The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.05.13 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA City Council Committee Meetings Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds May 13, 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 separate meeting rooms as indicated below. 1. Community/Development Services Committee Meeting Room: Council Chambers A. AM-1551 (20 Minutes) Report on the City Park Maintenance Facility Pre-Design Study. B. AM-1552 (15 Minutes) Report on the South County Senior Center Building. C. AM-1534 (15 Minutes) Discussion on potential Meadowdale neighborhood annexation. D. AM-1556 (15 Minutes) Code Rewrite Update: Organization of Zoning Chapter, Title 16. 2.Finance Committee Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room A. AM-1547 (10 Minutes) 2008 First Quarter Budget Report. B. AM-1548 (10 Minutes) Surplus assets. C. AM-1549 (10 Minutes) Utility Rate Study Contract. D. AM-1550 (15 Minutes) Contracting with former employees. 3.Public Safety Committee Meeting Room: Police Training Room A. AM-1553 (20 Minutes) Report on acquisition of property next to Fire Station 16. B. AM-1541 (10 Minutes) Review of Police Department's Multiyear Plan. Adjourn Packet Page 1 of 76 AM-1551 1.A. Report on the City Park Maintenance Facility Pre-Design Study City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:20 Minutes Department:Public Works Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Report on the City Park Maintenance Facility Pre-Design Study. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Include the recommendations of this study into the overall unfunded capital facility needs of the city and develop a financing plan and project schedule. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Parks and Facilities Maintenance Building in City Park is at the end of its useful life. In November 2007, staff hired the architectural firm of Arai, Jackson, Ellison and Murakami (AJEM) to perform a pre-design study. The study confirms that the building is outdated, lacks sufficient space for the required use and, in general, creates service delivery inefficiencies for the Parks Maintenance Division of the Parks & Recreation Department and the Facilities Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department. The preferred alternative is to completely reconstruct the facility at a current project cost range of $2.7 to 3.5 Million. The architect from AJEM and staff will be present to brief the Committee on this study. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/07/2008 04:32 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/07/2008 04:33 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/08/2008 11:16 AM APRV Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 05/02/2008 11:01 AM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2008 Packet Page 2 of 76 AM-1552 1.B. Report on the South County Senior Center Building City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:15 Minutes Department:Public Works Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Report on the South County Senior Center Building. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that City Council and staff work with the Senior Center Board of Directors and the Executive Director to develop a long term capital facilities plan for the Senior Center. Also, the needs of this project need to be considered in relationship to funding other major capital projects in the City. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Last year, an engineering study was completed to evaluate the cost to address long standing foundation and structural concerns with the Senior Center building. The City purchased the Center in the 1970's and has primarily utilized HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to expand and renovate the facility. Over the past two decades, there has been a gradual uneven settlement of the interior floors and foundation causing safety and liability issues. The engineering study provided solutions and cost estimates to resolve the building foundation settlement as well as a cost to retrofit the building to better withstand a major earthquake. Costs to perform this work are estimated at approximately $1.5 million for the foundation stabilization and approximately $2.0 million for the structural seismic retrofit work. This results in a budgetary expenditure in a range of $3.5 to 4 million in 2008 dollars. Obviously, these project costs are a major investment of capital and is a long term capital need that is currently unfunded. Staff is not aware of any grant program that the Senior Center would likely qualify for this type of project. In addition, the Senior Center Board has indicated in the past that the Senior Center needs more program space in order to meet its constituency needs. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Packet Page 3 of 76 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/07/2008 04:32 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/07/2008 04:33 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/08/2008 11:16 AM APRV Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 05/02/2008 02:38 PM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2008 Packet Page 4 of 76 AM-1534 1.C. Discussion on Meadowdale Neighborhood Annexation City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:15 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Discussion on potential Meadowdale neighborhood annexation. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information only. Previous Council Action Narrative The City has been approached by residents in the north Meadowdale area regarding the possibility of annexing into the City of Edmonds. The area is located on the east side of 68th Avenue West, from 161st Place northward to Lund's Gulch and contains 48 properties. The area in question is located in unincorporated Snohomish County but is located inside the boundaries of the City of Lynnwood Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA) boundaries. Staff has been in contact with the City of Lynnwood staff and they are amiable to work with us on this issue. Staff from both cities are working on a joint resolution to present to the city councils of each city. Issues to be resolved include defining revised MUGA boundaries and creating a process to jointly review development projects that impact Lund's Gulch. Once a final version of a joint resolution is completed it will be brought back to the CS/DS Committee for review and recommendation to the full Council. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Potential Annexation Map Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 02:54 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/05/2008 03:07 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 03:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman Started On: 04/23/2008 12:36 PM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2008 Packet Page 5 of 76 Packet Page 6 of 76 AM-1556 1.D. Code Rewrite Update: Organization of Zoning Chapter, Title 16 City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Time:15 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Code Rewrite Update: Organization of Zoning Chapter, Title 16. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff No action is required. Previous Council Action The City Council has been reviewing portions of the code rewrite as they are completed. Narrative The purpose of this item is to highlight a portion of the code rewrite project, indicating some of the research and direction staff is seeking to use. Staff is continuing to work on the code rewrite project. As we approach beginning to work on Title 16 -- the zoning classifications -- our major goals are to better organize and present the various use and bulk standards. One way to do this is to employ a technique called "form-based zoning." The attachments summarize some aspects of this approach. In fact, Edmonds has begun applying some of these features to its zoning code over the years (e.g. integrating design standards while dropping density or parking restrictions). What we are proposing is to actually "take the leap" and move to a fuller implementation of a form-based code, continuing to employ more traditional features where they reinforce Edmonds' character. The benefits should be a more streamlined code that is easier to understand and use. Staff will review the approach with the Committee. Reference material on form-based zoning is attached. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attachment 1: What is form-based zoning Link: Attachment 2: Urban Land article Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/08/2008 03:54 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/08/2008 04:15 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/08/2008 04:21 PM APRV Packet Page 7 of 76 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/08/2008 04:21 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 05/08/2008 11:43 AM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2008 Packet Page 8 of 76 FORM-BASED CODES [Source: Form-Based Codes Institute] SECTION 1 Definition of a Form-Based Code Draft Date: January 29, 2008 A method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-based codes create a predictable public realm primarily by controlling physical form, with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations. Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in Form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and uncoordinated parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, setbacks, parking ratios, traffic LOS) to the neglect of an integrated built form. Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, Form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory. Form-based codes are drafted to achieve a community vision based on time-tested forms of urbanism. Ultimately, a Form-based code is a tool; the quality of development outcomes is dependent on the quality and objectives of the community plan that a code implements. Form-based codes commonly include the following elements: • Regulating Plan. A plan or map of the regulated area designating the locations where different building form standards apply, based on clear community intentions regarding the physical character of the area being code. • Public Space Standards. Specifications for the elements within the public realm (e.g., sidewalks, travel lanes, on-street parking, street trees, street furniture, etc.). • Building Form Standards. Regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that define and shape the public realm. • Administration. A clearly defined application and project review process. • Definitions. A glossary to ensure the precise use of technical terms. Form-based codes also sometimes include: • Architectural Standards. Regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality. • Landscaping Standards. Regulations controlling landscape design and plant materials Packet Page 9 of 76 on private property as they impact public spaces (e.g. regulations about parking lot screening and shading, maintaining sight lines, insuring unobstructed pedestrian movements, etc.). • Signage Standards. Regulations controlling allowable signage sizes, materials, illumination, and placement. • Environmental Resource Standards. Regulations controlling issues such as storm water drainage and infiltration, development on slopes, tree protection, solar access, etc. • Annotation. Text and illustrations explaining the intentions of specific code provisions. SECTION 2 Eight Advantages to Form-Based Codes 1. Because they are prescriptive (they state what you want), rather than proscriptive (what you don't want), form-based codes (FBCs) can achieve a more predictable physical result. The elements controlled by FBCs are those that are most important to the shaping of a high quality built environment. 2. FBCs encourage public participation because they allow citizens to see what will happen where-leading to a higher comfort level about greater density, for instance. 3. Because they can regulate development at the scale of an individual building or lot, FBCs encourage independent development by multiple property owners. This obviates the need for large land assemblies and the megaprojects that are frequently proposed for such parcels. 4. The built results of FBCs often reflect a diversity of architecture, materials, uses, and ownership that can only come from the actions of many independent players operating within a communally agreed-upon vision and legal framework. 5. FBCs work well in established communities because they effectively define and codify a neighborhood's existing "DNA." Vernacular building types can be easily replicated, promoting infill that is compatible with surrounding structures. 6. Non-professionals find FBCs easier to use than conventional zoning documents because they are much shorter, more concise, and organized for visual access and readability. This feature makes it easier for nonplanners to determine whether compliance has been achieved. 7. FBCs obviate the need for design guidelines, which are difficult to apply consistently, offer too much room for subjective interpretation, and can be difficult to enforce. They also require less oversight by discretionary review Packet Page 10 of 76 bodies, fostering a less politicized planning process that could deliver huge savings in time and money and reduce the risk of takings challenges. 8. FBCs may prove to be more enforceable than design guidelines. The stated purpose of FBCs is the shaping of a high quality public realm, a presumed public good that promotes healthy civic interaction. For that reason compliance with the codes can be enforced, not on the basis of aesthetics but because a failure to comply would diminish the good that is sought. While enforceability of development regulations has not been a problem in new growth areas controlled by private covenants, such matters can be problematic in already-urbanized areas due to legal conflicts with first amendment rights. SECTION 3 Checklist for Identifying and Evaluating Form-Based Codes Draft Date: June 27, 2006 Identifying Form-Based Codes A well-crafted form-based code is the most effective form of development regulation for shaping pedestrian-scaled, mixed use and fine-grained urbanism. How does one determine if a development regulation is a form-based code and a well-crafted one? Form-based codes generally receive affirmative answers to all of the following questions: Is it a Form-Based Code? • Is the code's focus primarily on regulating urban form and less on land use? • Is the code regulatory rather than advisory? • Does the code emphasize standards and parameters for form with predictable physical outcomes (build-to lines, frontage type requirements, etc.) rather than relying on numerical parameters (FAR, density, etc.) whose outcomes are impossible to predict? • Does the code require private buildings to shape public space through the use of building form standards with specific requirements for building placement? • Does the code promote and/or conserve an interconnected street network and pedestrian-scaled blocks? • Are regulations and standards keyed to specific locations on a regulating plan? • Are the diagrams in the code unambiguous, clearly labeled, and accurate in their presentation of spatial configurations? Packet Page 11 of 76 Evaluating Form-Based Codes The next lists of questions reflect best practices of form-based coding. Effective form- based codes usually receive affirmative answers to these questions: Is the code enforceable? • Does the code implement a plan that reflects specific community intentions? • Are the procedures for code administration clearly described? • Is the form-based code effectively coordinated with other applicable policies and regulations that control development on the same property? • Is the code designed, intended, and programmed to be regularly updated? Is the code easy to use? • Is the overall format and structure of the code readily discernable so that users can easily find what is pertinent to their interest? • Can users readily understand and execute the physical form intended by the code? • Are the intentions of each regulation clearly described and apparent even to planning staff and citizens who did not participate in its preparation? • Are technical terms used in the code defined in a clear and understandable manner? • Does the code format lend itself to convenient public distribution and use? Will the code produce functional and vital urbanism? • Will the code shape the public realm to invite pedestrian use and social interaction? • Will the code produce walkable, identifiable neighborhoods that provide for daily needs? • Is the code based on a sufficiently detailed physical plan and/or other clear community vision that directs development and aids implementation? • Are parking requirements compatible with pedestrian-scaled urbanism? Packet Page 12 of 76 174 U R B A N L A N D S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Place Makingwith Form-Based Codes M A R Y E .M A D D E N A N D B I L L S P I K O W S K I “Form-based codes” are on the minds of developers, planning professionals, and even citizens. Most references to them are enthusiastic, but some express fear and trepidation. What are these codes really about? F orm-based co des are land develop- ment regulations that emphasize the future physical form of the built environment.This alone sparks public interest in the arcane field of zoning codes.Other enthusiasm stems from a widespread distrust of today’s fragmented processes for approving new development— the system is broken on many levels,and new approaches are desperately needed. Form-based codes are becoming increas- ingly popular in communities seeking practical ways to grow smarter.Most zoning and subdi- vision ordinances actually promote the sprawl- ing development patterns that citizens oppose. Developers often agree with the citizens,yet find that mixed uses and pedestrian-friendly streets are difficult,if not illegal,to build. Large cities have begun to consider form- based codes. In Denver, for instance, officials have started to rewrite their entire zoning code after discovering that it contains disin- centives for the very types of development the city is seeking. Miami is in the midst of rewriting its entire code, using form-based techniques on a larger scale than ever before attempted. But even with the enthusiasm they currently generate, form-based codes often are not well understood. How exactly do they differ from other regulatory techniques? If a city wants to evaluate form-based coding, what do elected officials, devel- opers, and planning staffers need to know? The Basics Form-based code is a new term for the evolving tech- niques that regulate the development of land for the purpose of achieving a spe- cific urban form.Cities and counties across the country are finding that conven- tional zoning is not fulfilling this essential goal of town planning. The failure of zoning to carry out physical plans for a community’s future landwri More user friendly than conventional zoning, form-based codes are written in plain English and make liberal use of matrices, diagrams, and other illustrations. F E R R E L L M A D D E N A S S O C I A T E S Published by Urban Land Institute copyright 2006 www.uli.org Packet Page 13 of 76 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 U R B A N L A N D 175 should not be surprising, because zoning originated as a means to isolate and segre- gate land uses. Eighty years after the U.S. Supreme Court authorized local governments to zone land, zoning practice is still mired in solving problems of that era rather than the current one. Some land uses must be segregated because they create excessive noise or truck traffic.However,many other land uses can coexist and benefit from their proximity to each other,yet are forbidden from doing so because the techniques of zoning by use have become so entrenched as to seem utterly nat- ural to citizens and elected officials alike. One key to the harmonious mixing of land uses is to arrange them on streets and blocks that function together to create an attractive “public realm.” This realm may be a dignified park or plaza, but it is most often a street of moderate dimensions and traffic flow with sidewalks and rows of street trees. In urban settings,frontyards are small or nonexistent;in less intensive settings,they are ample and effectively extend the public realm to include the frontyards on both sides.When buildings and the public realm are consistently shaped in this manner,the uses within indi- vidual structures are far less important than in conventional suburban configurations. Form-based codes regulate the key aspects of urban form, such as the height of build- ings, how close structures are to the street, and windows and doors on walls facing streets and other public spaces. They also govern the streets themselves so that the streets and buildings work together to create a desirable public realm—adding value to every property in the process. Form-based codes are sometimes con- fused with design guidelines, which try to control how buildings look. Design guidelines emerged from the historic preservation world and are well suited to evaluating how a reno- vation or new structure would fit into the con- text of a historic district. Design guidelines are also used to influence the architectural style of buildings in other contexts. Design guidelines usually require laborious reviews by public agencies,eliminating the pre- dictability that is the hallmark of a good regula- tion.Well-written form-based codes are more objective and easier to implement than design guidelines and they avoid most of the types of quarrels that erupt over architectural style.rr Beyond Greenfield Development Initially,form-based codes were developed as sets of instructions for developers to use when developing greenfield sites.Later,they were adapted through the planned unit develop- ment (PUD)process as a regulatory tool for local governments to ensure that promised development patterns were carried out. Gaithersburg,Maryland,for example,used this approach to accommodate the develop- ment of the Kentlands during the late 1980s; there was no other regulatory technique avail- able for creating new traditional neighbor- hoods in that city. A dozen years ago, form-based codes began being used in redevelopment and revi- talization scenarios. Coding techniques had to evolve once the interests of hundreds of dif- ferent property owners would be affected.rr West Palm Beach, Florida, adopted a form- based code in 1994 for its entire downtown. tes Downtown Kendall Thirt y-five years ago,Dadeland Mall’s first buildings emerged on Kendall Drive,a narrow country road just beyond the Miami metropolis.Fast-forward to today,when two transit stops are located within walking dis- tance—but who would walk clear across a mall parking lot in the Florida heat? Now that the region has sprawled as far as it can go toward the Everglades,great sites like the 338 acres (136.8 ha)that include the 1.4 million-square-foot (130,232- sq-m)Dadeland Mall seem wasted on a low-slung automobile-dominated pattern. Redevelopment planning was instigated bya local businessgroup,Chamber South. The resulting plan seemed unreal at the time. The parking lots and single-use apartment buildings were gone;the mall remained but washidden behind new structures. The master plan featured mixed-use buildings fronting on a network of intercon- nected streets, parking garages placed mid-block to replace the vast expanses of surface parking, and the transit stops be- coming the focal points with the greatest intensity of development. To implement this vision, a form-based code was adopted by officials of Miami– Dade County in 1999 to replace the prior suburban zoning. Downtown Kendall is now emerging from the ground, remarkably like the 1998 master plan. The vision for downtown Kendall. J A M E S D O U G H E R T Y / D O V E R , K O H L & P A R T N E R S Packet Page 14 of 76 176 U R B A N L A N D S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many coastal communities are discovering that their historic cores cannot be rebuilt after disaster strikes. The magnitude of the recovery effort has led many of them to explore a model form-based code known as the SmartCode to sidestep the need for customized codes for each community. The goal is to re-create the historic form of the older sections of town, rather than the sprawl around the edge, and to rebuild “better than before.” The next frontier for form-based codes isff to carry out regional planning. By extending the tools used to regulate urban form in small areas, regional development patterns can also be coded (for instance, laying out intercon- nected road networks and allowing for re- gional stormwater management). It is no longer credible to believe that incremental development decisions are sufficient to shape regional growth patterns. Form-based codes focus on end results— the creation of desirable physical places. They are ideal for jurisdictions seeking a funda- mental change in urban form and character— for instance, when redeveloping areas that have become obsolete or which were poorly planned at the outset. Whether it is a greyfield conversion of a dead mall or revitalization of an aging com- mercial corridor, a shared physical vision for the desired character is the essential first step. Form-based codes quantify that vision into physical parameters that replace the pre- existing zoning standards. Typically,the result is the regulation of pri- vate and public development to create valu- able public spaces that did not exist before. For instance,overly wide streets can be con- verted into places where pedestrians and com- merce can meet to their mutual benefit;new public spaces such as plazas can create cen- ters of attention in homogeneous subdivisions. Form-based codes can also be used for finer-grained projects, such as infill redevelop- ment downtown or in bypassed city neighbor- hoods, or as a tool for regulating new con- struction in historic districts. These codes can be written to protect the existing urban fabric, or they can serve to transform it. National Trends Cities and counties across the country are replacing parts of their conventional zoning with form-based codes,to enable local governments to carry out visionary place-making plans. One prominent example is in unincorpo- rated Dade County,Florida,where land around the Dadeland Mall,a regional shopping attrac- tion,is being converted into a downtown for the sprawling community of Kendall. landwrites Columbia Pike A r lington Count y, Virg i n i a ,has seen explosive development along the Metro (subway) corridors over the past 30 years, while Columbia Pike, the 3.5-mile (5.6-km) “Main Street” for the southern portion of the county, has languished. Although it is a historic thoroughfare running from the Pentagon to the Arling- ton/Fairfax County line, its current form resembles strip commercial zones every- where: an arterial that carries approxi- mately 30,000 vehicles a day, varying in width from four to six lanes and lined pri- marily with parking lots and low buildings. Columbia Pike was the most underde- veloped area in a county that is otherwise built out. County leaders wanted to encour- age economic development and also create a mixed-use pedestrian environment that would allow for future light rail or bus rapid transit. During an intensive two-year visioning process, the county recognized that its reg- ulations would never produce the desired results, a traditional Main Street. The effort led to the adoption of a form-based code in 2003. The Columbia Pike code is optional— all existing zoning remains in place—with incentives such as expedited review to encourage its use. Since passage, the vast majority of development proposals have opted to use the new form-based code. An illustrated vision for future private development. The effect of new standards for the public realm and private building placement. Existing conditions produced by the conventional system along Columbia Pike. S T E V E P R I C E / U R B A N A D V A N T A G E Packet Page 15 of 76 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 U R B A N L A N D 177 Another is Columbia Pike, where Arlington County, Virginia, officials seek to revitalize an aging commercial corridor that has seen little development over the past 40 years. Even under the current strong market conditions, redevelopment under existing zoning has proven virtually impossible. In St. Lucie County, Florida, 28 square miles (72 sq km) on the outskirts of Fort Pierce have been planned by county officials for several new towns and villages. A new form-based code has just been adopted to ensure that the towns and villages are built with traditional neighborhoods while the sur- rounding countryside is preserved for agricul- ture and habitat restoration. Municipal officials in Petaluma,California, have created a new vision for Central Peta- luma,which has been dominated by freight transport along the Petaluma River and rail lines.A new form-based code has replaced the city’s conventional zoning for the entire area and promotes narrower streets,wider sidewalks,and minimum building heights to create urban character near the historic downtown. Advantages More user friendly than conventional zoning, form-based codes are written in plain English and make liberal use of matrices, diagrams, and other illustrations. Form-based codes are written to fulfill a specific physical vision for a place. Which neighborhood patterns should be retained and protected? Which are obsolete and should be replaced? These decisions need to be based on a broad public consensus. This “upfront”agreement on the desired future,often reached through a public participa- tion charrette or some other visioning method, allows for the creation of precise and objective codes that can remove much of the politics and uncertainty from the approval process. A code with clear and concise rules can deliver predictability for both the developer and the community. For fundamental issues about the creation of public spaces, such as avoiding blank walls or parking lots along sidewalks, the rules are very strict. Other is- sues are truly less important for urban form, such as micromanagement of parking or of what uses can take place in each building St. Lucie County Waves of de velopme nt across Florida are rendering many communities unrecog- nizable. As the wave began to displace valuable agricultural lands on the outskirts of Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County, it collided with local residents who understood the damage inherent in poorly planned, widely dispersed development. After growth was temporarily stopped, residents began to realize it was the form of new development—not growth itself— that was their real concern. Assisted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the community and county officials agreed on a master plan for 28 square miles (72 sq km) of farmland. This plan included several new towns and villages surrounded by countryside that would be preserved for agriculture and habitat restoration. A central backbone system for water management would replace the current system of straight-line agricultural canals that overdrain the land and pollute the Indian River Lagoon. A new form-based code has just been adopted to ensure that the towns and vil- lages are built with traditional neighbor- hoods while the surrounding countryside is permanently preserved through the transfer of development rights. Central Petaluma C i t y off i cia l s in P eta luma,Califor- nia, have created a new vision for Central Petaluma, a 400-acre (162-ha) area adja- cent to Petaluma’s historic downtown. This plan would extend the form and character of the pedestrian-oriented down- town into an area historically occupied by industrial uses that depended on a river- based economy and transport system that no longer exists. With other parts of Petaluma already built out, this area represented a unique opportunity for new development that could complement the historic downtown and connect it to the river. Central Petaluma will contain a range of residential and commercial uses that can coexist in proximity to one another to create a lively urban environment. The his- toric Petaluma Depot would be restored for passenger service and become the bus transit center while the river itself becomes the focus of civic life. A new form-based code,based on the model SmartCode,has replaced the city’s conventional zoning for the entire area.Dif- ferent sections of the site are coded for varying densities,minimum and maximum building heights,parking areas,and per- centages of frontage types.The code clearly describes new streets,open spaces,roads, and even structures facing the river.Of greatest importance,the new code allows for the mixing of stores,homes,and work- places as found in the historic downtown. Concept for Towns/Villages/Countryside plan in St. Lucie County. T R E A S U R E C O A S T R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G C O U N C I L F I S H E R & H A L L U R B A N D E S I G N Packet Page 16 of 76 178 U R B A N L A N D S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 over time; those rules are much more lenient than in today’s zoning codes. A well-written form-based code avoids the typical scenarios facing developers: l Wasting time and money on a concept that ends up being unacceptable to a community. l Fearing to propose something desirable because too many variances or discretionary approvals would be required. l Inquiring as to desirable uses on a site and being told with a shrug to come back with a proposal. The guessing game is removed when a community writes what is desired into its codes. The new process can replace grueling public hearings in which each proposal is picked apart, redesigned from the dais, or sent back to the drawing board, only to end up with unexpected special conditions or out- right denial influenced by whoever shows up at the final public hearing. When consensus has been built at the beginning of the planning and coding process,and the rules are clear and concise, the approval process can be much quicker,if not absolutely streamlined.As Peter Park, Denver’s planning director,has asked,“Why shouldn’t Denver streamline permitting of development that matches what the city wants?” Disadvantages The advantages of form-based codes come with certain costs.Building consensus on a physical vision takes time,patience,and resources—and there is no guarantee of success. Once a shared vision has been reached, it must be converted into objective code provi- sions that replace contradictory provisions in the existing ordinances. Without this step, a visionary plan stands little chance of influenc- ing the future of a community. It is a true test of patience and persever- ance for elected officials to stay the course when the inevitable naysayers appear at the last minute and want to rethink the shared vision that they were too busy to help formu- late. Developers, who stand to benefit from the new system, often remain silent or even block the new code’s path if they are focused only on their current project rather than the long-term vitality of the community. Developers who are locked into old devel- opment patterns may also object to form- based codes. Change can be difficult; devel- opers of conventional strip centers may admire more intense mixed-use buildings, but fear the risk of a different development pat- tern or fear out-of-town competitors with more experience with mixed-use buildings or tradi- tional neighborhood development techniques. The development approval process in much of the United States has proven to be antagonistic, expensive, unpredictable, and unsustainable. Form-based codes are crafted around consensus, straightforward to imple- ment, and built on the ideal of creating places of enduring value. As Arlington devel- oper David DeCamp stated when discussing the Columbia Pike experience, “It helps to begin with the end in mind.” M A R Y M A D D E N is a principal in the Washington, D.C.–based urban design and town planning firm Fer- rell Madden Associates, LLC.B I L L S P I K O W S K I is a principal in Spikowski Planning Associates, located in Fort Myers, Florida. They are founding board members of the Form-Based Codes Institute. landwrites For More Information l Form-based codes: www.formbasedcodes.org l Downtown Kendall: doverkohl.com/ project_detail_pages/kendall_new.html l Columbia Pike: See “New Planning Tool Adopted,”Urban Land,June 2003,page 32 dd l St.Lucie County:tcrpc.org/departments/ studio/st_lucie_charrette/implementation _schedule.htm l Central Petaluma: cityofpetaluma.net/ cdd/cpsp.html Packet Page 17 of 76 AM-1547 2.A. 2008 First Quarter Budget Report City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Information Committee:Finance Information Subject Title 2008 First Quarter Budget Report. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information only, no action required. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This item transmits the 2008 First Quarter Budget Report. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2008 First Quarter Budget Report Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 05/01/2008 03:32 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 02:54 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/05/2008 03:07 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 03:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 05/01/2008 03:22 PM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2008 Packet Page 18 of 76 CITY OF EDMONDS MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (May 13, 2008) Overview Summary..........................2 Revenues..........................2 Expenditures....................2 On the Horizon ................3 Major Revenue Projections........4 General Fund Revenue Detail ...7 Expenditure Summary Status by Fund.................12 Status by Department.......12 Expenditure Detail by Fund General Fund ...................13 Street Fund.......................14 Street Construction..........14 Multi-Modal.....................14 Building Maintenance......15 Municipal Arts.................15 Hotel/Motel......................15 Employee Parking............15 Tourism Promotion..........16 Park Improve (REET 2).......16 Park Capital (REET 1).......16 Gifts Catalog....................17 Cemetery Maintenance....17 Parks Construction ..........17 Combined Utility .............18 Equipment Rental.............19 Expenditure Detail by Department City Council.....................20 Mayor...............................20 Human Resources............20 Municipal Court...............21 Economic Development...21 City Clerk.........................21 Administrative Services...22 City Attorney ...................22 Non-Departmental............22 Police Department............23 Fire Department...............24 Community Services........24 Development Services .....25 Parks & Recreation..........25 Public Works....................26 Facilities...........................26 Storm Drainage................27 Water................................28 Sewer................................29 Treatment Plant................30 Packet Page 19 of 76 CITY OF EDMONDS 2008 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REPORT This report will provide preliminary information regarding the City of Edmonds’ financial operations for the quarter ending March 31, 2008. Information for April has been included when available. Overview As it is early in the year it is difficult to see any real trends developing. General fund revenues, excluding fund balance, are at 18.3% of budget. General fund expenditures are at 22.9% of budget. Revenue Variances Sales tax revenue for the quarter was $1.3 million or 22.7% of budget. Keep in mind that the budget includes approximately $370,000 in sales tax sourcing dollars which will not be received until the end of the year. For forecasting purposes we removed the impact of the sales tax sourcing and have included April 2008 receipts. Currently the model shows sales tax receipts coming in about 1% or $60,000 under budget. For reference a table is presented showing the sources of sales tax for March 2007 and 2008. Sales tax receipts decreased 1.7% when you compare the two reporting periods. In March 2007 sales tax revenue from Motor and Vehicle Parts Dealers, Food Services, and Construction and Specialty Trade Contractors comprised 54.9% of our collections, while in March 2008 they comprised only 49.6%. 2008 2007 Dollar 2008 2007 Amount Amount Change % of Total % of Total Motor and Vehicle Parts Dealers 82,826 111,519 (28,693) 23.3% 30.9% Food Services, Drinking Places 39,787 39,576 211 11.2% 11.0% Specialty Trade Contractors 32,668 15,713 16,955 9.2% 4.4% Construction of Buildings 20,881 31,352 (10,471) 5.9% 8.7% 176,162 198,160 (21,998) 49.6% 54.9% Miscellaneous Store Retailers 18,080 20,101 (2,021) 5.1% 5.6% Food and Beverage Stores 14,570 16,929 (2,359) 4.1% 4.7% Clothing and Accessories 11,923 11,420 503 3.4% 3.2% Telecommunications 16,795 14,521 2,274 4.7% 4.0% Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods 12,961 9,565 3,396 3.7% 2.6% Repair and Maintenance 11,102 13,626 (2,524) 3.1% 3.8% Administrative and Support Svcs 9,332 11,160 (1,828) 2.6% 3.1% Others 84,036 65,630 18,406 23.7% 18.2% 178,799 162,952 15,847 50.4% 45.1% 354,961 361,112 (6,151) 100.0% 100.0% Natural Gas Utility and Electric Utility taxes are at 45.5% and 33.9% respectively of budget. At this time our forecasting model, which considers the seasonality of collections is predicting that the Natural Gas Utility tax will exceed budget by $61,000, and the Electric Utility tax will come in $87,000 over budget. Building permit fees, zoning and subdivision fees, along with plan check fees are at 23.7%, 21.7%, and Packet Page 20 of 76 28.1% of budget. Input from our Development Services Department is that they expect construction related receipts to meet budget estimates in 2008, not exceed budget as has been the case for the past couple of years. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) receipts through April 30 were $224,000. Collections for the same period in 2007 were $440,000. At this time our forecasting model is pointing towards REET receipts for the year of $815,000, significantly under budget. As we have been reporting, Finance continues to monitor and will continue to provide monthly updates to council. Departmental and Fund Variances All departments spending appears to be in line with budget. On the Horizon The City finished 2007 in a stronger position than anticipated; however, Finance still remains cautious about the City’s financial future. Major items on the horizon are: • Continue to develop the Broadband initiative • Review of business practices to reduce General Fund expenditures by $500,000 by 2009 • Ongoing labor negotiations with 4 of the City’s 5 bargaining units • Utility rate study commencing in April • EMS Levy on the ballot May 20 - May, 2008 Packet Page 21 of 76 2008 BUDGET 1,400,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 6.38% 5.11% 7.57% 8.43% 7.61% 10.56% 11.51% 9.44% 9.99% 8.34% 7.99% 7.07% Cumulative Forecast % 6.38% 11.48% 19.05% 27.49% 35.09% 45.65% 57.17% 66.61% 76.60% 84.94% 92.93% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 89,269 71,514 105,947 118,067 106,473 147,883 161,157 132,173 139,906 116,757 111,894 98,959 Cumulative Forecast $ 89,269 160,783 266,730 384,797 491,270 639,153 800,311 932,484 1,072,389 1,189,147 1,301,041 1,400,000 Actual Collected $ 64,548 43,762 62,362 53,477 Cumulative Collection $ 64,548 108,310 170,672 224,149 YEAR END FORECAST 1,012,298 943,097 895,815 815,516 Projected YE Variance (387,702) (456,903) (504,185) (584,484) Budget Variance % -27.69% -32.64% -36.01% -41.75% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget 2008 BUDGET 5,906,511 SALES TAX SOURCING 373,125 ADJUSTED 2008 BUDGET 5,533,386 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 8.05% 9.93% 7.06% 6.88% 8.76% 7.70% 8.09% 9.09% 8.17% 8.45% 9.56% 8.27% Cumulative Forecast % 8.05% 17.97% 25.04% 31.91%40.67% 48.37% 56.47% 65.55% 73.73% 82.17% 91.73% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 445,222 549,378 390,734 380,476 484,606 426,114 447,921 502,891 452,257 467,395 528,755 457,637 Cumulative Forecast $ 445,222 994,600 1,385,334 1,765,810 2,250,416 2,676,529 3,124,451 3,627,342 4,079,599 4,546,994 5,075,749 5,533,386 Actual Collected $ 446,465 536,467 354,960 408,780 Cumulative Collection $ 446,465 982,932 1,337,892 1,746,672 YEAR END FORECAST 5,548,831 5,468,472 5,343,892 5,473,414 Projected YE Variance 15,445 (64,914) (189,494) (59,972) Budget Variance % 0.28% -1.17% -3.42% -1.08% SALES AND USE TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget Packet Page 22 of 76 2008 BUDGET 800,835 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 14.08% 15.03% 13.13% 10.84% 8.70% 5.66% 4.67% 3.32% 3.22% 3.84% 6.30% 11.19% Cumulative Forecast % 14.08% 29.12% 42.25% 53.09% 61.79% 67.45% 72.12% 75.44% 78.67% 82.50% 88.81% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 112,774 120,391 105,175 86,830 69,654 45,338 37,427 26,573 25,827 30,728 50,469 89,651 Cumulative Forecast $ 112,774 233,165 338,339 425,169 494,823 540,161 577,588 604,161 629,987 660,715 711,184 800,835 Actual Collected $ 118,314 118,791 127,195 Cumulative Collection $ 118,314 237,105 364,300 YEAR END FORECAST 840,181 814,370 862,283 Projected YE Variance 39,346 13,535 61,448 Budget Variance % 4.91% 1.69% 7.67% GAS UTILITY TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget 2008 BUDGET 1,435,875 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 7.33% 6.87% 10.01% 7.51% 9.18% 7.16% 9.41% 8.17% 8.26% 9.21% 7.52% 9.38% Cumulative Forecast % 7.33% 14.20% 24.21% 31.72% 40.90% 48.06% 57.47% 65.64% 73.90% 83.11% 90.62% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 105,267 98,611 143,772 107,826 131,845 102,748 135,118 117,301 118,594 132,216 107,954 134,623 Cumulative Forecast $ 105,267 203,878 347,651 455,476 587,321 690,069 825,187 942,488 1,061,082 1,193,298 1,301,252 1,435,875 Actual Collected $ 50,673 134,314 143,976 Cumulative Collection $ 50,673 184,986 328,962 YEAR END FORECAST 691,192 1,302,823 1,358,688 Projected YE Variance (744,683) (133,052) (77,187) Budget Variance % -51.86% -9.27% -5.38% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget Packet Page 23 of 76 2008 BUDGET 1,406,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 9.87% 12.16% 9.87% 10.99% 8.84% 7.76% 7.03% 6.31% 6.58% 6.06% 7.22% 7.30% Cumulative Forecast % 9.87% 22.03% 31.91% 42.90% 51.74% 59.50% 66.53% 72.83% 79.42% 85.47% 92.70% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 138,788 170,996 138,821 154,576 124,272 109,108 98,798 88,696 92,519 85,196 101,544 102,684 Cumulative Forecast $ 138,788 309,784 448,605 603,182 727,454 836,563 935,360 1,024,056 1,116,575 1,201,771 1,303,316 1,406,000 Actual Collected $ 145,799 162,979 167,756 Cumulative Collection $ 145,799 308,778 476,534 YEAR END FORECAST 1,477,028 1,401,435 1,493,532 Projected YE Variance 71,028 (4,565) 87,532 Budget Variance % 5.05% -0.32% 6.23% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 2008 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actual Budget Packet Page 24 of 76 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 03/31//2008 Revenues Balance % Received BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2,972,617 3,614,515 (641,898) 121.6% REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,054,450 295,836 8,758,614 3.3% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,446,200 79,952 2,366,248 3.3% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 817,373 26,333 791,040 3.2% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 5,906,511 1,337,895 4,568,616 22.7% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,065 4,617 11,448 28.7% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 649,836 164,946 484,890 25.4% GAS UTILITY TAX 800,835 364,300 436,535 45.5% CABLE TV FRANCHISE 0 19,889 (19,889) - TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,435,875 328,962 1,106,913 22.9% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,406,000 476,534 929,466 33.9% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 270,000 82,106 187,894 30.4% WATER UTILITY TAX 201,246 53,537 147,709 26.6% SEWER UTILITY TAX 280,000 71,650 208,350 25.6% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 107,635 34,998 72,637 32.5% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 182,000 60,170 121,830 33.1% PULLTABS TAX 55,000 19,898 35,102 36.2% AMUSEMENT GAMES 500 0 500 0.0% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES 500 0 500 0.0% TOTAL TAXES 23,630,026 3,421,622 20,208,404 14.48% FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% PROF AND OCCUPATION LICENSE 1,000 300 700 30.0% AMUSEMENTS 5,000 675 4,325 13.5% BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 1,800 923 878 51.3% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 56,000 41,758 14,242 74.6% FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS 549,575 146,646 402,929 26.7% OLY VIEW WATER DIST FRANCHISE 118,500 25,844 92,656 21.8% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 22,000 8,445 13,555 38.4% NON RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 22,000 13,575 8,425 61.7% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 625,000 148,229 476,772 23.7% ANIMAL LICENSES 15,000 6,015 8,985 40.1% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 100,170 47,020 53,150 46.9% OTHER/NON-BUS/LIC/PERMIT 5,000 1,453 3,547 29.1% TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,528,045 440,882 1,087,163 28.85% Packet Page 25 of 76 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 03/31//2008 Revenues Balance % Received DOJ 15-0404-01-754 2006 BPV 0 1,416 (1,416) - US Dept of Justice Grant 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% WA ASSOC OF SHERRIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% Federal WA State Traffic Comm Grant 8,000 0 8,000 0.0% WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% WA STATE TRAUMA GRANT 1,290 0 1,290 0.0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 190,000 0 190,000 0.0% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 5,600 0 5,600 0.0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 7,290 2,032 5,258 27.9% CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 30,674 7,887 22,787 25.7% DUI - CITIES 8,860 1,845 7,015 20.8% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 172,337 46,641 125,696 27.1% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 300,278 69,529 230,749 23.2% SHARED COURT COSTS 5,000 3,050 1,950 61.0% POLICE FBI CONTRACTS 0 3,712 (3,712) - DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 0 2,074 (2,074) - FIRE PROTECTION - WOODWAY 327,991 168,772 159,219 51.5% FIRE PROTECTION - DISTRICT #1 228,842 295,074 (66,232) 128.9% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 41,024 30,122 10,902 73.4% WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 6,500 2,300 4,200 35.4% CITY OF MTLK TERR-ANIMAL CONTR 32,000 8,755 23,245 27.4% SNOCOM/DIRECTOR SERVICES 149,100 36,595 112,505 24.5% OTHER BEACH RANGER SUBSIDY 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% SNO-ISLE 56,000 16,546 39,454 29.5% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 1,577,286 696,350 880,936 44.15% Packet Page 26 of 76 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 03/31//2008 Revenues Balance % Received CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS 0 91 (91) - RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,500 334 1,166 22.3% COURT RECORD SERVICES 400 0 400 0.0% CIVIL FEE 0 27 (27) - SALE MAPS & BOOKS 1,000 182 818 18.2% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 0 316 (316) - PHOTOCOPIES 0 2,842 (2,842) - POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 0 1,449 (1,449) - ASSESSMENT SEARCH 0 15 (15) - BIRD FEST MERCHANDISE-WHOLESALE 0 0 0 - PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 31,000 8,700 22,300 28.1% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 31,200 0 31,200 0.0% FIRE TRAINING CLASS FEES 0 0 0 - ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 155,000 25,755 129,245 16.6% ELECTRONIC MONITORING 36,300 4,235 32,065 11.7% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 9,000 1,950 7,050 21.7% BOOKING FEES 4,000 1,385 2,615 34.6% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 15,500 3,420 12,080 22.1% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 0 2,960 (2,960) - EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES-HAZMAT 500 0 500 0.0% DUI EMERGENCY AID 0 0 0 - POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 500 95 405 19.0% CRIM CONV FEES CT 2,300 1,551 749 67.4% CRIM CONV FEES CN 1,900 624 1,276 32.9% POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 250 0 250 0.0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 109,138 92,170 16,968 84.5% STORM DRAINAGE FEES 800 0 800 0.0% AMIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 7,500 1,840 5,660 24.5% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 110,000 23,884 86,116 21.7% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 10,000 2,443 7,558 24.4% PLAN CHECKING FEES 380,000 106,846 273,154 28.1% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 0 553 (553) - CERT/PHOTO/RECORD SEARCH FEE 12,000 0 12,000 0.0% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 12,000 1,680 10,320 14.0% SHORELINE PERMIT 500 0 500 0.0% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 20,000 4,285 15,715 21.4% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 63,000 0 63,000 0.0% LOCKER FEES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% SWIM CLASS FEES 56,000 0 56,000 0.0% PROGRAM FEES 716,108 168,879 547,229 23.6% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 0 572 (572) - BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 0 0 0 - INTERFUND REIMB. CONTRACT SVCS 1,193,948 281,264 912,684 23.6% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 0 0 0 - TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,982,344 740,343 2,242,001 24.82% Packet Page 27 of 76 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 03/31//2008 Revenues Balance % Received PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 4,840 1,730 3,110 35.7% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 48,400 12,974 35,426 26.8% BC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 200,000 59,404 140,596 29.7% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,800 1,050 750 58.3% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 0 443 (443) - PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 51,000 3,029 47,971 5.9% PR - HANDICAPPED 4,000 1,905 2,095 47.6% PARKING INFRACTION LC 300 60 240 20.0% DWI PENALTIES 5,000 1,122 3,878 22.4% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 2,500 483 2,017 19.3% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 10,000 10,617 (617) 106.2% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 1,000 128 872 12.8% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 8,500 2,615 5,885 30.8% COURT DV PENALTY ASSMT 0 492 (492) - CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 130,000 27,069 102,931 20.8% JURY DEMAND COST 0 42 (42) - PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 25,000 7,166 17,834 28.7% COURT INTERPRETER COST 1,000 145 855 14.5% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 20,000 5,210 14,790 26.1% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITURES 513,340 135,683 377,657 26.43% INVESTMENT INTEREST 120,000 41,404 78,596 34.5% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 25,000 6,001 18,999 24.0% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 2,000 883 1,117 44.1% PARKING 4,000 1,750 2,250 43.8% SPACE & FACILITIES RENTALS 129,000 11,103 117,897 8.6% GYM & WEIGHTROOM FEES 13,400 2,586 10,814 19.3% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 0 2,535 (2,535) - LEASES LONG-TERM 124,410 35,580 88,830 28.6% VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 2,400 113 2,287 4.7% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 14,000 1,200 12,800 8.6% PARKS DONATIONS 3,800 3,585 215 94.3% POLICE CONT FROM PRIVATE SOURCES 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% BIRDFEST CONTRIBUTION 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% CONTRIBUTIONS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 500 0 500 0.0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 5,000 1,240 3,760 24.8% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 0 300 (300) - POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 0 1,426 (1,426) - CASHIER OVERAGE/SHORTAGE 0 85 (85) - OTHER MISC REVENUES 10,000 85,125 (75,125) 851.2% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 0 57 (57) - NSF FEES - PARKS 0 60 (60) - NSF FEES - MUNI CT 200 138 62 69.1% PLANNING SIGNAGE REVENUE 6,000 450 5,550 7.5% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 469,210 195,619 273,591 41.69% Packet Page 28 of 76 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 03/31//2008 Revenues Balance % Received PROCEEDS FROM LONG TERM DEBT 78,000 0 78,000 0.0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 19,962 0 19,962 0.0% TOTAL TRANSFERS 97,962 0 97,962 0.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 33,770,830 9,245,015 24,525,815 27.38% Packet Page 29 of 76 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used All Funds 65,992,114 12,008,468 53,983,646 18.2% 001 General Fund 33,281,772 7,615,054 25,666,718 22.9% 111 Street Fund 1,362,403 275,632 1,086,771 20.2% 112 Street Const./Imprv. 2,820,895 222,600 2,598,295 7.9% 113 Multimodal Transportation 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0.0% 116 Building Maintenance 193,000 226,606 (33,606) 117.4% 117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 77,250 325 76,925 0.4% 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 65,206 16,451 48,755 25.2% 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 18,510 0 18,510 0.0% 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 21,800 1,966 19,834 9.0% 125 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 3,388,000 139,300 3,248,700 4.1% 126 Park Acquisition (REET 1) 869,550 830 868,720 0.1% 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 1,600 121 1,479 7.6% 130 Cemetery Maintenance 170,645 29,273 141,372 17.2% 132 Park Construction Fund 0 2,160 (2,160) - 411 Combined Utility Operation 13,023,174 2,578,442 10,444,732 19.8% 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,363,287 261,353 1,101,934 19.2% BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 City Council 303,846 69,475 234,371 22.9% 210 Office of Mayor 232,777 57,630 175,147 24.8% 220 Human Resources 242,649 65,361 177,288 26.9% 230 Municipal Court 695,854 160,002 535,852 23.0% 240 Economic Development 168,864 15,241 153,623 9.0% 250 City Clerk 554,186 135,940 418,246 24.5% 310 Administrative Services 1,265,529 284,482 981,047 22.5% 360 City Attorney 439,065 93,689 345,376 21.3% 390 Non-Departmental Expenses 4,417,705 762,177 3,655,528 17.3% 410 Police Services 9,541,216 2,333,244 7,207,972 24.5% 510 Fire Services 7,256,018 1,837,743 5,418,275 25.3% 610 Community Services 339,549 83,853 255,696 24.7% 620 Development Services 3,072,443 698,181 2,374,262 22.7% 640 Parks & Recreation 3,086,149 621,475 2,464,674 20.1% 650 Public Works 280,838 70,844 209,994 25.2% 651 Facilities Maintenance 1,385,084 325,718 1,059,366 23.5% 652 Storm Drainage 1,556,328 434,535 1,121,793 27.9% 654 Water 4,150,762 764,524 3,386,238 18.4% 655 Sewer 3,680,802 562,918 3,117,884 15.3% 656 Treatment Plant 3,635,282 816,466 2,818,816 22.5% Packet Page 30 of 76 001 GENERAL FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 16,154,796 3,755,531 12,399,265 23.2% 120 OVERTIME 685,738 234,429 451,309 34.2% 150 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 345,909 211 345,698 0.1% 230 BENEFITS 5,695,094 1,247,853 4,447,242 21.9% 240 UNIFORMS 122,666 28,728 93,938 23.4% 250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 17,290 5,242 12,049 30.3% 310 SUPPLIES 504,573 94,860 409,713 18.8% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,700 187 1,513 11.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 161,540 24,811 136,729 15.4% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,680,533 430,208 1,250,325 25.6% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 240,487 60,542 179,945 25.2% 430 TRAVEL 81,080 6,325 74,755 7.8% 440 ADVERTISING 45,290 9,174 36,116 20.3% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 139,851 35,571 104,280 25.4% 460 INSURANCE 469,000 417,705 51,295 89.1% 470 UTILITIES 453,920 108,587 345,333 23.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 229,154 81,012 148,142 35.4% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 347,134 114,876 232,258 33.1% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,830,979 690,959 1,140,020 37.7% 530 EXCISE TAXES 5,200 2,479 2,721 47.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,579,616 0 1,579,616 0.0% 630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 893,259 0 893,259 0.0% 750 BOND PRINCIPAL 60,907 0 60,907 0.0% 790 BOND PRINCIPAL 20,956 0 20,956 0.0% 810 INTEREST ON ST DEBT 10,842 0 10,842 0.0% 830 INTEREST ON LT DEBT 435,071 0 435,071 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 179 (179) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 898 602 59.9% 920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 9,977 22,754 30.5% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 9,700 30,484 24.1% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 900,141 227,934 672,207 25.3% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 91,631 17,079 74,552 18.6% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 33,281,772 7,615,054 25,666,718 22.9% Packet Page 31 of 76 111 STREET FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 441,333 86,426 354,907 19.6% 120 OVERTIME 9,789 759 9,030 7.8% 230 BENEFITS 178,679 32,162 146,517 18.0% 240 UNIFORMS 7,300 2,889 4,411 39.6% 310 SUPPLIES 162,800 18,260 144,540 11.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,236 0 1,236 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,000 6,027 5,973 50.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,200 683 3,517 16.3% 430 TRAVEL 3,380 0 3,380 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 0 2,500 0.0% 460 INSURANCE 36,890 32,977 3,913 89.4% 470 UTILITIES 254,250 43,610 210,640 17.2% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 12,300 6,237 6,063 50.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,660 435 12,225 3.4% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 16,000 3,328 12,672 20.8% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 30,379 0 30,379 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 9,435 0 9,435 0.0% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 21 (21) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 167,272 41,818 125,454 25.0% TOTAL STREET FUND 1,362,403 275,632 1,086,771 20.2% 112 STREET CONST/IMPRV FD # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 36 (36) - 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 60,849 (60,849) - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,775,000 161,715 2,613,285 5.8% 790 LOAN PRINCIPAL 38,143 0 38,143 0.0% 830 LOAN INTEREST 3,061 0 3,061 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 4,691 0 4,691 0.0% TOTAL STREET CONST/IMPRV FD 2,820,895 222,600 2,598,295 7.9% 113 MULTIMODAL TRANS FD # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0.0% TOTAL MULTIMODAL TRANS FD 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0.0% Packet Page 32 of 76 116 BUILDING MAINT FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 10,000 3,870 6,130 38.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,000 60,160 (48,160) 501.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 50,000 23,489 26,511 47.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 121,000 139,087 (18,087) 114.9% TOTAL BUILDING MAINT FUND 193,000 226,606 (33,606) 117.4% 117 MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 3,200 222 2,978 6.9% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 600 0 600 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 57,200 0 57,200 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 4,000 0 4,000 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 0 300 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 7,950 102 7,848 1.3% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% TOTAL MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND 77,250 325 76,925 0.4% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,323 2,000 43,323 4.4% 440 ADVERTISING 0 8,451 (8,451) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 0 6,000 (6,000) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 19,883 0 19,883 0.0% TOTAL HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND 65,206 16,451 48,755 25.2% 121 EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 17,510 0 17,510 0.0% TOTAL EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD 18,510 0 18,510 0.0% Packet Page 33 of 76 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 300 0 300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,500 1,000 9,500 9.5% 440 ADVERTISING 2,500 541 1,959 21.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 8,500 425 8,075 5.0% TOTAL TOURISM PROMOTIONAL 21,800 1,966 19,834 9.0% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 0 15,821 (15,821) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 7,728 (7,728) - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 245 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 13,157 (13,157) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,000 2,160 (1,160) 216.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,387,000 100,189 3,286,811 3.0% TOTAL REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3,388,000 139,300 3,248,945 4.1% 126 PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0 0 - 490 MISCELLANOUS 0 304 (304) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 62,936 0 62,936 0.0% 610 LAND 210,000 0 210,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 406,136 0 406,136 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 189,278 0 189,278 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 0 0 - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,200 527 673 43.9% TOTAL PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) 869,550 830 868,720 0.1% Packet Page 34 of 76 127 GIFTS CATALOG # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,600 121 1,479 7.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 0 0 - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 - TOTAL GIFTS CATALOG 1,600 121 1,479 7.6% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 59,830 14,522 45,308 24.3% 120 OVERTIME 2,050 482 1,568 23.5% 230 BENEFITS 27,385 6,336 21,049 23.1% 240 UNIFORMS 1,000 170 831 17.0% 310 SUPPLIES 7,000 385 6,615 5.5% 340 RESALE ITEMS 20,000 3,281 16,719 16.4% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,200 470 730 39.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,200 266 934 22.2% 430 TRAVEL 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 3,000 117 2,883 3.9% 470 UTILITIES 3,700 591 3,109 16.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 129 371 25.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 305 695 30.5% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0 0 0 - 790 INTERFUND PRINCIPAL 14,598 0 14,598 0.0% 820 INTERFUND INTEREST 14,305 0 14,305 0.0% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,877 2,219 6,658 25.0% TOTAL CEMETERY MAINTENANCE 170,645 29,273 141,372 17.2% 132 PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0 2,160 (2,160) - TOTAL PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND 0 2,160 (2,160) 0.0% Packet Page 35 of 76 411 COMBINED UTILITY # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 2,586,981 600,022 1,986,959 23.2% 120 OVERTIME 92,100 20,293 71,807 22.0% 230 BENEFITS 975,724 229,573 746,151 23.5% 240 UNIFORMS 27,640 9,361 18,279 33.9% 310 SUPPLIES 591,108 101,185 489,923 17.1% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 84,370 32,236 52,134 38.2% 340 RESALE ITEMS 1,694,000 212,127 1,481,873 12.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,340 3,852 12,488 23.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 207,690 41,592 166,098 20.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 55,656 12,937 42,719 23.2% 430 TRAVEL 14,570 10 14,560 0.1% 440 ADVERTISING 2,120 1,006 1,114 47.5% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 22,420 4,612 17,808 20.6% 460 INSURANCE 343,288 306,212 37,076 89.2% 470 UTILITIES 936,800 179,572 757,228 19.2% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 105,164 34,366 70,798 32.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 466,660 109,190 357,471 23.4% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 311,014 100,774 210,240 32.4% 540 EXCISE TAXES 475,698 160,184 315,514 33.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0.0% 620 BUILDINGS 20,000 0 20,000 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 14,925 0 14,925 0.0% 710 GO BOND PRINCIPAL 805,051 0 805,051 0.0% 720 REVENUE BOND PRINCIPAL 85,005 0 85,005 0.0% 790 OTHER LOAN PRINCIPAL 13,970 0 13,970 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 177,685 94 177,591 0.1% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 8,276 (8,276) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 292 (292) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 1,193,837 283,000 910,837 23.7% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 501,858 125,464 376,394 25.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,500 2,212 (712) 147.5% TOTAL COMBINED UTILITY 13,023,174 2,578,442 10,444,732 19.8% Packet Page 36 of 76 511 EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR FUND # Title Appropriation 3/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 256,780 60,354 196,426 23.5% 120 OVERTIME 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 108,572 24,556 84,016 22.6% 240 UNIFORMS 2,000 567 1,433 28.3% 310 SUPPLIES 170,000 28,179 141,821 16.6% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 230,000 373 229,627 0.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 56,000 83,268 (27,268) 148.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,550 1,712 838 67.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,000 645 3,355 16.1% 430 TRAVEL 3,540 0 3,540 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 500 308 192 61.6% 460 INSURANCE 31,340 29,409 1,931 93.8% 470 UTILITIES 15,000 5,374 9,626 35.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 21,686 23,314 48.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 106 5,894 1.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 4,000 0 4,000 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 404,000 3,066 400,934 0.8% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 15,000 0 15,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 7,005 1,751 5,254 25.0% TOTAL EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR FUND 1,363,287 261,353 1,101,934 19.2% Packet Page 37 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 20 110 CITY COUNCIL # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 110,862 26,002 84,860 23.5% 120 OVERTIME 5,590 1,104 4,486 19.7% 230 BENEFITS 85,844 26,531 59,313 30.9% 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 564 436 56.4% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66,000 11,321 54,679 17.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 41 (41) - 430 TRAVEL 4,100 3,052 1,048 74.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,500 1 1,499 0.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 28,950 858 28,092 3.0% TOTAL CITY COUNCIL 303,846 69,475 234,371 22.9% 210 OFFICE OF MAYOR # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 172,348 42,318 130,030 24.6% 230 BENEFITS 49,329 11,226 38,103 22.8% 310 SUPPLIES 3,000 541 2,459 18.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 265 (265) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,100 0 1,100 0.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,400 393 1,007 28.1% 430 TRAVEL 1,500 165 1,335 11.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 550 950 36.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100 86 14 85.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 2,085 415 83.4% TOTAL OFFICE OF MAYOR 232,777 57,630 175,147 24.8% 220 HUMAN RESOURCES # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 145,120 36,360 108,760 25.1% 230 BENEFITS 47,924 11,484 36,440 24.0% 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 1,149 1,351 46.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24,500 7,170 17,331 29.3% 430 TRAVEL 500 27 473 5.3% 440 ADVERTISING 5,000 3,460 1,540 69.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 550 770 41.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4,605 3,131 1,474 68.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 11,180 2,032 9,148 18.2% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 242,649 65,361 177,288 26.9% Packet Page 38 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 21 230 MUNICIPAL COURT # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 437,280 109,099 328,181 24.9% 120 OVERTIME 2,500 670 1,830 26.8% 230 BENEFITS 146,674 35,407 111,267 24.1% 310 SUPPLIES 16,000 3,470 12,530 21.7% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,000 8,310 54,690 13.2% 430 TRAVEL 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 307 2,193 12.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 400 410 (10) 102.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,500 575 4,925 10.5% 510 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 17,000 1,754 15,246 10.3% TOTAL MUNICIPAL COURT 695,854 160,002 535,852 23.0% 240 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 106,090 0 106,090 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 23,304 0 23,304 0.0% 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 268 2,232 10.7% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 0 800 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 6,717 12,283 35.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 3,700 (3,700) - 430 TRAVEL 4,470 0 4,470 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 7,700 0 7,700 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 550 (550) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 4,006 994 80.1% TOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 168,864 15,241 153,623 9.0% 250 CITY CLERK # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 296,344 71,864 224,480 24.3% 120 OVERTIME 410 0 410 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 97,025 22,418 74,607 23.1% 310 SUPPLIES 16,260 1,935 14,325 11.9% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 1,214 (1,214) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,250 5,400 21,850 19.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 59,050 17,556 41,494 29.7% 430 TRAVEL 2,080 136 1,944 6.5% 440 ADVERTISING 20,420 4,079 16,341 20.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 23,810 5,502 18,308 23.1% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7,037 4,283 2,754 60.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 1,552 2,948 34.5% TOTAL CITY CLERK 554,186 135,940 418,246 24.5% Packet Page 39 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 22 310 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 789,340 177,124 612,216 22.4% 120 OVERTIME 6,100 1,260 4,840 20.7% 230 BENEFITS 234,975 49,574 185,401 21.1% 310 SUPPLIES 16,250 4,972 11,278 30.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 83,000 265 82,735 0.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,000 1,740 13,260 11.6% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 27,300 5,939 21,361 21.8% 430 TRAVEL 4,450 0 4,450 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 9,600 1,602 7,998 16.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 56,514 34,254 22,260 60.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 23,000 7,752 15,248 33.7% TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,265,529 284,482 981,047 22.5% 360 CITY ATTORNEY # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 436,065 93,689 342,376 21.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 439,065 93,689 345,376 21.3% 390 NON-DEPARTMENTAL # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 126,000 30,289 95,711 24.0% 230 BENEFITS 270,030 8,645 261,385 3.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 288,811 85,674 203,137 29.7% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 45,000 17,498 27,502 38.9% 430 TRAVEL 0 0 0 - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 1,200 2,400 33.3% 460 INSURANCE 469,000 417,705 51,295 89.1% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 1,634 (1,634) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 88,857 57,532 31,325 64.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 184,639 138,445 46,194 75.0% 540 EXCISE TAXES 5,200 2,479 2,721 47.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,514,033 0 1,514,033 0.0% 700 BOND PRINCIPAL 975,122 0 975,122 0.0% 800 BOND INTEREST 445,913 0 445,913 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 179 (179) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 898 602 59.9% TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4,417,705 762,177 3,655,528 17.3% Packet Page 40 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 23 410 POLICE # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 4,934,117 1,152,229 3,781,888 23.4% 120 OVERTIME 225,840 108,889 116,951 48.2% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 174,602 0 174,602 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 1,753,005 397,044 1,355,961 22.6% 240 UNIFORMS 57,790 12,959 44,831 22.4% 310 SUPPLIES 84,425 19,250 65,175 22.8% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,115 14,063 2,052 87.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 128,269 19,070 109,199 14.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 21,700 5,081 16,619 23.4% 430 TRAVEL 28,520 1,167 27,353 4.1% 440 ADVERTISING 2,500 30 2,470 1.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 12,000 3,765 8,235 31.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 27,094 5,464 21,630 20.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 43,299 13,375 29,924 30.9% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,338,443 421,293 917,150 31.5% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 54,535 0 54,535 0.0% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 0 48 (48) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 637,962 159,490 478,472 25.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 26 974 2.6% TOTAL POLICE 9,541,216 2,333,244 7,207,972 24.5% Packet Page 41 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 24 510 FIRE # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 4,249,853 1,087,481 3,162,372 25.6% 120 OVERTIME 401,438 118,025 283,413 29.4% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 171,307 211 171,096 0.1% 230 BENEFITS 1,547,048 372,962 1,174,086 24.1% 240 UNIFORMS 50,146 12,492 37,654 24.9% 250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 17,290 5,242 12,049 30.3% 310 SUPPLIES 102,643 14,048 88,595 13.7% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 48,300 3,219 45,081 6.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,223 15,482 68,741 18.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 36,267 3,759 32,508 10.4% 430 TRAVEL 19,590 1,117 18,473 5.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 482 1,318 26.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,640 9,060 8,580 51.4% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 37,943 12,044 25,899 31.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 223,647 124,467 99,180 55.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 11,048 0 11,048 0.0% 920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 9,977 22,754 30.5% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 9,652 30,532 24.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 72,289 20,971 51,318 29.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 90,631 17,052 73,579 18.8% TOTAL FIRE 7,256,018 1,837,743 5,418,275 25.3% 610 COMMUNITY SERVICES # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 195,252 47,590 147,662 24.4% 120 OVERTIME 1,600 320 1,280 20.0% 230 BENEFITS 48,709 11,361 37,348 23.3% 310 SUPPLIES 3,000 168 2,832 5.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 0 500 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80,000 20,270 59,730 25.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 690 0 690 0.0% 430 TRAVEL 2,000 399 1,602 19.9% 440 ADVERTISING 2,060 0 2,060 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 550 770 41.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 86 414 17.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 2,630 (630) 131.5% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 1,918 479 1,439 25.0% TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 339,549 83,853 255,696 24.7% Packet Page 42 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 25 620 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 2,026,653 436,893 1,589,760 21.6% 120 OVERTIME 29,485 1,235 28,250 4.2% 230 BENEFITS 613,397 125,592 487,805 20.5% 240 UNIFORMS 2,190 496 1,694 22.6% 310 SUPPLIES 30,700 5,984 24,716 19.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,820 1,678 142 92.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214,920 107,992 106,928 50.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 13,950 1,584 12,366 11.4% 430 TRAVEL 7,070 82 6,988 1.2% 440 ADVERTISING 3,910 757 3,153 19.4% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 27,590 3,520 24,070 12.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 15,784 0 15,784 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 51,775 4,070 47,705 7.9% 640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 33,199 8,300 24,899 25.0% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3,072,443 698,181 2,374,262 22.7% 640 PARKS & RECREATION # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,799,271 348,466 1,450,805 19.4% 120 OVERTIME 4,075 843 3,232 20.7% 230 BENEFITS 499,786 110,620 389,166 22.1% 240 UNIFORMS 6,540 2,140 4,400 32.7% 310 SUPPLIES 119,595 20,318 99,277 17.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,475 0 6,475 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 232,395 46,961 185,434 20.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 20,700 1,858 18,842 9.0% 430 TRAVEL 2,840 151 2,689 5.3% 440 ADVERTISING 3,700 848 2,853 22.9% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 50,325 15,376 34,949 30.6% 470 UTILITIES 105,750 23,201 82,549 21.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 22,380 13,218 9,162 59.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 34,650 4,121 30,529 11.9% 910 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 64,250 5,000 59,250 7.8% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 113,417 28,354 85,063 25.0% TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 3,086,149 621,475 2,464,674 20.1% Packet Page 43 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 26 650 PUBLIC WORKS # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 205,954 49,945 156,009 24.3% 120 OVERTIME 200 0 200 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 53,973 15,446 38,527 28.6% 310 SUPPLIES 5,200 1,498 3,702 28.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 21 (21) - 420 COMMUNICATIONS 480 109 371 22.7% 430 TRAVEL 960 27 933 2.8% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 4,486 1,615 2,871 36.0% 470 UTILITIES 2,500 734 1,766 29.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,100 169 1,931 8.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,200 584 1,616 26.5% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 2,785 696 2,089 25.0% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 280,838 70,844 209,994 25.2% 651 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 560,312 139,872 420,440 25.0% 120 OVERTIME 8,500 2,084 6,416 24.5% 230 BENEFITS 224,071 49,544 174,527 22.1% 240 UNIFORMS 6,000 641 5,359 10.7% 310 SUPPLIES 101,500 20,695 80,805 20.4% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,700 187 1,513 11.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,530 4,106 (1,576) 162.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 393 (393) - 420 COMMUNICATIONS 13,950 3,023 10,927 21.7% 430 TRAVEL 0 3 (3) - 470 UTILITIES 345,670 84,652 261,018 24.5% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 73,500 9,216 64,284 12.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,780 1,660 1,120 59.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 38,571 9,643 28,928 25.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 0 0 0 - TOTAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,385,084 325,718 1,059,366 23.5% Packet Page 44 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 27 652 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 439,625 103,565 336,060 23.6% 120 OVERTIME 5,080 718 4,362 14.1% 230 BENEFITS 170,799 43,405 127,394 25.4% 240 UNIFORMS 6,500 1,652 4,848 25.4% 310 SUPPLIES 49,500 3,054 46,446 6.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 0 2,800 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,615 8,422 11,193 42.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 248 2,952 7.7% 430 TRAVEL 3,330 0 3,330 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 4,000 2,622 1,378 65.5% 460 INSURANCE 37,176 32,977 4,199 88.7% 470 UTILITIES 4,500 2,789 1,711 62.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 4,986 7,207 (2,221) 144.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 63,540 15,642 47,898 24.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 14,070 9,278 4,792 65.9% 540 EXCISE TAXES 0 34,998 (34,998) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 0 1,925 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 98,701 0 98,701 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 38,412 94 38,318 0.2% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 0 0 - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 61 (61) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 388,236 117,720 270,516 30.3% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 200,333 50,083 150,250 25.0% TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 1,556,328 434,535 1,121,793 27.9% Packet Page 45 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 28 654 WATER UTILITY # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 647,183 153,190 493,993 23.7% 120 OVERTIME 24,180 4,719 19,461 19.5% 230 BENEFITS 230,897 54,654 176,243 23.7% 240 UNIFORMS 6,880 1,893 4,987 27.5% 310 SUPPLIES 117,159 10,347 106,812 8.8% 340 RESALE ITEMS 1,694,000 211,631 1,482,369 12.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,120 3,276 844 79.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74,300 10,281 64,019 13.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 39,068 5,045 34,023 12.9% 430 TRAVEL 4,850 10 4,840 0.2% 440 ADVERTISING 560 0 560 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 11,370 550 10,820 4.8% 460 INSURANCE 85,294 76,160 9,134 89.3% 470 UTILITIES 28,000 7,083 20,917 25.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 22,286 8,431 13,855 37.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 196,990 52,763 144,227 26.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 42,072 9,641 32,431 22.9% 540 EXCISE TAXES 202,698 53,537 149,161 26.4% 620 BUILDINGS 20,000 0 20,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 150,145 0 150,145 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 64,928 0 64,928 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 4,138 (4,138) - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 82 (82) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 361,169 66,441 294,728 18.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 122,613 30,653 91,960 25.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 0 0 0 - TOTAL WATER UTILITY 4,150,762 764,524 3,386,238 18.4% Packet Page 46 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 29 655 SEWER # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 376,590 96,642 279,948 25.7% 120 OVERTIME 17,330 3,246 14,084 18.7% 230 BENEFITS 158,696 41,247 117,449 26.0% 240 UNIFORMS 5,170 1,766 3,404 34.2% 310 SUPPLIES 52,469 3,948 48,521 7.5% 340 FUEL CONSUMED 0 496 (496) - 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,120 577 3,543 14.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,958 2,442 48,516 4.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,888 5,812 (924) 118.9% 430 TRAVEL 2,490 0 2,490 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 560 0 560 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,870 577 1,293 30.9% 460 INSURANCE 129,286 115,418 13,868 89.3% 470 UTILITIES 461,110 48,144 412,966 10.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 18,666 7,207 11,459 38.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 127,330 23,166 104,164 18.2% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 183,572 38,658 144,914 21.1% 540 EXCISE TAXES 273,000 71,650 201,350 26.2% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0.0% 780 BOND PRINCIPAL 142,173 0 142,173 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 33,213 0 33,213 0.0% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 4,138 (4,138) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 265,706 53,198 212,508 20.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 170,105 42,374 127,731 24.9% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,500 2,212 (712) 147.5% TOTAL SEWER 3,680,802 562,918 3,117,884 15.3% Packet Page 47 of 76 MARCH 31, 2008 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT Page 30 656 TREATMENT PLANT # Title Budget 03/31/08 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,123,583 246,626 876,957 21.9% 120 OVERTIME 45,510 11,610 33,900 25.5% 230 BENEFITS 415,332 90,267 325,065 21.7% 240 UNIFORMS 9,090 4,049 5,041 44.5% 310 SUPPLIES 371,980 83,837 288,143 22.5% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 84,370 32,236 52,134 38.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,300 0 5,300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 62,817 20,447 42,370 32.6% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 1,832 6,668 21.6% 430 TRAVEL 3,900 0 3,900 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 1,000 1,006 (6) 100.6% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 5,180 863 4,317 16.7% 460 INSURANCE 91,532 81,657 9,875 89.2% 470 UTILITIES 443,190 121,556 321,634 27.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 59,226 11,520 47,706 19.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 78,800 17,618 61,182 22.4% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 71,300 43,197 28,103 60.6% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,000 0 13,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 513,007 0 513,007 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 41,132 0 41,132 0.0% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 149 (149) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 178,726 45,641 133,085 25.5% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,807 2,354 6,453 26.7% TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT 3,635,282 816,466 2,818,816 22.5% Packet Page 48 of 76 AM-1548 2.B. Surplus Assets City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Surplus assets. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff We recommend the Council authorize the items on the list to be surplused in the manner suggested by Jim Stevens, Facilities Maintenance Manager. Any proceeds received from the sale of these items will be receipted into the General Fund. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Attached is a list of items provided by Jim Stevens, Facilities Maintenance Manager. These items were originally purchased by the City, but have been deemed as unusable or no longer needed for City purposes. The list indicates a description of the asset, its current condition, an estimated fair market value, and a recommended disposition of the item. Staff's time to dispose the item is not considered in the calculation. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Surplus Assets Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 05/01/2008 03:48 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 02:54 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/05/2008 03:07 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 03:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 05/01/2008 03:43 PM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2008 Packet Page 49 of 76 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Su r p l u s L i s t (E x h i b i t B ) Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t F a c i l i t i e s M a i n t e n a n c e D i v i s i o n DA T E Lo c a t e d As s e t / T a g # P r o p e r t y D e s c r i p t i o n B r a n d M o d e l # S e r i a l # Co n d i t i o n - Wo r k i n g / N o t Wo r k i n g / Br o k e n p a r t s , et c . Es t F M V (n e t di s p o s a l co s t s ) Mi n i m u m pr i c e ( i f ap p l i c a b l e ) In t e n d e d Di s p o s a l Me t h o d (S e e Op t i o n s ) Da t e Ap p r o v e d by C o u n c i l Da t e P u b l i c l y An n o u n c e d ( I f no t a p p l i c a b l e , st a t e t h e re a s o n ) Da t e Di s p o s e d Buyer / Placed DisposedPurchase PriceFund (costs / revenue) FA C 1 1 3 N / A Pi a n o Kr e i t e r N/ A 40 8 5 5 n i c k s / d i n g s $ 2 5 0 I Gn d S t n d N / A Ra d i a t o r r e m o v e d f r o m F A C N/ A N/ A 6 f t l o n g $0 S Gn d S t n d N / A BB Q ( K e t t l e s t y l e ) We b e r N/ A N/ A ru s t y $0 S Gn d S t n d N / A Pr o p a n e B B Q ( b u t b r i q u e t s le f t i n s i d e ) Ma s t e r f l a m e N / A N/ A ru s t y / we a t h e r e d $0 S Gn d S t n d N / A Mi s c . c o u n t e r t o p s / t a b l e t o p s N/ A N/ A 3- 6 ' l o n g mi s s i n g p a r t s $0 T Gn d S t n d N / A La m i n a t e d r a w e r s , 2 e a . , & U/ C c a b i n e t N/ A N/ A N/ A pa r t i c l e bo a r d $0 T Gn d S t n d N / A 8" S p e a k e r s , F l o o r s t a n d s Ra d i o S h a c k ? N / A N/ A ch e a p $0 T Gn d S t n d C O E 0 2 6 5 8 Ad d i n g m a c h i n e Ca n n o n C P 1 2 3 0 0 L9 0 1 5 3 8 8 0 s v i n t a g e $ 0 T/ S Gn d S t n d N / A Ad d i n g m a c h i n e Mo n r o e 27 2 5 J5 6 3 0 7 5 8 0 s v i n t a g e $ 0 T/ S Gn d S t n d C O E 0 2 1 7 2 Ad d i n g m a c h i n e Vi c t o r 10 0 10 8 1 9 7 4 4 8 0 s v i n t a g e $ 0 T/ S Gn d S t n d C O E 0 4 5 5 3 Ad d i n g m a c h i n e Mo n r o e 21 2 5 R3 2 4 9 4 8 8 0 s v i n t a g e $ 0 T/ S Gn d S t n d N / A Ad d i n g m a c h i n e Mo n r o e 21 2 5 R2 3 6 9 3 9 8 0 s v i n t a g e $ 0 T/ S Gn d S t n d N / A 5' l a m i n a t e c o u n t e r / c a b s N/ A N/ A be i g e / g r a y m s g . p a r t s $ 0 T OP W N / A Wo r k T a b l e , g r a y l a m i n a t e N/ A N/ A 38 X 4 2 X 1 6 c h i p p e d $0 T OP W N / A St e e l / l a m i n a t e d e s k N/ A N/ A 60 X 3 0 X 2 9 n e e d s p a i n t $ 0 T OP W N / A La d d e r p i e c e s , a l u m i n u m N/ A N/ A N/ A cu t u p $0 S OP W N / A Lo c k e r s , s t e e l , g r a y , 3 e a . Pe n c o N/ A 78 X 1 2 X 1 8 w i t h k e y s $0 S OP W N / A Lo c k e r s , s t e e l , s a l m o n , 2 2 ea . Pe n c o N/ A 78 X 1 2 X 1 8 mo s t w i t h ke y s $0 S OP W N / A Wo r k T a b l e , g r a y l a m i n a t e N/ A N/ A 35 . 5 X 4 2 X 3 0 n i c k s / d i n g s $ 0 T OP W N / A De s k , s t e e l / l a m i n a t e N/ A N/ A 30 X 6 0 X 2 9 n i c k s / d i n g s $ 0 T OP W N / A Co p i e r , b l u e p r i n t C+ I m a g i n g S y s t K + E 8 0 3 6 8 3 6 7 1 2 0 0 0 3 R u n s $1 0 0 I OP W N/ A De s k , s t e e l / l a m i n a t e N/ A N/ A 60 X 3 0 X 2 9 n i c k s / d i n g s $ 0 T OP W N / A Ta b l e , s t e e l / b e i g e t o p N/ A N/ A 30 X 6 0 X 2 9 O l d $0 T OP W N / A St o o l w i t h b a c k , u p h o l s t e r e d Br o w n , 5 c a s t e r s N / A N/ A R i p s $0 T OP W N / A Ar m c h a i r , b l u e , 5 c a s t e r s Su p e r i o r C h a i r X 0 0 0 0 0 2 N/ A B a d s h a p e $ 0 T OP W N / A De s k , L t . O a k , 4 d r a w e r N/ A N/ A 30 X 4 0 X 3 0 B a d f i n i s h $ 5 0 T OP W C O E 0 2 9 3 Ar m c h a i r , s t r a i g h t , b l a c k pl a s t i c u p h o l s t e r y , 4 l e g s Sh a w W a l k e r N / A N/ A O l d $0 T Di s p o s a l O p t i o n s A Au c t i o n B Bi d ( s e a l e d ) D De p a r t m e n t t r a n s f e r I In t e r n e t o n l i n e a u c t i o n N Ne w s p a p e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t " F o r S a l e " P Pr i v a t e s e l l e r ( n e g o t i a t e d p r i c e ) R Re t u r n e d t o v e n d o r f o r a c r e d i t S Sc r a p p e d L: \ P r o d u c t i o n d b \ A G E N D A \ C C O U N C I L \ 0 0 1 2 _ 1 5 4 8 _ S u r p l u s L i s t - F M 4 - 0 8 . x l s 5/9/20082:00 PM Pa c k e t Pa g e 50 of 76 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Su r p l u s L i s t (E x h i b i t B ) T Tr a s h c a n / d u m p s t e r ( on l y i f m e e t s s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e p o l i c y ) Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t F a c i l i t i e s M a i n t e n a n c e D i v i s i o n DA T E Lo c a t e d As s e t / T a g # Pr o p e r t y D e s c r i p t i o n B r a n d Mo d e l # S e r i a l # Co n d i t i o n - Wo r k i n g / N o t Wo r k i n g / Br o k e n p a r t s , et c . Es t F M V (n e t di s p o s a l co s t s ) Mi n i m u m pr i c e ( i f ap p l i c a b l e ) In t e n d e d Di s p o s a l Me t h o d (S e e Op t i o n s ) Da t e Ap p r o v e d by C o u n c i l Da t e P u b l i c l y An n o u n c e d ( I f no t a p p l i c a b l e , st a t e t h e re a s o n ) Da t e Di s p o s e d Buyer / Placed DisposedPurchase PriceFund (costs / revenue) OP W N / A Sl i d e D r a w e r Ho n I A 52 7 6 1 D9 K 2 P P W o r k i n g $0 T OP W N / A Sl i d e D r a w e r Ho n I A 52 7 6 1 D3 S 0 8 V W o r k i n g $0 T OP W 0 4 2 1 Sm a l l d e s k $0 T OP W N / A Mi c r o w a v e o v e n Am a n a 93 0 5 2 1 8 6 2 5 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W N / A Fi l e c a b i n e t , 3 d w r . Wo r k i n g $0 S OP W N / A Tr a n s c e i v e r Pa n a s o n i c Un k n o w n $0 T OP W N / A Ad d i n g m a c h i n e TI Wo r k i n g $0 T OP W 0 1 1 2 6 La r g e d e s k Wo r k i n g $0 T OP W N / A Ta b l e Wo r k i n g $0 T OP W 7 6 9 1 HP D e s i g n J e t 7 5 5 C M pl o t t e r He w l e t t P a c k a r d C 3 1 9 8 A E S A G 2 0 5 5 4 5 Ne e d s re p a i r s $0 T OP W N / A Un d e r c o u n t e r d i s h w a s h e r Ma y t a g Qu i e t S e r i e s 3 0 0 FD r e j e c t $0 T OP W N / A 3 G y m n a s t i c s p a d s N/ A $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Sp e a k e r Mo t o r o l a H L N 6 5 8 0 B Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Mo t o r o l a T 9 9 K E 0 3 7 W 4 8 3 H M 1 1 7 1 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Un k n o w n Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Po w e r c a b l e Un k n o w n Ne w $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ba s e S t n . M i c r o p h o n e Mo t o r o l a H M N 1 0 3 8 E Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ba s e S t n . M i c r o p h o n e Mo t o r o l a H M N 1 0 3 8 E Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a A A 1 6 7 4 2 1 3 1 2 0 3 8 4 0 7 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ba s e s t a t i o n Mo t o r o l a H L N 6 5 8 0 B Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ba t t e r y c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a N T N 5 5 3 8 6 Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a N L N 4 5 6 9 B 2 0 0 B F F U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Mo t o r o l a M T 5 0 0 Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N/ A Ra d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A 3- r a d i o m i c r o p h o n e Mo t o r o l a Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A ve h i c l e r a d i o Mo t o r o l a S y s 9 0 0 0 H C N 1 0 3 3 A U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ba t t e r y c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a N T N 5 5 3 8 6 Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Po r t a b l e c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a T D N 9 8 1 6 A 2 9 1 C A D V 0 8 0 9 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ba t t e r y c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a N T N 5 4 3 8 A 1 0 3 7 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A 3 r a d i o s Mo t o r o l a N T 1 0 0 0 Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Po r t a b l e r a d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a N T N 5 4 3 8 A Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Mo t o r o l a H 4 3 S V U 7 1 2 0 A N 6 5 1 A N E 1 4 7 1 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Mo t o r o l a H 4 3 S V U 7 1 2 0 A N 6 5 1 A N E 1 4 7 2 U n k n o w n $0 T Di s p o s a l O p t i o n s A Au c t i o n B Bi d ( s e a l e d ) D De p a r t m e n t t r a n s f e r I In t e r n e t o n l i n e a u c t i o n N Ne w s p a p e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t " F o r S a l e " P Pr i v a t e s e l l e r ( n e g o t i a t e d p r i c e ) L: \ P r o d u c t i o n d b \ A G E N D A \ C C O U N C I L \ 0 0 1 2 _ 1 5 4 8 _ S u r p l u s L i s t - F M 4 - 0 8 . x l s 5/9/20082:00 PM Pa c k e t Pa g e 51 of 76 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Su r p l u s L i s t (E x h i b i t B ) R Re t u r n e d t o v e n d o r f o r a c r e d i t S Sc r a p p e d T Tr a s h c a n / d u m p s t e r ( on l y i f m e e t s s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e p o l i c y ) Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t F a c i l i t i e s M a i n t e n a n c e D i v i s i o n DA T E Lo c a t e d As s e t / T a g # Pr o p e r t y D e s c r i p t i o n B r a n d Mo d e l # S e r i a l # Co n d i t i o n - Wo r k i n g / N o t Wo r k i n g / Br o k e n p a r t s , et c . Es t F M V (n e t di s p o s a l co s t s ) Mi n i m u m pr i c e ( i f ap p l i c a b l e ) In t e n d e d Di s p o s a l Me t h o d (S e e Op t i o n s ) Da t e Ap p r o v e d by C o u n c i l Da t e P u b l i c l y An n o u n c e d ( I f no t a p p l i c a b l e , st a t e t h e re a s o n ) Da t e Di s p o s e d Buyer / Placed DisposedPurchase PriceFund (costs / revenue) OP W / E F D N / A Po r t a b l e r a d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a A A 1 6 7 4 2 1 3 1 2 0 3 8 4 0 8 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Po r t a b l e r a d i o c h a r g e r Mo t o r o l a A A 1 6 7 4 2 1 3 1 2 0 3 8 4 1 0 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o c h a r g e r TE K K Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o c h a r g e r TE K K Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e No k i a 91 8 P W S 2 1 9 0 7 3 1 0 2 3 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Fi r e c o m Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Fi r e c o m Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e No k i a 21 6 0 E F R Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e No k i a 21 6 0 E F R Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e No k i a 21 6 0 E F R Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A 6 M i s c . r a d i o s Mi s c . Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e No k i a 21 6 0 E F R Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e No k i a 51 6 5 11 0 1 0 6 9 3 6 1 4 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e Ne x t e l HY 1 U A H 6 R R 1 A N Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ce l l p h o n e Ne x t e l HY 1 U A H 6 R R 1 A N Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A 4 c h a r g e r s Ne x t e l Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ca m e r a So n y MV C F D 8 8 6 2 1 4 6 U n k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Fl a s h a t t a c h m e n t Su n p a k Au t o 0 2 2 Un k n o w n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ca m e r a Pe n t a x 35 M M 15 2 1 7 6 B r o k e n $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Po w e r s u p p l y Mo t o r o l a A E 2 1 0 - 3 1 0 1 1 6 1 3 0 7 8 2 5 5 N e w $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Po w e r s u p p l y Mo t o r o l a A E 2 1 0 - 3 1 0 1 1 6 1 3 0 7 8 2 8 2 N e w $0 T OP W / E F D N / A Ra d i o Mo t o r o l a M T 1 0 0 0 7 5 1 A Q C 0 9 3 6 U n k n o w n $0 T Di s p o s a l O p t i o n s A Au c t i o n B Bi d ( s e a l e d ) D De p a r t m e n t t r a n s f e r I In t e r n e t o n l i n e a u c t i o n N Ne w s p a p e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t " F o r S a l e " P Pr i v a t e s e l l e r ( n e g o t i a t e d p r i c e ) R Re t u r n e d t o v e n d o r f o r a c r e d i t S Sc r a p p e d T Tr a s h c a n / d u m p s t e r ( on l y i f m e e t s s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e p o l i c y ) L: \ P r o d u c t i o n d b \ A G E N D A \ C C O U N C I L \ 0 0 1 2 _ 1 5 4 8 _ S u r p l u s L i s t - F M 4 - 0 8 . x l s 5/9/20082:00 PM Pa c k e t Pa g e 52 of 76 AM-1549 2.C. Utility Rate Study Contract City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Utility Rate Study Contract. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward contract to full council for approval. Previous Council Action None. Narrative In anticipation of the 2009-2010 budget development process a review of the Citys current Water/Sewer/Storm Utility Rates is now in order. FCS Group has performed the last two rate studies for the City, and Finance believes engaging FCS Group to perform the current study is the most cost effective and efficient option. FCS Group has proposed a professional services contract in the amount of $15,970 to again provide these services. Finance is requesting authorization to contract with FCS Group without obtaining quotes from two other vendors as required by the City's purchasing policy. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2008 Utility Rate Update Contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 05/02/2008 08:27 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 02:54 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/05/2008 03:07 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 03:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 05/01/2008 04:20 PM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2008 Packet Page 53 of 76 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Gary Haakenson Mayor Dan Clements Director L:\PRODUCTIONDB\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0014_1549_UTILITY UPDATE CONTRACT -2008.DOC P S A dmonds, hereinafter ereinafter referred to as the “Consultant;” ssistance of a ng, it is agreed by and ROFESSIONAL ERVICES GREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of E referred to as the “City”, and FCS Group., h WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and a consulting firm to provide utility rate update services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accrui between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all service necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached he s and material the Scope of reto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for comp services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such pa leted work for yment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipmen ement shall be erformed shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the term ount for each iweekly during the d phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City’s accounts payable process. No billing shall be considered for ee days prior to payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents t and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agre on a time and expense basis, provided, in no event shall the payment for work p pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $15,970. B. All vouchers s of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate am voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City b progress of the work for payment of complete payment that has not been submitted to the Administrative Services Director thr the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and . All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the Packet Page 54 of 76 services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and sha at th inspect, review and, ement, or in the vided, the work onsultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, mary shall be a hall be prepared at no additional cost. ll at date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agre event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein pro product of the C shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and sum prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done s 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required govern 5. authorized by mental approvals. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work un Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and injury or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in an to, in connection with, or arising out of negligent work performed under the ter by the fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or subcon Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits br Title 51 der this contract, against any and all , demands, and y way incident ms hereof, caused tractors. ought under RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Consultant er agrees to fully r demand to the ly to damages or current negligence of egligence of the liability insurance may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant furth indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim o end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not app claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City. In the event of con the Consultant and the City, this paragraph shall only apply to the extent of the n Consultant. 6. General and professional . The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to this contract a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage; and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. Such policies, except for the professional liability insurance policy, shall name the City as a named insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen days of execution of this Agreement. Packet Page 55 of 76 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate employee or app against any licant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. N representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employ that an o agent, employee or ee or representative of f its agents, ontract. the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts o employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this c 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding t status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to meet the approval of the City. During pendency he Consultant's this contract must of this agreement, the Consultant shall not ty of Edmonds or without written perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the Ci for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional servic may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party writte termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said term es, either party n notice of such ination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document s constitute the entire ted by both parties. f Exhibit A, this and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A. These writing Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing execu In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision o Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be e additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be to perform ntitled to liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are ands that a wever, that nothing in ity to pay for ervices in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City underst revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, ho this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the C services rendered in excess of the Scope of S . Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. Packet Page 56 of 76 14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants th employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or a company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Con commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other considerati resulting from the award of making of this contract at he has not working solely greed to pay any sultant, any fee, on contingent upon or . For breach or violation of this warranty, the tion to deduct from ch fee, pliance with laws City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discre the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of su commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Com . The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement luding d operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and ent to The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on accou 18. Notices shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, inc regulations for licensing, certification an licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreem assure quality of services. nt of this Agreement. . Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: Dan Clements onds venue North 020 monds.wa.us City of Edm 121 Fifth A Edmonds, WA 98 clements@ci.ed Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: lting Solutions Group Redmond Town Center 7525 166th Avenue NE, Suite D-215 Redmond, WA 98052 johng@fcsgroup.com 425-771-0239 John Ghilarducci Financial Consu (425) 867-1802 x 225 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. Packet Page 57 of 76 DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____. CONSULTANT: By CITY OF EDMONDS By Gary Haakenson, Mayor Its Principal T: ____________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney ATTES ____________________ City Clerk Packet Page 58 of 76 EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK updating the water, sewer, and storm revenue requirement projections last studied by FCS Group and determine a ity and compile into the form needed to apply during the requested and received data and identify any additional data requirements for 8 and subsequent years. Enter City financial data and project revenues and expenses. vision for combined e for the three utilities. g assumptions and identify projected financing incorporate feedback to develop the final Task 3. DOCUMENTATION AND PRESENTATION • Prepare a draft technical memorandum summarizing the results of the update. • Finalize technical memorandum based on staff feedback. The budget estimate for this scope is $15,970. The City of Edmonds (the City) has asked FCS Group, Inc. to prepare this scope of work for in 2006. Task 1. DATA COLLECTION AND PROJECT INITIATION • Prepare preliminary data request which will be provided to the City. Conduct a project kick- off meeting to obtain readily available data, review additional data needs, course of action for resolving any data deficiencies. • Review data provided by the C study. Evaluate sufficiency of needs. Task 2. REVENUE REQUIREMENTS • Update spreadsheet models to project the water, sewer and storm revenue 200 Update revenue requirement tests for cash and coverage, including a pro coverag • Update the projected CIP and capital fundin needs. • Meet with City staff to review draft results and projection. Packet Page 59 of 76 AM-1550 2.D. Contracting with Former Employees City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time:15 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Information Subject Title Contracting with former employees. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommend that Finance Committee agree on a policy governing the ability of employees to contract with the City once they have left City employment. Previous Council Action Council discussed a policy of this nature in early 2007, and a recent request was made to re-examine this issue. Narrative In the past year and a half two City employees left City employment for private sector engineering positions. For a number of reasons the City then contracted with the firms who hired these individuals to complete projects the employees had been working on. This situation placed both the separated employees, contracting engineering firms, and the City in an uncomfortable position, and Council has indicated they would like a formal policy governing these situations. Attached to this agenda memo are sample ordinances from five entities: King County (page 1), Seattle (page 2), Snohomish County (page 3), Spokane (page 5), and Tumwater (page 7). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Conflict_of_Interest Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 02:54 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/05/2008 03:07 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 03:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 05/02/2008 10:24 AM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2008 Packet Page 60 of 76 PageKing County Code of Ethics 3.04.035 3.04.035 Conflict of interest - former employees and members of county boards and commissions. A. For one year after terminating service to the county, a former member of a county board, commission, committee or other multimember body may not appear before that board, commission, committee or other multimember body, or receive compensation for any services rendered on behalf of or for assistance to any person, in relation to any county action in which the former member participated during the period of his or her service. This prohibition also applies during the same period of time to any person who is a partner, associate or member of a partnership, association, corporation, firm, institution or other entity, whether or not operated for profit, in which the former member has a financial or beneficial interest. However, this prohibition does not apply if the former member’s financial or beneficial interest in any entity listed in this subsection is limited to investments and does not include managerial or other influential authority, including holding controlling interest in any classes of stock. B. For one year after leaving county employment, a former county employee may not have a financial or beneficial interest in a contract or grant that was planned, authorized or funded by a county action in which the former county employee participated during county employment. C. For one year after leaving county employment, a former county employee may not assist a person, whether or not for compensation, in any county action in which the former county employee participated during county employment. This subsection does not prohibit a former county employee from rendering assistance to county employees in the course of employee organization business. D. For one year after leaving county employment, a former employee must disclose his or her past county employment before participation in any county action. The disclosure shall be made in writing to the department considering or taking the county action on which the former employee is or would be participating. E. A former county employee may not, for the personal benefit of the former employee or a member of the former employee's immediate family, disclose or use any privileged or proprietary information gained by reason of the former employee's county employment unless the information is a matter of public knowledge or is available to the public on request. F. A former county employee may not assist any person for compensation on matters in which the former employee is personally prohibited from participating. G. It is not a violation of this chapter for a former county employee to render assistance to a person if the assistance is provided without compensation in any form and is limited to one or more of the following: 1. Providing names, work addresses and work telephone numbers of county agencies or county employees, to the extent the information is available as a matter of public record under state law; 2. Providing free transportation to another for the purpose of conducting business with a county agency; 3. Assisting oneself or another person in obtaining or completing forms required by a county agency for the conduct of a county business; 4. Providing assistance to the poor or infirm; or 5. Engaging in conduct that is authorized or protected by the constitutions or laws of Washington state or the United States. H.1. This section does not prohibit a former county employee from accepting future employment with the county at any time, including employment with his or her former department. 2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a former county employee is not prohibited from appearing before the county or seeking a county action on his or her own behalf to the same extent other persons may appear before or seek actions by the county. I. Except as otherwise limited by this chapter, a former county employee may contract with the county, or participate in a contract with the county, to provide materials, equipment, supplies or services. However, any such a contract must comply with applicable requirements and procedures related to procurement. (Ord. 14689 § 2, 2003: Ord. 10841 § 1, 1993: Ord. 9704 § 5, 1990: Ord. 6144 § 2, 1982). (King County 6-2005) Packet Page 61 of 76 City of Seattle Legislative Information Service Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved May 2, 2008 8:47 AM Title 4 - PERSONNEL Chapter 4.16 - Code of Ethics SMC 4.16.075 Prohibited conduct after leaving City. A. No former officer or employee shall disclose or use any privileged or proprietary information gained by reason of his/her City employment unless the information is a matter of public knowledge or is available to the public on request; B. No former officer or employee shall, during the period of one (1) year after leaving City Office or employment: 1. Assist any person in proceedings involving the agency of the City with which he/she was previously employed, or on a matter in which he or she was officially involved, participated or acted in the course of duty; 2. Represent any person as an advocate in any matter in which the former officer or employee was officially involved while a City officer or employee; 3. Participate as a competitor in any competitive selection process for a City contract in which he or she assisted the City in determining the project or work to be done or the process to be used. C. A City officer, who contracts with a former City officer or employee for expert or consultant services within one (1) year of the latter's leaving City office or employment, shall promptly inform the Administrator about the agreement. D. The prohibitions of Sections 4.16.075 B1 and 4.16.075 B2 shall not apply to former employees acting on behalf of a governmental agency unless such assistance or representation is adverse to the interest of the City. (Ord. 116377 Section 6, 1992: Ord. 115548 Section 3, 1991.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 12/17/07 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For research assistance, cont act the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684-5474, or Page 1 of 2Seattle Municipal Code Packet Page 62 of 76 2.50.075 Restrictions on future employment of county employees. (1) No elected or appointed county official or other county employee may, within a period of one year from the date of termination or county employment, accept employment or receive compensation from an employer if: (a) The elected or appointed county official or other county employee, during the two years immediately preceding termination of county employment, was engaged in the negotiation or administration on behalf of the county of one or more contracts with that employer and was in a position to make discretionary decisions affecting the outcome of such negotiation or the nature of such administration; and (b) Such a contract or contracts have a total value of more than ten thousand dollars; and (c) The duties of the employment with the employer or the activities for which the compensation would be received include fulfilling or implementing, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts or include the supervision or control of actions taken to fulfill or implement, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts. This session shall not be construed to prohibit a county elected or appointed official or a county employee from accepting employment with a county employee organization. (2) No person who has served as a county elected or appointed official or county employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of county employment, have a direct or indirect beneficial interest in a contract or grant that was expressly authorized or funded by specific legislative or executive action in which the former county elected or appointed official or county employee participated. (3) No person who has served as a county elected or appointed official or county employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of county employment, represent any person before any county board, body, agency, department, committee, examiner, adjustor, or commission regarding a specific project the former official or employee worked on, and was in a position to make discretionary decisions or recommendations, during his/her term of service or employment unless: (a) The former county elected or appointed official or county employee receives no compensation for representing that person; or (b) The specific project was a legislative issue; or (c) The matter involved in the representation by the former county elected or appointed official or county employee directly affects properties owned by the former official or employee, (4) Any elected or appointed official having the power to perform an official act or action shall, for a period of one year after the termination of his or her employment or term of service, refrain from lobbying the county department, agency, elected body, commission, or board on which they last served unless: AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 03-067 REENACTING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.50 OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY CODE RELATING Packet Page 63 of 76 (a) The former county elected or appointed official is receiving no compensation for such lobbying; or (b) The matter being lobbied directly affects properties owned by the former elected or appointed official. Section 13. Snohomish County Code Section 2.50.080, last amended by Amended Ordinance No. 95-056 on July 19, 1995, is reenacted to read: AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 03-067 REENACTING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.50 OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY CODE RELATING Packet Page 64 of 76 12 City of Spokane M. Impermissible Conduct After Leaving City Service. 1. Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information Prohibited. No former officer or employee shall disclose or use any privileged, confidential, or proprietary information gained because of his or her City employment. 2. Participation in City Matters Prohibited. No former officer or employee shall, within a period of one year after leaving City office or employment: a. participate in matters involving the City if, while in the course of employment with the City, the former officer or employee was officially involved in the matter, or personally and substantially participated in the matter, or acted on the matter. b. Represent any person as an advocate in any matter in which the former officer or employee was involved while a City officer or employee; or c. Participate as or with a bidder, vendor, or consultant in any competitive selection process for a City contract in which he or she assisted the City in determining the project, or work to be done, or the process to be used. 3. Duty to Inform. Whenever a City officer or employee wishes to contract with a former City officer or employee for expert or consultant services Packet Page 65 of 76 13 within one year of the latter’s leaving City service, advance notice shall be given to and approval received from the Ethics Committee. Said approval shall be in written form and copied to the Deputy Mayor at the same time that it is given to the individual making the request. 4. Exceptions. a. The prohibitions of subsections 2.a and 2.b of this section shall not apply to a former officer or employee acting on behalf of a governmental agency, if the Ethics Committee has determined that the service to the agency is not adverse to the interest of the City. b. Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit an official elected to serve a governmental entity other than the City of Spokane from carrying out their official duties for that government entity. Packet Page 66 of 76 CITY OF TUMWATER PERSONNEL AND PROCEDURES MANUAL SECTION 8 EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS AND POLICY FOR REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENTAL ACTION AND PROTECTING EMPLOYEES AGAINST RETALIATION (WHISTLE BLOWER) 11/03 8-6 8.05 Prohibited Conduct After Leaving City A. No former employee shall, during the period of one (1) year after leaving city office or employment: 1. Disclose or use any privileged or proprietary information gained by reason of his/her city employment for his/her gain or anticipated gain, or for the gain or anticipated gain of any person, unless the information is a matter of public knowledge or is available to the public on request; 2. Assist any person in proceedings involving the agency of the city with which he/she was previously employed, involving a matter in which he or she was officially involved, participated or acted in the course of duty; 3. Represent any person as an advocate in any matter in which the former employee was officially involved while a city employee; 4. Participate as a competitor in any competitive selection process for a city contract in which he or she assisted the city in determining the project or work to be done or the process to be used. B. The prohibitions of Sections 8.5 A2 and 8.5 A3 shall not apply to former employees acting on behalf of a governmental agency unless such assistance or representation is adverse to the interest of the city. Packet Page 67 of 76 AM-1553 3.A. Report on Acquisition of Property Next to Fire Station 16 City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Tom Tomberg, Fire Time:20 Minutes Department:Fire Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Report on acquisition of property next to Fire Station 16. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward purchase of the property at 8413 - 196th Street SW to the Council President to schedule an executive session for discussion of a real estate matter that includes setting a purchase price. Previous Council Action In 1999 the City Council acquired the property at 8429 - 196th Street SW to build Fire Station 16. The purchase and sale agreement included a right of first refusal on sale of the parcel immediately east of the site addressed 8413 - 196th Street SW. Narrative The intent of negotiating a right of first refusal on land east of the planned fire station was for that parcel to be acquired for Fire Department use. The property at 8413 - 196th Street SW is now for sale, and the estate's representative has contacted the City about the right of first refusal. The appraisal firm hired by the City, Lamb Hanson Lamb, Appraisal Associates, Inc., delivered the property appraisal report to the City on April 11. The Fire Department plan for the land is to relocate Fire Administration from City Hall to the site, and investigate the possibility of constructing a non-burning training facility. The Fire Department has identified non-REET funding sources to acquire the site. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/06/2008 04:02 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/06/2008 04:53 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/07/2008 04:19 PM APRV Form Started By: Tom Tomberg Started On: 05/06/2008 11:22 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2008 Packet Page 68 of 76 Packet Page 69 of 76 AM-1541 3.B. Review of Police Department's Multiyear Plan City Council Committee Meetings Date:05/13/2008 Submitted By:Al Compaan, Police Department Time:10 Minutes Department:Police Department Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Information Subject Title Review of Police Department's Multiyear Plan. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval by Public Safety Committee and then to full council on consernt agenda. Previous Council Action Narrative As required by the city's Strategic Plan and by Police Department policy, an annual update of the Police Department's Multiyear Plan is to be completed and then presented to City Council. The 2008-2012 update will be presented to Public Safety Committee with a request to pass on to full council on consent agenda. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Multiyear Plan 2008-2012 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 02:54 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/05/2008 03:07 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2008 03:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 04/30/2008 02:14 PM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2008 Packet Page 70 of 76 Packet Page 71 of 76 Packet Page 72 of 76 Packet Page 73 of 76 Packet Page 74 of 76 Packet Page 75 of 76 Packet Page 76 of 76