2008.03.11 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
March 11, 2008
6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the
public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in the following rooms:
Community/Development Services (Council Chambers), Finance (Jury Room), Public Safety (Police Training Room)
1.Community/Development Services Committee
A. AM-1444
(20 Min)
PCC proposal for LEED Code Amendment.
B. AM-1445
(15 Min)
Continued discussion of request for a bench near the Edmonds Museum & Veterans Memorial.
C. AM-1448
(15 Min)
Discussion on Resolution of Environmental Policy and Principles.
2.Finance Committee
A. AM-1440
(5 Min)
Surplus Compaq server and donate to Snohomish County Emergency Radio System.
B. AM-1441
(10 Min)
Surplus of computers and monitors and donation to InterConnection.
C. AM-1447
(15 Min)
Self-Funded Medical
3.Public Safety Committee
A. AM-1426
(5 Min)
Spay/Neuter Ordinance
B. AM-1443
(15 Min)
Interlocal Agreement with SCFD #27 - Hat Island Regarding the Use of Marine 16 for EMS Transports.
Packet Page 1 of 32
AM-1444 1.A.
PCC Proposal for LEED Code Amendment
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Time:20 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
PCC proposal for LEED Code Amendment.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Request the City Attorney to draft an interim zoning ordinance for full Council consideration.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
PCC Natural Markets is developing a new food store at the former Albertson's site at Westgate.
Their stated intent has been to redevelop the property as a LEED-certified building, seeking the
highest level (Platinum) possible for the site. The letter from the project architect (see Exhibit 1)
explains what they are seeking and the rationale for the code amendment. The letter also does a
good job of explaining the potential City policy basis for making the code amendment.
Staff has discussed available options with the City Attorney's office and we have concluded that an
interim zoning code amendment is an option available to the City to deal with the situation. The
argument for proceeding in this expeditious manner is to allow the project to continue at its current
pace, since the project has obtained some but not all of its building permits. The benefits to the City
include, (1) removing code obstacles so as to encourage "green" buildings - especially in
remodeling projects with significant site constraints, and (2) implementing stated City policies to
"promote sustainable building practices" and address the potential issues arising from climate
change.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Letter proposal from PCC
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/05/2008 03:59 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/05/2008 04:12 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/05/2008 04:13 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob Started On: 03/05/2008 02:40
Packet Page 2 of 32
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 03/05/2008 02:40
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/05/2008
Packet Page 3 of 32
5265 University Way NE
Seattle WA 98105
(206) 529-9356
Fax: 529-0259
george@velocipede.net
www.velocipede.net
3 March 2008
Rob Chave
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 office
(425) 771-0221 fax
chave@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Re: 0738 PCC Natural Market – Edmonds, code amendment proposal
Dear Rob:
We are writing to propose an amendment to the text of the Edmonds Community Development Code, in
accordance with section 20.80.020, regarding rainwater collection tanks in the street setback.
Proposed text amendment
We propose to append the following sentence to the definition of a Street Setback in section 21.90.140:
“Not included are rainwater collection tanks not exceeding the maximum height of the zone and
covering 10% or less of the street setback area. Rainwater collection tanks in a street setback are
permitted below-ground or above-ground in commercial zones and below-ground, but not above-
ground, in residential zones.”
We propose to add the following definition of a Rainwater Collection Tank in a new section 21.85.015:
“Rainwater collection tank means a water tank fully or partially above adjacent grade used for
storing rainwater collected from the roof of the buildings or structures on the same property. The
collected rainwater must be utilized in the building and its surrounding property, with any surplus
discharged to an approved stormwater system.”
Rationale
At the turn of the 21st century, the specter of global climate change became undeniable by the majority of
scientists and policy makers. Myriad responses to the impending crisis emerged, and in 2005 the City of
Edmonds’ mayor signed the U.S. Climate Protection Agreement (http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/
documents/mcpAgreement.pdf). Article C.7 of that Agreement commits the city to: “Practice and
promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Program or a similar
system.”
Water Efficiency is one of the five major categories of the LEED program and constitutes a significant
portion of another major category, Sustainable Sites. Of the 69 possible credits for LEED-NC 2.2, 5
Packet Page 4 of 32
0738 PCC Natural Market – Edmonds page 2
Rob Chave
3 March 2008
credits (7%) concern reduction of water use in buildings and their surrounding sites. Most buildings
nationwide that have achieved the highest Platinum rating have installed rainwater collection and reuse
systems to provide water for toilets and urinals, mechanical cooling equipment, and irrigation. Prominent
examples of local buildings with rainwater reuse systems include the Seattle City Hall, the Seattle Justice
Center, and the King Street Center, among others.
Rainfall in western Washington is notoriously plentiful in winter and negligible in summer. Storage tanks
are necessary to collect and store winter rain for use in the dry summer. Four to six months of storage can
amount to tens of thousands of gallons, even for a single family house, so these tanks are physically large.
Finding a suitable location for the tank on a building site is a major obstacle to installing rainwater reuse
systems for any project. Underground burial requires prohibitively costly excavation and reinforcement of
the tank structure. Above-ground tanks in the site’s building area displace usable floor area. Locating
tanks in the street setback addresses both of these obstacles.
Above-ground rainwater tanks adjacent to the street provide visible evidence to passing motorists and
pedestrians that a rainwater reuse system exists on the property. Tanks that are buried or tanks inside or
behind a building are invisible to everyone but the few people who maintain them. Like photovoltaic roof
panels and recycling bins, rainwater tanks have become features of the 21st century cityscape. Their
presence educates the public about sustainable practices, a goal of article C.12 of the U.S. Climate
Protection Agreement to which the city is formally committed.
The proposed text amendments are intended to significantly enhance the ability of projects in the city of
Edmonds to install rainwater reuse systems, to achieve LEED water efficiency credits and LEED
certification, to educate the public about rainwater reuse systems, and to help meet the city’s adopted
sustainability goals.
Sincerely,
George Ostrow
c: Lori Ross, PCC Natural Markets
Lach Foss, Woodman Construction
file
Packet Page 5 of 32
AM-1445 1.B.
Request for Bench Near Museum & Veterans Memorial
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh, Parks and Recreation Time:15 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion of request for a bench near the Edmonds Museum & Veterans Memorial.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information - no recommendation.
Previous Council Action
This request was presented at the November 13, 2007 CSDS Committee meeting. Staff were
requested by the CSDS Committee to investigate and report on several questions that came up.
Narrative
At the November 13, 2007 CSDS meeting staff presented an overview of a request that was
received by Councilmember Pritchard Olson and forwarded to Parks & Recreation staff.
The request was from Myra Rintamaki, President of the Washington Gold Star Mothers and mother
of Cpl. Steven Rintamaki, killed in Iraq in 2004. It requested that the City Council place a bench
near the Veterans Memorial located in front of the Edmonds Museum. The intent of the bench is to
enhance the site and allow citizens to view and reflect upon the Memorial and those who have
served and sacrificed for their country.
Staff displayed photos of the area and possible locations, and limitations, of the site. An audience
member associated with the Museum cautioned that the area in front of the Museum may not be the
most appropriate given the limited space and artifacts already displayed there. It was noted that the
Edmonds Memorial Cemetery had been mentioned as a possible site.
Staff reviewed the City's Memorial Bench Program, costs, and the 40 citizen waiting list for the
program.
Staff was asked three questions to investigate and report back to the CSDS Committee:
1. Clarify with the requester if the Edmonds Cemetery would be a suitable alternate location.
Response: Ms. Rintamaki had not discussed or been contacted regarding this idea. Her desire is for
a bench to enhance the existing Memorial.
2. Review the option of a bench being placed at the Cemetery.
Packet Page 6 of 32
Response: The Cemetery would embrace this idea and have discussed this possibility in the
past. They have identified an appropriate location near the flagpole that is highlighted during
Memorial Day ceremonies.
3. Investigate the possibility of a grant from the State Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee.
Response: Staff requested $2,000 from the Emblem Fund and were awarded $1,000.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Memorial Bench
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/06/2008 09:21 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/06/2008 10:02 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/06/2008 01:41 PM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 03/05/2008 05:34
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/06/2008
Packet Page 7 of 32
Packet Page 8 of 32
Packet Page 9 of 32
Packet Page 10 of 32
Packet Page 11 of 32
AM-1448 1.C.
Discussion on Resolution of Environmental Policy and Principles
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office
Submitted For:Councilmember Wilson Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on Resolution of Environmental Policy and Principles.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The above-referenced topic will be discussed at the meeting.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/07/2008 11:17 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/07/2008 11:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/07/2008 11:29 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 03/07/2008 11:15
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/07/2008
Packet Page 12 of 32
AM-1440 2.A.
Surplus Compaq Server/Donate to Snohomish County Emergency Radio
System
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Carl Nelson, Administrative Services Time:5 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Surplus Compaq server and donate to Snohomish County Emergency Radio System.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Surplus Compaq Proliant ML350 Server (serial#D036FSC1K345) and donate to SERS.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In the effort to meet expanding file storage needs, create more available file serving capability, and
replace aging equipment, the City has retired an old file server (a Compaq Proliant ML350 - see
details below). Although the server does not have further use within the City, the Snohomish
County Emergency Radio System (SERS) has stated that this equipment would fulfill a need within
their organization’s day-to-day operations.
It is proposed that this server be surplused and donated to SERS for use in their operations.
DETAILS:
Compaq Proliant ML350
Serial Number: D036FSC1K345
BIOS Date: 11/13/2000
CPU: (2) Pentium 3 933MhZ, L1 Cache/32KB, L2 Cache/256KB
RAM:
1GB Total
Slot1: 256MB 133 MHz ECC
Slot2: 512MB 133 MHz ECC
Slot3: 128MB 133 MHz ECC
Slot4: 128MB 133 MHz ECC
Hard Disks: (4) - 9.1GB SCSI
Network: 10/100
Serial Ports: 2
Parallel Ports: 1
USB Ports: NONE
Included Equipment:
12/24GB DAT drive - Internal
Packet Page 13 of 32
3 1/2 Floppy Drive
Cd-Rom Drive
Compaq 431 Dual Wide-Ultra2 SCSI RAID Controller
NOTES:
Case fan should be replaced, noisy bearings
Power button sometimes needs some fiddling to get the unit to power on.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Dan Clements 02/29/2008 01:17 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/29/2008 04:30 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/29/2008 05:08 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/03/2008 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Carl
Nelson
Started On: 02/29/2008 10:28
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/03/2008
Packet Page 14 of 32
AM-1441 2.B.
Surplus of Computers and Monitors and Donation to InterConnection
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Carl Nelson, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Surplus of computers and monitors and donation to InterConnection.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization to surplus 6 monitors and 19 CPUs and donate to InterConnection.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In 2007 computers out of warranty were replaced and various CRT monitors were replaced by LCD
displays. Of this equipment, some portion may have a useful life outside the City. In particular, six
surplus CRT monitors and 19 computers are proposed to be donated to InterConnection
(http://www.interconnection.org/) a company who states: "We connect your computers with
underserved communities around the world".
Donating this equipment to Interconnection will insure that it will be given to a non-profit
organization for a good cause. It also means that this equipment will not wind-up in a landfill.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Dan Clements 02/29/2008 01:17 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/29/2008 04:30 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/29/2008 05:08 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/03/2008 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Carl
Nelson
Started On: 02/29/2008 10:32
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/03/2008
Packet Page 15 of 32
AM-1447 2.C.
Self-Funded Medical
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For:Councilmember Wilson Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Self-Funded Medical
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Councilmember D. J. Wilson has placed this agenda item on the Finance Committee for
discussion. Attached is a memo from Councilmember Wilson regarding addressing the challenges
of providing health-care benefits. (Exhibit 1)
Councilmember Wilson has also asked that a case study be attached to this agenda memo. (Exhibit
2)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exh 1 Wilson Self-Funded Medical Memo
Link: Exh 2 Self-Fund Medical
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/07/2008 09:35 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/07/2008 09:37 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/07/2008 09:39 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 03/07/2008 09:00
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/07/2008
Packet Page 16 of 32
Memo
Date: March 5, 2008
To: Finance Committee
From: DJ Wilson
Re: Addressing the challenge of providing health care benefits
As you know, the City faces a number of challenges when it comes to providing health care benefits
to our employees.
• AWC has determined that Plan A, a primary plan for many City employees, will no longer be
offered in a few years
• Premiums for commercial health care plans continue to rise at roughly 3x inflation, and in
some cases much greater
Given our fiscal responsibility to our citizens, I believe the City should begin today to assess
alternative strategies for controlling health care benefit costs, while maintaining the benefit
structure agreed to during collective bargaining. We should not wait until our hands are tied, or until
our time has expired before we begin to act.
One strategy which should be considered is that of self-insuring our employees. Almost all
major corporations employ this model for offering benefits to their employees. Typically, in
Washington State with its heavily regulated insurance marketplace, self-insurance begins to make
sense for companies with 50 employees or more. The greater the number of covered lives, the more
likely the approach will be successful as risk is more broadly dispersed.
I am aware of a number of similarly sized cities who currently self-insure from which we may learn a
great deal. For instance, Redmond is one that has been self-insured since, I believe, the 1980’s. The
City of Puyallup has just recently moved to this model in the last few years.
The previous experience of self-insuring here at the City was not well conceived or well
implemented. For those which observed the administration of this model directly, you will find a
great number of lessons have been learned. While there may be a “bad taste” left with some
employees, such fault lies with the specific experience rather than self-insurance generally.
In situations like ours, where medical benefit packages are more generous than a typical private
sector package, self-insurance often makes a great deal of sense.
1. Where benefits by a healthy workforce are under-utilized, the savings accrues to the City
rather than a commercial insurer.
2. Incentives can be implemented for wellness, healthy lifestyles, and management of chronic
disease, which will both increase the health of our employees and at the same time mean a
net savings to the City – again, rather than a commercial carrier.
Packet Page 17 of 32
3. Savings from an incentive-laden plan, a healthier workforce and self-management of our
benefit packages will, over time, be significant and may be reinvested in our workforce
through increases in pay or other compensation.
Some near-term considerations of implementing such an approach are:
1. Purchasing a reasonable “stop-loss” benefit to protect the City against catastrophic liability.
2. Accruing a reasonable amount of capital in trust with which the City can meet potential large
claims.
3. Using savings to assign or hire additional staff to support the new workload in HR
By assessing alternative strategies for providing health care benefits to employees, I believe
we will find a number of new innovations in the marketplace. Staff has suggested and I concur
that we should examine all options available to us.
To address these looming challenges and identify innovative strategies to help keep the City’s
workforce healthy, I would suggest the following action plan and timeline.
1. Develop a broad work group of staff, labor leaders, and Council members (May)
a. Begin a process of stakeholder education regarding the scope of the problem and the
inevitability of change given AWC’s decisions
b. Task them with surveying other cities for innovative ideas
2. Retain a consultant to facilitate this process (June/July)
a. Bring in expertise that the City may not currently have to examine the marketplace
b. Examine the actuarial support for alternative strategies
i. Should include procuring our claims data from AWC/Regence
1. Legally our data and Regence must make available
2. AWC typically an obstacle to its release
ii. Should examine the utilization of existing strategies at City
c. Compare cost/benefits with work group
3. Report to Council through the Finance Committee on recommended options
(October/November)
a. Next steps & realistic timelines
b. Solutions will take months to implement given the calendar of health care, labor
contracts, etc
4. Council action (Jan/Feb 2009)
a. Public hearing
b. Policy direction by full Council
5. Engage a public education campaign (Spring/Summer 2009)
a. Demonstrate the applicability of recommended solutions to address the identified
challenges
b. Focus on stakeholders: retirees, labor leaders, department heads, Council
6. Implement changes (Fall 2009)
a. Rolling basis
b. Working with health care, labor contract calendars
Dan Clements has a great deal of experience working with such administrative challenges, and is a
font of knowledge on the matter. I would encourage your soliciting of advice from him on this.
Packet Page 18 of 32
For additional information, I have included a one-page case study from a website for your review.
As you know, a great deal of my work is in health care. So, in the interest of full-disclosure, I wish
to note the company which produced this case study is a client of my public affairs firm.
Packet Page 19 of 32
Client Saves 53% in Employee Insurance Costs with BenefitMD
Background:
After 35 years of providing employee health benefits through a fully-insured carrier, a local
employer opted for our self-funded health plan. They were prompted to make the switch after their
insurance carrier sharply increased their premium by 27% despite a particularly good claims year.
The carrier refused to provide an explanation for this increase, so the employer turned to Benefit MD
for help.
Benefit MD worked closely with the employer group and its broker to develop a benefits plan
designed to address the group's specific needs while enhancing the benefits for the employees and
dependents.
The Process:
Benefit MD custom-designed a plan with the following goals in mind:
• Cost Containment for both premiums and administrative expenses.
• Ownership of Data in order to identify needs and keep a record of claims history.
• Health Plan Flexibility.
Results:
• 33% reduction in plan costs compared to the previous year.
• Avoided the 27% premium increase their former insurance carrier would have imposed.
• This amounts to a total 53% savings in health plan costs -- money that could be invested
back into the employer's health plan instead of lining the carrier's pockets.
EXHIBIT 2
Packet Page 20 of 32
AM-1426 3.A.
Spay/Neuter Ordinance
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon, Police Department
Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:5 Minutes
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Spay/Neuter Ordinance
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend approval for consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The department is asking that minor changes are made to the current Spay/Neuter ordinance.
Adding a new section of 5.05.127.1 (D) to the current ordinance. The new language would allow
people to adopt an animal and take the animal home if the veterinarian's schedule does not allow
time to alter the animals prior to adoption. The new owners would sign an affidavit promising they
will return with the animal for spay/neuter once there is an opening in the surgery schedule.
Failure to return the animal for spay/neuter will result in a fine.
Section 5.05.127.4: is a request to change the fines to make them consistent with other fines in this
section, add minor language changes to section B.2., and remove section 3.
The suggested changes have been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. See suggested changes
below;
B. Penalties.
1. First infraction: punishable by a fine of $25.00 $100.00.
2. Second and subsequent infractions: punishable by a fine of $50.00 $250.00.
3. Third and subsequent infractions: punishable by a fine of $100.00. Delete this section
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Spay/Neuter
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 21 of 32
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/29/2008 04:30 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/29/2008 05:08 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/03/2008 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gerry
Gannon
Started On: 02/21/2008 02:50
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/03/2008
Packet Page 22 of 32
5.05.127.1 Spay or neuter of owner-surrendered and stray animals required.
A. Stray dogs and cats at least two months of age from the city's animal control service area that
are placed at and retained by the city designated shelter, and dogs and cats owned by citizens
residing within the city's animal control service area that are surrendered at the city's designated
shelter, shall be spayed or neutered, and verification of said surgery shall be provided before
animals are adopted. Provided, however, that any animal which has not been spayed or neutered,
and which is currently licensed pursuant to ECC 5.05.020 or 5.05.025 shall not be subject to be
spayed or neutered until the notification period of 10 days established by ECC 5.05.126(D) has
expired.
B. The city's designated veterinarian(s) shall determine if said animals are appropriate candidates
for surgery. Dogs and cats determined by the city's designated veterinarian to be permanently
inappropriate candidates for surgery may be adopted without surgery. Dogs and cats at least two
months of age who are determined to be temporarily inappropriate candidates for surgery, and
dogs and cats under two months of age, may be adopted without surgery, providing that a $50.00
deposit shall be collected from the adopter. Said deposit shall be returned to the adopter upon
receipt of written verification that the animal has been spayed or neutered within six months of
adoption. If the spay or neuter surgery is performed by a city designated veterinarian, the basic
surgical costs will be paid by the city as outlined in ECC 5.05.127.2. If the animal is determined
to be a permanently inappropriate surgical candidate the surgery will not be required. In such
cases the deposit shall be returned to the adopter upon written verification by a veterinarian of
the animal's inappropriate surgical candidacy. Failure to have the animal spayed or neutered
within the specified time period will result in the forfeiture of the deposit and the deposit shall be
placed in the city of Edmonds' animal benefit fund.
C. Dogs or cats which have been spayed or neutered at city expense shall be subject to a fee of
$50.00 as provided in this chapter. This fee, unlike the deposit provided for in subsection (B) of
this section, shall not be refundable. [Ord. 3486 § 2, 2004; Ord. 3451 § 1, 2003].
D. When scheduling prohibits a timely spay or neuter surgery by the city’s designated
veterinarian(s), the new adoptive family member will be allowed to take the animal home after
signing an affidavit promising to return the animal to the designated veterinarian(s) at a
scheduled appointment time made by the animal control authority. Failure to return with the
animal will constitute a violation of this chapter with the adoptive person subject to a penalty
under 5.05.127.4.
5.05.127.2 Animal benefit fund established.
A. There is hereby established an animal benefit fund for the purpose of financially assisting
low-income city of Edmonds residents in obtaining spay or neuter services for their dogs or cats,
and providing for spay and neuter services for stray dogs and cats from the city's animal control
service area that are placed at and retained by the city designated shelter, and dogs and cats
owned by citizens residing within the city's animal control service area that are surrendered at the
city designated shelter prior to their adoption back into the community. Application may be
made to the city of Edmonds animal benefit fund to effectuate this purpose.
{BFP687143.DOC;1/00006.900160/}
Packet Page 23 of 32
B. The city may grant a financial assistance voucher to a resident in the amount of $30.00 to be
applied toward the costs of obtaining spay or neuter services for an animal by the city's
designated veterinarian(s); provided, that except in cases involving the spay or neuter of owner-
surrendered or stray animals that will be returned to the city's designated animal shelter, proof of
the animal owner's city of Edmonds residency, as well as a statement of financial need, shall be
required as a prerequisite to receiving said financial assistance voucher.
C. After performing the necessary spay or neuter surgery upon an animal, the city's designated
veterinarian(s) may submit an invoice to the city of Edmonds requesting reimbursement. The
invoice will be paid at full cost of agreed upon prevailing industry standards for spay and neuter
services for stray dogs and cats from the city's animal control service area that are placed at and
retained by the city designated shelter, and dogs and cats owned by citizens residing within the
city's animal control service area that are surrendered at the city designated shelter.
D. After performing the necessary spay or neuter surgeries upon an animal, the city's designated
veterinarian(s) may submit an invoice for $30.00 for the financial assistance voucher. For the
financial assistance voucher, the invoice shall be submitted with a photocopy of said voucher
attached, shall be signed by a veterinarian, and shall contain the following information:
1. Identification of the animal.
2. Identification of the person requesting the spay or neuter services for the animal.
3. Identification of the specific type of spay or neuter services performed.
4. Date of performance of the spay or neuter services.
E. Within 30 days of receiving an invoice for spay or neuter services performed by the city's
designated veterinarian(s), the city shall provide payment to the designated veterinarian in the
amount of $30.00 per financial assistance voucher or paid at full cost of agreed upon prevailing
industry standards for spay and neuter services for stray dogs and cats from the city's animal
control service area that are placed at and retained by the city designated shelter, and dogs and
cats owned by citizens residing within the city's animal control service area that are surrendered
at the city designated shelter. Said amount shall be drawn exclusively from the city's animal
benefit fund. [Ord. 3451 § 1, 2003].
5.05.127.3 Definitions and integration of initiative provisions.
ECC 5.05.127.1 and 5.05.127.2 have been adopted pursuant to a citizens initiative. The
initiative's provisions utilize terms which are not defined and in some cases are different than
terms utilized in the ordinance codified in this chapter and/or in the day to day administration of
the city's animal control system.
A. Definitions. When used in ECC 5.05.127.1 and 5.05.127.2, these terms shall have the
following definitions:
{BFP687143.DOC;1/00006.900160/}
Packet Page 24 of 32
1. “Designated shelter” shall mean the location designated by ordinance or contract for the
custody of stray or other animals by the animal control system of the city and shall include terms
such as “designated kennel.”
2. “Designated veterinarian(s)” shall mean the veterinarian(s), entity or organization with whom
the city has contracted to perform the services required under this chapter.
3. “Deposit” shall mean that portion of the adoption fee which is refundable upon proof of
spaying/neutering of the adopted animal. The term does not include administrative fees, fines, or
other charges established by this chapter or other city ordinance.
4. “Agreed upon prevailing industry standards for spay and neuter services” shall be determined
by reference to the rate established by ordinance or a contract with the designated veterinarian(s).
B. Integration. The provisions of ECC 5.05.127.1 and 5.05.127.2 have been adopted pursuant to
initiative (hereinafter “initiative provisions”). Initiatives are prohibited by state law from
imposing administrative detail or from exercising powers delegated specifically to the city
council. In the event of ambiguity or conflict regarding the provisions of ECC 5.05.127.1 or
5.05.127.2, the following rules of interpretation shall apply:
1. With respect to the interpretation of any term or concept of the initiative provisions relating to
the adoption of dogs or cats from the city's designated shelter, any ambiguity or conflict relating
to adoption shall be interpreted to require or encourage the spaying or neutering of dogs or cats
adopted from the city's animal control system.
2. With respect to ambiguities or conflicts between the initiative provisions and administrative
provisions of city code, or any contract approved by the city council, the administrative
provisions of city code or a contract shall control.
3. With respect to ambiguity or conflict between the initiative provisions and any exercise of a
power delegated to the legislative power of the city council by statute or the Washington State
Constitution, the exercise of the city council's legislative power shall control.
4. Any attempt by the initiative provisions, including Section 3 of Ordinance 3435, to exercise a
power in excess of powers available through the initiative process and/or to exercise a power
which is unavailable to the city shall be void and interpreted in a manner consistent with the
scope of initiative powers. [Ord. 3451 § 1, 2003].
5.05.127.4 Failure to spay or neuter – Penalties.
A. Any person who fails to spay or neuter an animal adopted from the city's designated shelter
shall be guilty of an infraction.
B. Penalties.
1. First infraction: punishable by a fine of $25.00 $100.00.
{BFP687143.DOC;1/00006.900160/}
Packet Page 25 of 32
2. Second and subsequent infractions: punishable by a fine of $50.00 $250.00.
3. Third and subsequent infractions: punishable by a fine of $100.00. Delete this section
4. 3. If an animal is taken up by animal control while running at large in violation of ECC
5.05.050, the fines established above shall be double.
5. 4. All fines set forth herein shall be in addition to any other fine or deposit forfeiture otherwise
provided by city ordinance. [Ord. 3451 § 1, 2003].
{BFP687143.DOC;1/00006.900160/}
Packet Page 26 of 32
AM-1443 3.B.
Interlocal Agreement - Use of Marine 16 for EMS Transports
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/11/2008
Submitted By:Mark Correira, Fire
Submitted For:Tom Tomberg Time:15 Minutes
Department:Fire Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement with SCFD #27 - Hat Island Regarding the Use of Marine 16 for EMS
Transports.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Fire Administration anticipates this being a temporary measure of providing service under the
conditions made with the County at the time the grant was approved.
The Fire Department requests approval from the Public Safety Committee to add the interlocal
agreement to the March 18 Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve.
Previous Council Action
The Council and Snohomish County entered into an interlocal agreement to acquire a
multi-purpose, public safety boat on June 28, 2006.
Narrative
In 2006, the City took delivery of a 28-foot Public Safety Boat from Northwind Marine. Known as
Marine 16, the boat was acquired with a $200,000 grant from the federal Department of Homeland
Security through the State of Washington. Snohomish County acted as the grant administrator.
This vessel was acquired with the understanding that it would be used as a “countywide resource.”
In November of 2007, Snohomish County Fire District #27, Hat Island (HIFD), an all volunteer
Fire Department, contacted Edmonds advising us that they would like to have Marine 16 handle
serious medical emergency transports off the island on a temporary basis until Everett Fire
Department can obtain a similar marine transport resource. Soon thereafter, the parties entered into
discussions about expectations and cost recovery. Subsequently, the City Attorney was asked to
draft an interlocal agreement (Attachment) for signature by both parties indemnifying the City and
outlining the expectations of each party.
The HIFD responded to approximately 30 emergency calls in 2007, 22 of them EMS-related. The
majority of calls occur in July and August. Depending on the criticality of the call, the current
practice on the island is to first summon a privately-owned vessel. If no one volunteers their vessel,
Airlift Northwest or the Snohomish County Sheriff’s helicopter is summoned.
If Airlift or the Sheriff’s helicopter are unable to fly or not available, Marine 16, staffed by on-duty
crews, would be called to treat and transport the patient(s) off island to an Aid or Medic Unit
waiting at the Everett marina for transport to an Everett Hospital. HIFD has estimated the use of
Packet Page 27 of 32
waiting at the Everett marina for transport to an Everett Hospital. HIFD has estimated the use of
Marine 16 being approximately 4 times per year, likely in the summer months.
HIFD is authorized to request Marine 16 under the current Snohomish County Mutual Aid
Agreement. Edmonds Fire Administration feels that having a more formalized agreement in place
such as the one proposed will prevent misunderstandings from occurring and allow for a more
structured and seamless process.
One significant aspect of this agreement is the requirement that HIFD pay Edmonds $100 for each
patient transported off island. Fire Administration feels that this is a reasonable price to pay for the
service with revenues used to defray fuel and maintenance costs.
The Fire Department requests approval from the Public Safety Committee to add the interlocal
agreement to the March 18 Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. Once
approved, Fire Administration will work with Administrative Services to set up the invoicing
process.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: SCFD #27-Edmonds Interlocal Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/04/2008 02:21 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/04/2008 02:24 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2008 02:35 PM APRV
Form Started By: Mark
Correira
Started On: 03/04/2008 11:11
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2008
Packet Page 28 of 32
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 27
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds owns and operates a boat on and within Puget
Sound for public safety purposes known as Marine 16;
WHEREAS, Marine 16 serves both the City and, when available, adjacent
jurisdictions by interlocal agreement;
WHEREAS, Snohomish County Fire District No. 27 desires to utilize Marine 16
to transport persons who have suffered medical emergencies when Marine 16 is not in
use or scheduled for use;
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes
agreement between public agencies of the State; NOW, THEREFORE,
The City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”)
and Snohomish County Fire District No. 27 (hereinafter “Fire District”) have entered into
this Agreement under the authority of Interlocal Cooperation Act and in consideration of
the mutual benefits to be derived.
1. Use of Boat. When the boat owned by the City of Edmonds and described
as a 28’ foot vessel built by Northwind Marine Incorporated (Marine 16) is not in active
use or scheduled for use by the Edmonds Fire Department, the City agrees to transport
persons who have been the victims of an accident or medical emergency from Hat Island
to a designated location in the Port of Everett, Washington for pick up by the Everett Fire
Department or other appropriate pick up such as a private ambulance service.
1.1 The City and its Fire and Police Departments shall have priority
use of Marine 16. The Fire District acknowledges and understands that its use of Marine
16 shall always be secondary to its use by the City. Nothing herein shall guarantee use of
Marine 16 at any particular time or date, and the Fire District pledges, after evaluating
the circumstances, that it will use Marine 16 only when feasible and will attempt to
utilize private vessels, Airlift Northwest, or other available resources prior to calling for a
Marine 16 response.
1.2 The City makes no express or implied warranty in or any assertion
of any kind or nature that Marine 16 is designed or intended, for any use other than
transportation. The Fire District acknowledges that it has inspected Marine 16 prior to
executing this Agreement, and finds and believes Marine 16 to be fit for use for the
transportation of persons who are the victims of an accident or a medical emergency
{WSS677652.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
1
Packet Page 29 of 32
2. Transportation of Accidents Victims and Medical Emergencies. The City
agrees to transport the victims of fire, accident and medical emergency (victims) under
the terms and conditions set forth below:
2.1 When the Fire District wishes to have a victim or victims
transported from Hat Island, the designated representative of Hat Island shall contact
Snopac who will in turn send the request to Snocom, who will in turn dispatch Marine 16
according to normal operating procedures. If Marine 16 is unable to respond or the
response is delayed, the Edmonds Duty Battalion Chief will notify Snocom of such, who
will in turn notify Snopac, who will advise the Hat Island representative that other
transport means must be made. Marine 16 shall not be used for any other training or
transport purposes, and the victim(s) shall be transported only from Hat Island to the Port
of Everett at a designated destination for pick up by the representatives of the Everett Fire
Department, or an appropriate ambulance service.
2.2 The duties of the personnel of the Fire Department of the City of
Edmonds are limited to:
2.2.1 The transportation of victims from Hat Island to the
designated pick up point and the rendering of emergency medical assistance in route;
2.2.2 The duties and obligations of the personnel of the Edmonds
Fire Department are limited to the transport and assistance of the victim(s) in route and
appropriate assistance to emergency medical personnel of the Fire District as the
individual is loaded onto Marine 16 and assistance to representatives of the Everett Fire
Department or other pick up entity as the victim is delivered from Marine 16 to the dock.
2.2.3 The Fire District shall pay to the City the sum of $100 for
each victim transported. This charge shall be valid from the date of execution through
December 31, 2008. See Section 5. This charge is based upon the assumption that a
transport, from request of Marine 16 through Snopac to the arrival back at the Port of
Edmonds will not exceed two hours. If delay occurs because the Fire District does not
have the victim ready for transport or because of a delay in transferring the victim to an
appropriate recovery entity at Everett, the Fire District shall pay to the City an additional
charge of $50 per hour for each hour, or part thereof, that Marine 16 is delayed from
returning to the City for use.
2.2.4 The City shall bill the Fire District monthly for all charges
incurred during any calendar month. The Fire District shall pay the billed amount within
thirty (30) days, absent a legitimate dispute regarding services. Any dispute regarding
services shall first be attempted to be resolved between the parties. If their efforts are
unsuccessful, they agree to submit the matter to mediation by a mediator of their
choosing, the cost to be borne equally. Any other billing disputes not resolved by
mediation shall be subject to binding arbitration again at the mutual cost of the parties.
{WSS677652.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
2
Packet Page 30 of 32
2.2.5 If the Fire District, in its discretion, adopts a transport fee
to be paid by the victims or their insurers, the City agrees to meet with the Fire District to
review billing procedures to ensure for timely reimbursement of any costs by the insurer
of the victim. Nothing herein shall relieve the Fire District of the obligation to pay for
services incurred.
3. Hold Harmless. Each party promises to hold harmless and indemnify the
other party, its officers, agents and employees, from any loss, claim or liability of any
kind or nature arising from or out of the negligent or tortious performance of the
indemnifying party under this Agreement. To, but only to, the limited extent necessary to
effectuate this indemnity, the parties waive any immunity which it may have under Title
51 RCW.
4. Title. Title to the Boat shall remain in the City at all times. Nothing
herein shall be interpreted to create a joint ownership interest in any property.
5. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall take effect upon its
execution and shall extend indefinitely until terminated by the parties. This Agreement
may be terminated by either party on the provision of 10 days written notice without
cause, or immediately by either party for cause. “Cause” shall include any violation of
any term of this Agreement. The compensation provided for in paragraph 2.2.3 may be
adjusted annually. The City shall provide notice of the fee for any future budget year
(commencing 2009 or later) by October 31st of the preceding year. The Fire District may
terminate this Agreement or, by continuing its terms, accept such payment.
6. Amendment. This Agreement shall not be amended except in writing with
the express written consent of the parties hereto.
7. Merger. Any prior understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged
with the provisions of this Agreement.
8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
9. Required Terms: RCW 39.34.030.
9.1 No separate legal administrative entity is created.
9.2 No separate financing or budgetary provisions are created.
9.3 The Fire Chief of the City and the Fire Chief of the Fire District or
their designees shall constitute a joint board to resolve issues relating to this Agreement.
{WSS677652.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
3
Packet Page 31 of 32
9.4 The property of the City and Fire District shall be and remain the
property of each respective party. No interest in any property is transferred by this
Agreement.
10. Effective Date; This Agreement shall be published on the City’s website,
in lieu of recording with the Snohomish County Auditor. See RCW 39.34.040. This
Agreement shall be effective when executed by the parties and published on the City’s
website.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Mayor Gary Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
NO. 27
By:
Its:
{WSS677652.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
4
Packet Page 32 of 32