firm for both meeting facilitation and community engagement
■ Key Advantages
- Could reduce consultant overlap and save money
- Would be easier to administer
• Estimated Costs of Alternatives through 2020
Option
1 2019
2020
Total
A
1 $38,000*
1 $76,000**
$114,000
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 97
T
N
M
2
E
0
a
L
d
x
w
a�
c
c
0
t�
a
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
8.2.a
B
$38,500-$52,000
$75,0004100,000
$113,500-$152,000
C
$36,500-$50,000
$72,000-$97,000
$110,5004149,000
*$9,000 for meeting facilitator: $29,000 for 6 months of %2 time staff person (salary + benefits)
** $18,000 for meeting facilitator: $58,000 for 12 months of/2 time staff person (salary + benefits)
Ms. Hope described tasks that a half-time staff person could assist with. She continued her presentation
• Minutes vs. Notes
o Option D:
■ Detailed professional minutes taken by contractor
- $300/meeting x 7 meetings in 2019 = $2,100
- $300/meeting x 12 meetings in 2020 = $3,600
- Total $5,700
■ Distinction: More details of discussion
o Option E
■ Informal notes taken by staff @ no additional cost
■ Distinction: Similar to method used for most City boards and commissions; less costly
o Another option:
■ Videotaping meetings
Looking for direction to proceed
1. Support for meeting facilitation and community engagement
o Option A, B, or C
o Recommendation A (with B or C as backup)
2. Support for meeting minutes vs. notes
o Option D or E (either OK)
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed her preference for Option A. She was hesitant to select Option
C because the City used one company for the first round of this project and it did not go over well. She
asked how much Option A could offset staff s work. Ms. Hope anticipated it could cut a couple hundred
hours at least from existing staff. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized she preferred to have a
contracted meeting facilitator and a half time staff person.
Councilmember Nelson asked if it was fair to say that 90+ applicants for a commission or board was
unusually high. Ms. Hope agreed it was. Councilmember Nelson said it shows there is significant
community interest in the commission, which is why he is most interested in the community engagement
element. He was leaning toward Option C, acknowledging that some consultants have not done not such a
great job in the past, but others have done an amazing job and have more resources at their disposal than
one staff person would have. Option C could include an additional element, video -recording, microphones
and cameras and putting the video on the City's website. There is a lot of interest in this issue as well as
questions about transparency; having the meetings video -recorded would allow people to see for
themselves. He suggested adding that cost or including it in Option C.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was undecided. She recalled when the Economic Development
Commission started, there were full minutes and audio. She did not want to set a precedent videotaping
meetings, noting the City Attorney has said audio is just as transparent as a video. In her opinion, there
needed to be very detailed minutes as well as the audio, recalling when the EDC first started, she listened
to the audio and read their minutes. She was interested in a half time staff person to assist existing staff,
noting $38,000 did not seem like a lot. Ms. Hope answered that is approximately $9,000 for a meeting
facilitator and approximately $29,000 for a half time staff person for half a year; the amount doubles in the
second year.
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 98
8.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated this will be a very important commission, recalling some difficulty
the City has had with consultants in the past. She summarized she would be willing to support C, but she
liked the idea of having a staff person involved.
Councilmember Johnson appreciated the range of options. She asked whether the person in Option A would
be a housing planner that would build expertise for staff or was it an administrative position. Ms. Hope
answered it could be either, it may depend on who applies. Most importantly, the person needs to be good
with the public, able to do graphic illustration, etc. They may/may not have housing expertise. Likewise,
the community engagement consultant was not expected to be a housing expert but knowledgeable in public
outreach.
Councilmember Johnson commented it can sometimes be beneficial to have a consultant if an arm's length
relationship is desirable or if staff is overworked and needs extra help. Although Option C could be a
solution, Option A has desirable characteristics, especially if the applicant had an interest or skill set in this
area that could assist the Development Services Department now and in the future. Ms. Hope agreed
housing will be an issue for a long time. With regard to minutes versus notes, Councilmember Johnson said
the Council agreed previously that except for the Planning Board, boards and commissions should have
summary notes to spare the expense and time of preparation.
Councilmember Teitzel was split between Options A and C, but was leaning toward Option C because the
City may have better luck finding a consultant with the skills that are needed for facilitation and outreach
as well as an opportunity for synergy between the two consultants. He feared Option A could be disjointed.
He said this needed to be done right and have full minutes to ensure there was a complete record of the
meetings.
Council President Fraley-Monillas read a statement from a citizen that was received today regarding
videotaping: One point with videotaping, it could save staff time and also give the appointed commissioners
a great tool to review visuals that will be included and considerable audio information to educate them on
all things housing and government. It is so much easier to review a video to see who is speaking as well as
fast -forward until you see who is speaking or what is being displayed to save the person's time to get to
what they want to see and review. An audio has no way to know what happening unless there is a transcript
at the same time. Even then, unless the transcript has the time included, you have no idea where to find it
and some folks could be so frustrated they lose interest and you lose that engagement with the public. In
my experience, a video is more accessible to all and definitely easier to review as far as time and effort as
most residents are busy which leads them to not get involved. We all want many Edmonds residents to be
engaged in this process. It will also be much easier for a commissioner who misses a meeting to get updated
including visuals and not tap the staff s time as much to do so.
Councilmember Tibbott suggested looking for a facilitator and simultaneously see who is available as part-
time staff and then decide whether to pursue Option A or C. Ms. Hope said staff could issue an RFQ for a
meeting facilitator and seek a staff person. Staff could also seek letters of interest from consultants who can
offer other services such as community engagement but generally they want to know the budget. She asked
whether the Council was on board with a separate meeting facilitator and a staff person.
Councilmember Tibbott observed the cost range between Options A and C was not significant so staff could
proceed with securing a facilitator as soon as possible and see whether that consultant was interested in
providing community engagement. He saw the value of an in-house person in Option A but said the level
of expertise was significant. Ms. Hope said if a qualified staff person was available, that maybe an easy
way. If not, those funds could be used for a consultant.
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2019
Page 18
Packet Pg. 99
8.2.a
Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for video -recording, finding it a good idea for the public record,
illustrating materials, etc. If the CHC meetings and public outreach were videotaped, there could be
summary meeting notes Ms. Hope said there would need to be someone to do the videotaping which costs
more than a minute taker and an audio recording. She acknowledged there were advantages of videotaping
and having the recording indexed, etc., but that requires a person to do the videotaping and the indexing.
Councilmember Tibbott pointed out the Council Chambers are already set up for video -recording. Ms. Hope
agreed but it still requires someone to operate and monitor the video equipment as well as someone to index
the video and post it to the website. If meetings are held offsite, the equipment would need to be purchased,
someone needs to set it up and operate it, etc. She offered to research that cost. Councilmember Tibbott
suggested for offsite locations, videotaping with one camera on a tripod may suffice to capture the essence
of the meeting as long as there were good notes that went along with it. Ms. Hope offered to research the
cost of video -recording. Ms. Hope pointed out the Council did not need to decide tonight on meeting notes
versus minutes and video -recording, but it is important to decide on the facilitator and community
engagement person.
Ms. Hope summarized the Council supported having a contracted meeting facilitator but were split on
whether the community engagement should be provided by a qualified half-time staff person or a consultant
team that provided meeting faciliatory and community engagement. Ms. Hope suggested advertising for a
community engagement staff person and if a qualified person was not found, the Council was supportive
of a contract community engagement specialist who was assisted by a staff person. The Council agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis said there is $93,740 set aside for this in 2019 in the Council Contingency. She
agreed with Councilmember Johnson about seeking a staff person, anticipating this housing initiative effort
will not end in 18 months and it may be advantageous to have a staff person for the future. She did not
support setting a precedent videotaping meetings, noting people act differently when they are videotaped.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was interested in what makes sense for the Development a
Services Department and for the City. With regard to videotaping, she suggested asking My Edmonds News Q
for an estimate. Ms. Hope pointed out video -recording includes videotaping the meeting and indexing. r
Council President Fraley-Monillas anticipated that could be contracted for a limited number of meetings C*4
and requested staff provide Council the cost. If the meetings are videotaped, she anticipated staff notes 0
2
would suffice but if meetings are not videotaped, more detailed minutes may be required. E
0
L
With regard to videotaping, Councilmember Nelson said he understood the need to index Council meetings a
and asked if that was a standard. Ms. Hope agreed it was not a requirement but a lot of people find it
convenient. Councilmember Nelson commented that was the Cadillac version of videotaping; if the other w
option was detailed minutes/notes, the meetings could be videotaped but maybe not the Cadillac version.
He asked the cost of renting the equipment and videotaping with and without indexing. W
c
Councilmember Teitzel commented citizens are used to what they see at council meetings such as
presentations on the screen. A static camera would show who is talking but it won't show documents that
are displayed and discussed. He asked for more details regarding how the process of videotaping would 0
work and how it would enhance transparency versus creating more problems. v
Ms. Hope advised she would move forward on the meeting facilitator and community engagement and a
return with more options regarding videotaping.
d
10. STUDY ITEMS z
c�
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERFORMANCE IN 2018 Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2019
Page 19
Packet Pg. 100
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/4/2019
Approval of Timeframe Target for Housing Commission Start-up
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Establishment of the Citizens' Housing Commission was authorized by the City Council under Resolution
1427 (attached) on April 16, 2019. Adoption of Resolution 1427 set in motion an information and
application process, whereby outreach could begin to local residents and those interested could submit
an application.
The outreach effort included a postcard mailing that was to be delivered to every residence (single and
multifamily) in Edmonds --meaning about 19,000 addresses. While a postcard was designed fairly
quickly, actual delivery did not begin until early May. Due to postal restrictions, no more than 5000
postcards could be sent per day. For some residents, postcards did not arrive until mid -May. Staff also
heard from two or three residents that they had not received a postcard at all. Since two of the
residents were on the same mail route, a re -mailing was done for all residences on this route.
In addition:
The Development Services Department prepared a dedicated website about the Citizens'
Housing Commission initiative and located it on the City's home page for easy viewing.
A press release about the Council's new Housing Commission initiative was issued on April 26;
the press release - which included a reference to the website - was used for articles by both the
Beacon and My Edmonds News.
The Development Services Director sent an email announcement on April 30 to everyone signed
up for housing updates.
The information and application process led to over 100 Housing Commission applications being made,
as of May 28. All seven districts (aka "zones") received multiple applications.
While strong efforts were made to reach all City residences by mail, it's possible that a few homes did
not receive the postcard and some residents were away when it arrived.
Staff Recommendation
For Council to give direction on a preferred date for Council members to begin considering applications
Narrative
The actual date to begin considering Housing Commission applications is up to the City Council.
Packet Pg. 101
8.3
Resolution No. 1427 does not include a deadline for applications nor a date by which applications should
start being considered. This makes sense, since at the time of adoption, it was understood that the
Council wanted the process to take place fairly quickly but also knew that time would be needed to
arrange the details and to ensure local resident would have adequate opportunity to know about and
apply for the Housing Commission.
Website information for the Citizens' Housing Commission was recently changed from having a "first
consideration" date of May 31 for applications to an acknowledgement that the date was being delayed
and a new date would be announced soon, recognizing that some postcards did not arrive as quickly as
expected and that other schedule issues may need consideration.
"First consideration" is not a term used in Resolution 1427 but was included in various public
announcements to give a sense that applications should be submitted as promptly as possible and that
the review of applications could begin by a certain date.
Here are some steps that appear needed before Council members begin reviewing applications:
Assignment of each Council member to a district from which the Council member may select
two Commissioners and one alternate
Optional: Confirmation of whether the candidate's application matches the district for which
they applied (Note: this is not required but could avoid mistaken locations; it could also be done
after the number of candidates are narrowed down by Council members)
Hard copy made of all submitted applications and handed off by district to each Council member
After applications by district go to each assigned Council member, other key steps would be needed,
such as:
Council members would review all applications from their assigned district
Council members may choose to interview applicants from their assigned district
Council members may decide on their top Commission applicants (two members plus one
alternate)
Optional: Verifications (if not already done) could be made that the addresses of the top
candidates matched the intended district
Council members could contact their selected applicants and let them know their selection was
going to be announced
Staff could be notified of who was being selected so that they could keep track of appointments
and send out meeting materials
The Mayor may receive and review the remaining Commission applications, and if desired,
interview any of the remaining candidates
The Mayor may select his appointee and alternate
Council members would publicly announce their appointments at a City Council meeting
The Mayor would publicly announce his appointments at a City Council meeting
The Council President could assign one or two Council members or perhaps a rotation of Council
members as non -voting liaisons to the Commission (timing and method for this is up to the City
Council)
Staff would notify each applicant of their status - selected or not - and next steps in the process
Optional: A poll of all selected applicants could be taken to get their input on the preferred date
for a first Commission meeting
A first meeting date for the Commission would be chosen by the Council President (presumably
after considering availability of Commissioners, as well as meeting space, etc.)
Packet Pg. 102
8.3
Ideally, a meeting facilitator would be under contract and available for the first meeting
Staff would arrange for audio- and/or video-taping of the first meeting
Announcements (including a press release) would go out regarding the Commission
appointments and the first meeting
Housing Commissioners would each be assigned a City email address and staff would prepare to
send them the first meeting agenda and other updates as needed
If possible, additional Housing Commission support by a community engagement consultant or
staff would be in place -either before the first meeting or soon after.
Options
Options for City Council members to begin "first consideration" of Housing Commission applications
include the following:
A. Circa June 7
This date:
Allows only a very short time for the Council President to assign Council members
their districts for purpose of the Housing Commission process
Allows copies of all applications that are received by early on June 7 to be copied
and provided by district to each Council member
Is not certain to allow each applicant address to be verified in terms of the district in
which it is located (although this step is not necessarily required and could be
taken later)
B. Circa June 14
This date:
Allows the Council President a few days to assign Council members their districts
for purpose of the Housing Commission process
Allows time for one more press release to be issued about the opportunity to
apply for the Housing Commission, a week ahead of the "first consideration" date
Could allow time for confirming that the application addresses match the intended
districts (although this step is not necessarily required and could be taken after the
field of candidates is narrowed)
C. Another date
An entirely different date could be selected that makes sense to the Council.
It would be useful to have the rationale identified and be able to communicate
the date to the public.
D. No date
Not selecting a specific date to begin considering applications is also an option. This
option:
Gives less certainty to the public about the Commissioner selection period
Provides more flexibility in timing for residents to apply.
Attachments:
Resolution 1427 Establishing Citizens Housing Commission
Packet Pg. 103
8.3.a
RESOLUTION NO. 1427
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS'
HOUSING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, in 2017 the City of Edmonds began the process of developing a Housing Strategy to
fulfill an objective of the Housing Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan at P. 96, which
states: "Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs;" and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard numerous comments and concerns from our constituents that
the process for establishing policies around an expanded range of housing options should be
revised to include greater public input and balanced representation; and
WHEREAS, three primary themes have emerged from input the Council has received from its
constituents; and
WHEREAS, first, rather than an Administration -appointed task force working toward housing
policy recommendations, members of the public have expressed a strong preference for a process
which establishes a Housing Commission via applications from interested citizens; and
WHEREAS, second, a strong preference has been expressed for sufficient time to be provided
for all housing -related issues to be thoroughly vetted to enable policy recommendations to be
brought forward that are in Edmonds' long term best interests; and
WHEREAS, finally, the public has made clear it expects members of the Housing Commission
should represent all areas of Edmonds and the Edmonds Bowl should not be over- represented;
and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018, the Council passed Resolution 1420 to docket a
Comprehensive Plan amendment that is expected to result in the removal of the 2019 timeline for
establishment of an Edmonds Affordable Housing strategy as called for in the current
Comprehensive Plan and to provide additional time for development of an appropriate array of
diverse housing options for Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the Council also agrees that the process for citizen involvement should be retooled
to encourage volunteer participation from across Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the expanded timeline for development of diverse housing policy options provides
the opportunity to establish a Citizens' Housing Commission to enable direct citizen involvement
in this important process; and
Packet Pg. 104
8.3.a
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Council discussed next steps toward achieving this
objective; and
WHEREAS, a significant initial step will be to establish a Citizens' Housing Commission to
assess all factors that must be considered in driving toward housing policies that expand the
supply of diverse housing options while maintaining Edmonds' character and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Council also provided direction that such a Commission
should be formed; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the Council provided more specific direction as to the contents
of a resolution that would create the Citizens' Housing Commission; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Citizens' Housing Commission Created. The Citizens' Housing Commission is
hereby created and shall be subject to the following provisions:
A. Mission. The mission of the new Citizens' Housing Commission shall be as follows:
Develop diverse housing policy options for Council consideration designed to expand the
range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are
irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual
orientation.
B. Appointment Process. The Commission shall consist of fifteen voting members: each
Councilmember will select two appointees and one alternate; and the mayor will select one
appointee and one alternate. The mayor's selection will be from the remaining pool of
applicants after Councilmembers have made their selections.
C. Appointment by Zone. Each of the seven Councilmembers shall be assigned a particular zone
at the Council President's direction and will be responsible for assessing applications from
that zone (see map attached as Exhibit A describing the seven geographic zones of Edmonds
which will be attached to the Commission application form). Each Councilmember will
select two appointees and one alternate from his/her assigned zone. In the event that there are
insufficient applicants to fill the positions for a particular zone, the Councilmember assigned
to that zone may select from the remaining applicants residing in any other zone, but only
after the other Councilmembers have made their selections.
D. Meetings. The Commission will meet at least once per month on a day and time to be
determined by the Commission, and may meet more frequently at the Commission's
discretion. The time and place of the first meeting of the Commission shall be established by
the Council President.
2
Packet Pg. 105
8.3.a
E. Voting. Alternates should attend meetings to remain current on the Commission's progress
but shall not be voting members unless they are participating in lieu of an absent
Commissioner from their assigned zone.
F. Liaisons. Two Councilmembers shall be assigned to the Commission as Council Liaisons in
an advisory (non -voting) role.
G. Public Outreach. The Commission shall host public outreach sessions (open houses, town
halls, etc.) once per quarter at varying public locations within Edmonds to provide updates on
its progress in developing housing option policy recommendations.
H. Website Updates. The status of the Commission's work on the development of expanded
housing options shall be updated regularly on the city's Housing website.
I. Reporting to the Council. The Commission shall report progress to the Council at least once
per quarter, beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2019.
J. Sunset Date. The Commission will complete its work by December 31, 2020 and have a
sunset date of January 1, 2021.
Section 2. Recruiting. A post card will be sent to each Edmonds household announcing the
application process and deadlines. This mailing will be in addition to the process normally used
to publicize Commission application availability (e.g., City website announcements, articles in
local media, etc.).
Section 3. Application Process. Applicants for appointment to the Commission shall be subject
to the following:
A. Qualifications. Commission applicants must be current residents of Edmonds.
B. Zones. Each applicant must identify which of the seven "zones" he/she lives within (see
map attached as Exhibit A describing the seven geographic zones of Edmonds which
will be attached to the Commission application form).
C. Application Contents. The following information will be requested on the application
form:
a. Occupational status and background.
b. Organizational affiliation.
c. Why are you seeking this appointment?
d. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria?
e. List any other Board, Commission, Committee or official position you currently
hold with the City of Edmonds.
f. How long have you lived in Edmonds?
g. Do you rent or own your home?
h. Are you currently a landlord of property located in Edmonds?
Note: items a-e above are standard questions of applicants for any Edmonds
Board or Commission. Items f-h above are specific to the Edmonds Citizens'
Housing Commission.
3
Packet Pg. 106
8.3.a
RESOLVED this 161h day of April, 2019.
CITY OF EDMONDS
M'AYOR,'DAVE EARLING
ATTEST:
CLERK, SC ASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
April 12, 2019
April 16, 2019
1427
4
Packet Pg. 107
8.3.a
OF ED4��
City of Edmonds
Census -based Area Map
Igo. lggo
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Sooth-Coo Park
QC
N O\y�,pCC�Ce�N
W E
S
BeaNew Pak
Hutt
ve�k
fia
0�? � see�lew
'�,� Ekmentay
Blerre PeM
SoM1utM1 ' rls Park
PeeeM1 Main St.
Trek v
.......... ,.........................................
196th St. SW
M
klePlewootl lull
K� e eel
651
220th St. SW
212th St. SW
v
t
01
Z
Pe*
Mettmee
KA SCM1ooI
U
Wootlway
Elementay
leke Bellinger Perk
Eamo�w:
Community
College
CP Eleme
MO,l Place
'Etlle S-1
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
o
Edmonds, WA 98202
h
1 inch = 2,000 feet
February 201
Edmonds Housing Strateg
Packet Pg. 108