Loading...
2008.06.24 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ June 24, 2008 7:00 p.m.   Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda   2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A. Roll Call   B. AM-1633 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2008.   C. AM-1636 Approval of claim checks #104978 through #105130 for June 19, 2008 in the amount of $436,553.84.  Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #46669 through #46732 for the period of June 1 through June 15, 2008 in the amount of $1,023,326.57.   D. AM-1629 Acceptance of statutory warranty deed from Phyllis L. Lawson in conjunction with the 76th Avenue West/ 75th Place West walkway project. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.   E. AM-1634 Report on bids opened on June 10, 2008 for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals and award to Jones Chemical, Inc for supplying sodium hypochlorite. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.   F. AM-1637 Report on bids opened on June 10, 2008 for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals and award to Northstar Chemicals, Inc. for supplying sodium hydroxide and sodium bisulfite. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.   G. AM-1640 Approval of Landau Associates Phase II investigation/environmental assessment of the Old Milltown parcel ($11,100). This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.   3. AM-1635 (5 Minutes) Presentation by the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce regarding the Membership Committee.   4. AM-1611 (10 Minutes) Discussion regarding making a donation to the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the 4th of July event.   5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   6. AM-1631 (30 Minutes) Discussion regarding moving the house at 555 Main Street to Civic Center Playfield and a proposed resolution expressing intent to preserve the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home.   Packet Page 1 of 189 7. AM-1632 (30 Minutes) Staff response to developers' concerns.   8. AM-1603 (10 Minutes) Establish a $5,000 appropriation for potential Paine Field legal and administrative purposes.   9. AM-1627 (15 Minutes) City of Edmonds unfunded priority projects.   10. AM-1628 (10 Minutes) City of Edmonds letter to Sound Transit regarding Phase 2.   11. AM-1626 (10 Minutes) Proposed Resolution to initiate the vacation of the unopened alley right-of-way located between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, north of Daley Street.   12. AM-1638 (30 Minutes) Presentation and discussion on 2008 Planning initiatives addressing (1) Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element and (2) Form-Based Zoning.   13. (15 Minutes)Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.   14. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15. (15 Minutes)Council Comments   ADJOURN   Packet Page 2 of 189 AM-1633 2.B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of 06-17-08 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2008. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 06-17-08 Draft City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 09:34 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 11:54 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:11 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 06/19/2008 09:27 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 3 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 17, 2008 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Pro Tem D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Michael Plunkett, Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief James Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM DAWSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2008. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #104678 THROUGH #104821 FOR JUNE 5, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $706,197.67, AND #104822 THROUGH #104977 FOR JUNE 12, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $505,803.47. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #46593 THROUGH #46668 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16 THROUGH MAY 31, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $833,041.53. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM HAINES POINT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ($141.57), PATRICIA GILMARTIN ($475,607.95), AND LEE DOUGHTY ($56.31). E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF INTERPRETER FEES. Packet Page 4 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 2 F. LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR LICENSES, JANUARY - MARCH 2008. G. FIBER OPTIC SERVICE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE. H. PUD BOILERPLATE "POLE ATTACHMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MUNICIPAL ENTITIES. I. ORDINANCE NO. 3688 - CABLE FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCE. J. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE DECEMBER 2007 EMERGENCY STORM REPAIR PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. K. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE NORTHSTREAM CULVERT EMERGENCY REPAIR PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. L. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR REPLACEMENT AND/OR ENCASEMENT OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE BNSF SECOND MAIN TRACK PROJECT. 3. UPDATE ON STEVENS HOSPITAL Fred Langer, Commissioner, Stevens Hospital, described his background working for Stevens Hospital for six years as a RN before finishing his education and becoming an attorney. He was elected as a Commissioner in 1997 and served as the President of the Board of Commissioners from 2002-2007. He displayed a photograph of Stevens Hospital, explaining when the hospital was opened in 1963, the planned capacity was 15,000 emergency room visits per year; the hospital currently serves approximately 44,000 emergency room visits per year. He identified the four other Hospital Commissioners, Deana Knutsen, Kimberly Cole, Charles Day and Bob Meador. He explained the Hospital District serves Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, a portion of Bothell, Edmonds and Woodway. He noted if the hospital were sited today to service this area, it likely would not be in this location because access is primarily via Hwy. 99 rather than I-5 or I-405. He displayed a map identifying their service area, explaining over half of their patients are from outside the District’s taxing area. He recalled in 1994 when the voters of Mukilteo were invited to join the District, they declined. He displayed a chart illustrating growth by zip code, identifying areas of significant growth to the east outside the taxing District where many of their admissions are from. Commissioner Langer explained in their primary service area, the amount spent on healthcare admission is approximately $850 million. Like most hospitals, Stevens Hospital provides a significant amount of charity care. He noted the economic impact of healthcare in the area was over $1 billion. He acknowledged Stevens Hospital did not compete with Children’s Hospital for acute pediatric care nor did Stevens Hospital have trauma facilities like Harborview. He displayed a chart illustrating the amount collected from taxpayers in the Hospital District, $0.19 per $1,000 of assessed value, pointing out this was dramatically lower compared to other hospital districts. He referred to their “turnaround” where with the assistance of consultants, the hospital was now operating with a positive profit, 2-4% with an annual budget of $160 million. He commented on deferred capital spending totaling $70 million that was needed to modernize the facility and make it a facility the region was proud of. He compared the amount collected by the Evergreen Hospital District, noting it was approximately $65 million more over the past Packet Page 5 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 3 ten years. He emphasized for every tax dollar Stevens Hospital collects, they give back $3 in charity care and write off another $5 in non-collectable accounts. The current issue is the need for an influx of capital to modernize the facility and they are seeking a partner; his first choice as a partner was the Public Hospital District but was concerned that would not be possible in the current economic climate. Therefore, they must consider alternative partners. He explained for every five emergency room visits, there was one admission. Stevens Hospital was in a very competitive environment due to their divert status (emergency personnel instructed to take patients elsewhere because of Stevens Hospital’s limited capacity) and the volume of admissions. He summarized something would change with regard to the delivery of healthcare in south Snohomish County, the question was only whether Stevens Hospital would be at the forefront which he was confident they would be and whether the District would be their partner or there would be another partner. Michael Carter, Chief Executive Officer, Stevens Hospital, displayed Stevens Hospital’s mission, vision and value statements, commenting the mission to improve the health and well being of the community meant more than treating episodic, acute care emergencies, they want to intervene early and be part of a healthy community. He referred to their vision which includes trusted and financially strong, commenting being financially strong and trusted has been and continues to be a problem for the hospital but were both worthy goals. He assured the quality was there at Stevens Hospital. He commented on their competition and what made Stevens Hospital’s position in the market very vulnerable. He displayed a map of the region and identified hospitals in the area that draw from Stevens Hospital’s market and described their recent capital improvements: • Providence Everett – recently completed a new parking structure and will break ground next month on a $600 million tower soon. Providence hanged their name effective September 1, 2008 to Providence Regional Medical Center Everett due to their plans to expand and capture patients who currently use downtown Seattle hospitals. • Evergreen Hospital – $24 million collected in taxes per year. Intend to offer 80 new beds soon, recently filed a Certificate of Need to allow expansion. Their area of interest includes growth in Mill Creek. • Swedish Hospital – new leadership in 2007, opening a new $150 million orthopedic unit. Acquired Ballard Hospital, are building a hospital in Issaquah and would like to establish a larger presence in the north. • Northwest Hospital – although smaller, are reasonably well capitalized with several niche relationships including a recently announced affiliation with the University of Washington for a proton-beam accelerator, at a cost of $250 million, one of six in the country. Mr. Carter concluded there were well capitalized, aggressive competitors in the area who were interested in expanding to the north, thus it was necessary to have the capital and strategies to survive in this area; Stevens Hospital could not continue to “live on a shoestring.” A levy that produced a great deal of money would assist, but Stevens also needed an effective physician strategy. He explained doctors are changing the way they practice; many doctors over 50 years of age, disillusioned by difficulties encountered in their private practices, are receptive to becoming employees. For example, Providence recently hired a group of general surgeons - surgicalists - who perform all surgeries that comes in through the emergency room. For Stevens Hospital to do this would require a $5 million investment. He noted Edmonds Family Medicine comprised of 27 physicians, although not for sale, have received offers from the Everett Clinic and Providence Physician services. If that clinic were sold, a huge base of Stevens Hospital would disappear. The cardiologists at Stevens Hospital work for Swedish, they are at Stevens Hospital due to a cardiovascular services affiliation that will end. He noted these were simply examples of the vulnerability of Stevens Hospital’s physician base. Stevens needs not only a capital strategy to build new facilities but Packet Page 6 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 4 also a physician strategy to ensure a strong, growing physician base to support the facility should there be a decision and money available to build it. Mr. Carter concluded Stevens Hospital had improving income statements, quality, and their service, although not what it should be, it was close to some breakthroughs; their average inpatient satisfaction score was 80.3% and 83% was the median. He summarized Stevens Hospital’s day-to-day operations were comparable but their balance sheet was fatally flawed. He asked for the Council’s understanding and support in this process. Rick Canning, Chief Financial Officer, Stevens Hospital, displayed and reviewed Stevens Hospital’s financials including revenue increases over the past six years generated on inpatient census, outpatient activity and emergency room activity and operating income which increased from 5.8% negative to 3/10th of 1% negative. He advised net income had improved from a negative 1.9% to 3.2% which represents in 2008 approximately $4 million; $2 million of that are tax revenues generated to pay debt service on a major bond issue. He described their cash flow, noting they were currently at 8% but need to be at 11% in order to have an investment grade rating with the rating agencies. Mr. Canning reviewed their cash reserves, identifying the number of days of cash available, advising they were currently at 34.5 days. In order to have an investment rating, they needed 120 days of cash on hand; the hospitals mentioned previously have cash reserves in excess of 100 days and some nearly 200 days. He advised their cash balance decreased last year due to investments in facilities and equipment; in an effort to rebuild the reserve, capital expenditures have been significantly curtailed this year. He displayed and reviewed a chart of investments in the facilities and equipment. He referred to the average age of plant (accumulated depreciation divided by annual depreciation charge), explaining for a benchmark organization, that number should be no more than ten years. Stevens Hospital’s age of plant is increasing significantly up to 15.2 years which represents an under-investment in facilities and equipment. Mr. Canning explained Stevens Hospital was also a significant provider of charity care to the community, $5.4 million in 2007 and $6.9 million projected for 2008. In addition they have uncollectible accounts, approximately three times the amount spent on charity care. He summarized there have been significant operational losses over the years and in 2008 Stevens Hospital continues with a negative operating forecast of $250,000 for 2008. Liquidity levels remain low with days of cash on hand averaging 33.8 days since 2002 and projected to be 36 days for 2008. As a result of insufficient cash flow and high debt to equity ratio of 65% (should be below 50%), and because they are not an investment-grade rated organization by Moodys or Standard & Poor’s, Stevens Hospital is unable to borrow money on their own. To regain the investment-grade rating, they must demonstrate consistently for at least 3-4 years an operating margin in excess of 2% and over 100 days of cash on hand for a minimum of three years. Charles Day, Commissioner, Stevens Hospital, described the importance of first seeking the input of the constituents of the District as the hospital is a public facility, one of the largest employers in south Snohomish County (1300 employees), and a $170 million asset. He reiterated Stevens Hospital either needed to partner with the constituents of the district or find another partner because the hospital needs to be saved. He commented on Stevens Hospital’s bad reputation, assuring Stevens was changing - there were excellent doctors in the area although it was difficult to attract physicians without the latest facilities and equipment. In order to upgrade, Stevens Hospital needed an infusion of nearly $400 million. He reviewed options: • Option 1: Additional capital investment to maintain medical technology, technology improvements and new program development and enhancement with no major update to the physical plant at a cost of $35 million over the next six years which would require a $0.37/$1,000 levy enacted no later than 2010. Packet Page 7 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 5 • Option 2: Expansion and rebuilding the emergency department with 40 beds as well as a critical care tower with 40 beds. The estimated cost for this option is $120 million. • Option 3: Replace the existing tower with 170 beds. He anticipated the 1963 building would be demolished and a new emergency department constructed, the existing tower could be used for another purpose. He described the impact this would have on citizen’s property taxes: using $480,000 as an average assessed value for Edmonds, and $322,000 for Lynnwood, the Edmonds taxpayer currently pays $75 per year; under option 1, this increases to $255 per year; option 2 increases the assessment to $394 and option 3 increases it to $630. He acknowledged there was a cost to citizens of upgrading Stevens, pointing out the importance of an up-to-date community hospital as it was the first line of care for citizens in acute distress. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether Stevens Hospital had asked the voters to increase the levy. Mr. Carter explained when the M&O levy was first passed, there was an escalator clause; however, I-695 limited their ability to increase the levy to 1% per year. Stevens Hospital had not asked the voters for an increase in the levy. Councilmember Wambolt commented the amount expended for compassion and healthcare service seemed high and asked how the percentage compared with other hospitals. Mr. Carter answered they were over 2% for charity and approximately 4-4.5% for bad debt which was close to the State average. Mr. Canning pointed out Stevens was not necessarily unique with regard to the pressure it was feeling; there was financial duress throughout all public hospital districts in the state. Mr. Day pointed out Stevens was the only hospital from the Canadian border to Stevens that accepted psychiatric patients, a majority of which are involuntary commitments and charity. The only other facilities are at Harborview and Steilacoom. Councilmember Wambolt commented he was trying to determine why Stevens Hospital’s profitability was below the mean. He asked how the amount of levy per employee compared to other hospitals. Mr. Langer advised the hospitals industry was typically measured by employee per adjusted occupied bed. Stevens was approximately 5.6 which compared favorably to larger facilities. Steven’s average daily census is 93-94; the census in larger facilities ranges from 150-200 which allows the larger facilities to spread fixed overhead costs over a larger number of patients. Mr. Carter agreed Stevens may be slightly overstaffed, however, sending staff home due to low census often leads to turnover. Councilmember Wilson thanked the Stevens Hospital representatives for their presentation, thanked Mr. Carter for his time in February, the respect shown him when he spoke at the April Commission and Mr. Langer for meeting him after the Commission meeting. He noted his questions were questions from the community, recognizing this was the most important public policy the community faced due to its direct, tangible impact on the community’s quality of life. Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Day’s comments to the Port Commission about misconceptions in the press and by some individuals and Vice President/Chief Development Officer Jack Kirkman’s comments in the Edmonds Beacon that highlighted misrepresentations in the media and offered them an opportunity to clear up any misconceptions. Mr. Day explained the Commission operates under the same Public Meetings Act the Council must follow. Their meetings are advertised in approved locations and their meetings are open to the public. He invited the Council to attend the Stevens Hospital Commission meeting next Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. in the fourth floor conference room. Mr. Day commented they had been accused of not being transparent; he advised their website now contained their audited financial statement; they are audited annually by the Joint Commission, the State, a performance audit by the State, Packet Page 8 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 6 Medicare and KPMG as well as individual department audits. He assured they were not paying off the auditors to tweak an opinion. In response to the comment that the Hospital Commission operates under the same rules as the Council, Councilmember Wilson pointed out City staff publishes the Council agenda as well as supplement information for each item on the City’s website and asked if this was done on the Stevens Hospital District website. Mr. Carter answered only meeting dates and minutes of the prior meeting are published. Councilmember Wilson pointed out this was substantially different than the Council. He asked how special meetings were published. Mr. Langer answered they welcomed the Council’s questions and recognized Councilmember Wilson did not want to see the hospital fail. He advised there were statutory requirements with regard to where special meeting notices were published, noting there were 4-5 locations where they were published including the Edmonds Beacon and the Herald. Councilmember Wilson agreed he did not want the hospital to fail; he wanted to be Stevens’ biggest ally due to its importance to the community. His primary concern was the hospital was making decisions about its future that citizens would not be able to participate in because the process was not public enough or transparent enough and by the time citizens heard about those decisions, it would be too late. He recalled Mr. Carter’s response to his concern was that assumption was correct. Mr. Carter clarified his remark was taken out of context. His response was that would be true if they continued to have as little participation from the public as they currently do. Councilmember Wilson concluded the deficiency was in the public engagement, not in the behavior, action, engagement of the hospital. Mr. Langer expressed concern with the tenor of the questions, noting the standards they abide by are published by the legislature, and they are not subject to the opinions of any member of the public. He noted there were no credible instances where meetings were held that did not meet these standards. Councilmember Wilson clarified that was not his question, the bylaws state the Hospital District was only required to provide 24 hours notice to the public of a meeting. He asked whether that was adequate to get the public engagement/response. He recalled in Mr. Carter’s 2006 presentation to the Council, he stated there was a major problem with the public’s perception of the hospital’s care, a comment often repeated, that the problem is not the quality of care but the public’s perception of the quality of care. Recognizing that had been identified as a problem, Councilmember Wilson asked what was being done to address it. Mr. Carter commented information about Stevens’ care was available on their website via core measures as well as the Washington State Hospital Association link. Councilmember Wilson reiterated the quality was not his concern; his concern was the public perception of Stevens Hospital which has been identified as a problem and what was being done about it. Mr. Carter agreed this needed to be a public process and largely why it had not been was there had not been any interest. They plan to do their part to ensure the public was interested, engaged and participated in the process in the future. With regard to Steven’s financial situation and the audit, Councilmember Wilson relayed he had concerns with the audit and post-close items. He appreciated that the full audit and letters were now posted on the website. He noted Stevens may have had an unqualified audit but there were significant problems in the audit that the public was not aware of unless they did a public records request. He asked whether that was an adequate way to engage the public. Mr. Day responded the items that were found were not significant enough to quality the opinion; they had an unqualified opinion. Councilmember Wilson asked whether posting the letters that highlight significant issues in the 2007 audit would better engage the public and build public support. Mr. Day assured there were no significant errors and there were no material internal control problems noted. There was a significant internal control which was less than material, and that simply reflected that there were more than a normal amount of audit adjustments during the year. Councilmember Wilson referred to the April 22, 2008 letter from KPMG that he obtained via a public records request, which states on page 4, we consider the following deficiency to be a significant Packet Page 9 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 7 deficiency in internal control. Several post-close adjustments were recorded to properly reflect financial information as of and for the year ending December 31, 2007 and the changes recorded after the end of the year are listed in the letter. He noted the changes recorded after the end of the year resulted in a $163,000 incentive to Mr. Carter and/or his executive team and that compensation was more than half of the total post close statements. He expressed concern that that information was available only via a public records request rather than available on the website. Mr. Canning explained the $163,000 was the total incentive compensation for the entire senior management staff. It had been the practice to record those in the year they were paid which was done the prior year. Following a discussion with the auditors, they explained a better practice would be to record that amount in the year the measurement was done, 2007, so they approved posting it back to 2007 and in order to ensure there was not a similar adjustment this year, incentive compensation was estimated and they are recording that each month. He noted there were eight items in the letter that totaled $291,000, acknowledging 2-3 should have been corrected during that year and may have been overlooked in the change in financial management. These have been reviewed and steps taken to ensure adjustments are recorded appropriately during the course of the year to reduce the number of adjustments. He noted the comment from the auditor was the number of the adjustments, not the magnitude but they felt for internal financial reporting purposes, reporting each month should be more accurate. Councilmember Wilson reiterated he wanted Stevens Hospital to succeed in Edmonds, finding the location ideal as it was the closest point where I-5 and Hwy. 99 meet and at the corner of three cities. He reiterated his primary concern was public support via an M&O levy and/or new bond levy and public perception. His questions were not whether Stevens was following generally accepted accounting procedures or statutes but why public perception appeared to be the lowest priority when it was cited as one of the biggest problems. Councilmember Wilson inquired about plans to move the hospital, recalling Mr. Kirkman’s comments in the press that there were never any plans to move, Vice President/Chief Planning Officer Sarah Zabel’s statement to the Planning Commission that moving eastward would be an appropriate consideration, and Mayor Haakenson’s comments that Stevens Hospital was not moving. He asked if they could say categorically that Stevens Hospital was not moving. Mr. Langer answered moving the hospital due to the amount of capital investment in that 8 acres was not sensible. He anticipated there would always be a strong healthcare delivery presence in Edmonds but it was prudent to conduct further investigation when clearly the service area growth was in areas other than Edmonds. The facts do not currently support that the present location as the optimal place for further investment. He visualized a free-standing emergency room closer to where growth was occurring near I-405 to free up the existing facility. He reserved judgment regarding adding congestion to the existing location until further data was available. Councilmember Wilson summarized relocation was on the table. Mr. Langer clarified it was not relocation but rather redeployment; he did not find moving the entire hospital to another location practical but he agreed relocation was on the table when discussing a $450 million investment but did not feel it was likely under the current scenario. Councilmember Wilson referred to the challenge of recruiting physicians, a challenge faced by most hospitals. He recalled Mr. Carter’s predecessor Dr. Todd felt his top competition for Stevens Hospital was local physicians and asked if that continued. Mr. Langer pointed out 20 years ago there were no free standing ambulatory care centers, there are now 13-14 competitors who have admissions to hospitals as well as self-admit to their own facilities. He noted Evergreen faced the same circumstances. Councilmember Wilson recalled a statement that Stevens Hospital would be retiring their bond debt in a few years. Mr. Carter advised they were currently receiving $0.19/$1000 assessed valuation, $0.10 for a bond. Mr. Canning advised that levy would be retired in 2011, leaving only the $0.09 operations levy. Packet Page 10 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 8 Councilmember Wilson asked why Stevens Hospital has not asked voters for increased funding in the past. Mr. Langer reiterated when they invited Mukilteo to join the District; the no vote was 4:1 which illustrated the public’s lack of interest in additional taxes. Councilmember Wilson asked whether increasing the public’s perception of Stevens Hospital and engaging the public would build support for a levy. Mr. Langer commented much of the perception of Stevens Hospital was from those who have never been to the hospital. Asking the audience who had had care at Stevens Hospital and who had a bad experience, he noted out of 30 who had received care, 3 had a poor experience which was illustrative of the statistic that people were 11 times more likely to complain than compliment. Public perception was changed one patient at a time; the fact was the quality of care was good and perception would follow the truth. He agreed improved public perception would improve support for a bond measure. He summarized the cornerstone of the turnaround procedure has been transparency and honesty. Councilmember Wilson recognized Stevens Hospital was getting better but was not well and they had a long way to go before the public supported the hospital to the degree they needed and they had the power to change the public perception. Councilmember Wambolt suggested if the goal was to have more citizens at Commission meetings, the meeting time be changed from 8:00 a.m. as most people could not attend at that time. He commented the timing of the meetings send the message that they did not want the public there; most other organizations held their meetings at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Langer agreed to take this suggestion under advisement. Councilmember Orvis expressed appreciation for the services provided by Stevens Hospital, noting both his wife and he had surgery at the hospital. As a member of the Hospital District, he expressed interest in partnering with Stevens Hospital and urged them not to discount the public’s interest in partnering with them. Mr. Langer announced their next Commission retreat where this issue and the impact the levy would have on the public would be discussed was scheduled for July 21 at Stevens Hospital. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Orvis’ comment about the public’s interest in partnering with Stevens Hospital. He described his recent experience at Stevens Hospital emergency room with his son, assuring there was room for improvement in their care. Mayor Haakenson advised his wife, his mother-in-law, both his sons and he have received great care at Stevens Hospital. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE HOUSE AT 555 MAIN STREET TO CIVIC FIELD AND A PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSING INTENT TO PRESERVE THE BETTINGER/KRETZLER HISTORIC HOME. Councilmember Orvis explained this resolution would declare the Council’s intent with regard to the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home. Council President Pro Tem Dawson clarified when Councilmember Orvis asked to schedule this item on the agenda, he asked for two items, first a discussion of this matter and information gathering on tonight’s agenda, and a second item on the June 24 agenda for public comment and action. Therefore, it was not her intent to take action tonight, particularly since only four Councilmembers were present. Councilmember Orvis explained the intent was to use private funds to move the house from its current location to the Civic Center playfield. Council President Pro Tem Dawson explained the property at 555 Main Street, the current location of the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home, has been purchased and the new owner plans to develop the site. One of the potential new sites for the house is the Civic Center playfield Packet Page 11 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 9 which would require acquiescence by the Edmonds School District as they own the property. Prior to seeking the District’s approval, the City must also consider the needs of the Parks Department, use of the property for other purposes, etc. Fred Bell, Edmonds, Historical Society President, explained when they discovered the house would be available, the Historical Society expressed interest in saving the house due to its historical significance. Through his investigation of properties along 4th Avenue, he discovered none are available at this time. Following his suggestion to move the house to the Civic Center property, the Edmonds Historic Museum held an Executive Council meeting and a resolution was passed to obtain a line of credit which has been accomplished. He was confident the museum could operate a successful capital campaign to fund moving the house to the Civic Center playfield. With regard to the lease the City has with the Edmonds School District for the playfield, Councilmember Orvis explained the City could make a proposal to the School District which would require approval by the Board. At a recent meeting with museum members and representatives of the School District, their primary question was what would happen when the lease expired as the City was obligated to return the land back to its original state. Although the School District was very positive about the idea, they did not want to be encumbered by removing the house after the lease expired. He noted the property owner wanted assurance the City was negotiating in good faith and committed to the concept, not that all details/negotiations were complete. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented before the Council committed to the concept, they needed information regarding whether the house would have an adverse impact on the Civic Center playfield use and operations. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh thanked Mr. Bell for his efforts, particularly canvassing 4th Avenue for available property. Recognizing the Civic Center playfield as an extremely active park, he had concerns with moving the house onto the site. He was sympathetic to preserving the house preferably in the bowl area but did not find relocating the house to the Civic Center playfield a good fit and was unsure how it would impact the track, open space or other uses. His goal for the Civic Center playfield was uses that promote an active lifestyle; the skate park is an example. He was uncertain what the intended use of the building would be and had heard suggestions that included relocating the Parks Department, a wedding venue, etc., noting there were parking and M&O issues associated with the use of the house. Mr. McIntosh observed the proposed resolution referred to the Civic Center playfield as a suitable location and he acknowledged it was likely the only location at this time. Another consideration if the Council decided to move the house to the Civic Center playfield was whether it would be a temporary location until a more suitable location became available. He noted the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor was envisioned as developing in 6-10 years and would be a more appropriate location. If the Council passed the resolution, he wanted assurance that those involved would continue to search for a better, more appropriate location; he viewed the Civic Center playfield as a temporary location and suggested adding that language to the resolution. Mayor Haakenson assured the Parks Department staff was not being moved. Council President Pro Tem Dawson requested staff determine the setbacks, etc. to identify potential locations on the site which would allow Mr. McIntosh to consider impacts on the site. She asked Mr. Bell if the Civic Center playfield was viewed as a temporary move and if the condition of the house would allow it to be moved again in the future. She also asked what uses were envisioned for the house and under whose auspices that use would occur. Councilmember Orvis advised several uses were being considered; the museum was interested in it for events such as wedding receptions. It would be the museum’s responsibility to rent the facility to pay the maintenance costs. Mr. Bell advised the Museum Packet Page 12 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 10 Board and the community members he has spoken with have great faith in a capital campaign as well as future donations to maintain the property in perpetuity. He was confident the house could be moved in the future if necessary and he was certain he could find someone who wanted it. He envisioned there would be enough money generated by the capital campaign to return the playfields to their original condition if the house were moved again. With regard to uses of the building, he envisioned the Museum Director’s office would be relocated to the house and the house rented for weddings and receptions, social functions, and other public uses. Council President Pro Tem Dawson asked if the house has been examined structurally to determine if it could be moved a second time. Mr. Bell did not envision there would be significant damage to the house from moving it once or twice. He advised two people looked at the building to bid on moving it. Council President Pro Tem Dawson asked for confirmation by next week that the house could be moved more than once. Council President Pro Tem Dawson wanted assurance if the Council agreed the Civic Center playfield location was short term solution until a more suitable location could be found, that it could be done temporarily and what would be required such as a foundation to allow it to be moved again. Mr. Bell questioned the reference to a temporary location, advising the funds to move the house came from volunteers, dues and a capital campaign and he questioned who would fund the next move. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented on the need for clarity whether the Civic Center playfield is viewed as a permanent location or a temporary location; it appeared the Historical Society envisioned Civic Center playfield as a permanent location. Mr. Bell responded his intent was to move the house onto the Civic Center playfield until the end of the lease, 2021, which made it a permanent location. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would discuss the resolution again at next week’s Council meeting. 5. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007. Todd Timmcke, Chair, Arts Commission, stated the mission of the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is to ensure the arts are integral to the community’s quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity. He explained the work of the EAC could be divided into five categories: planning, arts assistance, community involvement, public art and programs. Under planning, the Community Cultural Plan public process and initial draft were completed in last year. In addition, a Preserve America Grant was secured for the development of the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. In the area of arts assistance, $9,000 was awarded for tourism promotion. Funds were awarded to the Cascade Symphony Orchestra, Choir of the Sound, Driftwood Players, Jazz Connection, Rotary Foundation, KSER Foundation, Third Thursday Artwalk, EAFF/Art Studio tour and Olympic Ballet Theater. The EAC also published the quarterly EAC Arts newsletter, hosted an arts advocacy workshop and awarded an arts education scholarship to Sarah Humphrey. Mr. Timmcke commented on the importance of partnerships to the EAC; the EAC partnered to support and promote the arts, arts education and cultural tourism with the Edmonds Arts Festival, Chamber of Commerce, Edmonds Community College, Edmonds Historical Museum, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds School District, Friends of the Library, pARTners (dance workshops for students and teachers at Edmonds Elementary) as well as local businesses and arts organizations. He noted the importance of public art to the visual identity of Edmonds. The EAC acquires and maintains a renowned public art collection and acquired two artworks last year including Unstable Perch by Joey Katzer and a permanent exhibit case was constructed for the Sister City friendship quilt from Hekinan, Japan. The Commission also co-hosted a reception and preview showing of a film about Everett DuPen whose sculpture Vision is in the public art collection. Packet Page 13 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 11 He highlighted programs sponsored by EAC, commenting programs were the heart of the Commission’s work. In visual arts, the Commission maintained four exhibit spaces and coordinated with the arts festival space to feature the work of 30 regional artists, selections from the Hekinan Collection and other collections. Works by Max Grover and Georgia Gerber were among the highlights. A workshop by Georgia Gerber was also presented in conjunction with her show and the third Thursday Artwalk. The Commission also sponsored the Best Book I Ever Read Contest, presented eight summer concerts in the park and the new Rotary Pavilion in City Park was dedicated at the start of the season. He commented one of the gems of the EAC’s programs was the Write on the Sound Writer’s Conference and thanked Cultural Services Assistant Kris Gillespie for her work on the conference. Mr. Timmcke summarized all these efforts were made possible by the tireless work and dedication of the members of the Arts Commission, City Staff and countless volunteers. He referred to Commission members Rick Bader, Greg Banasek, Joyeanna Chaudiere, Pam Harold, Mary Monfort, and Joanne Otness and thanked retiring Commissioner Julie Long for her work in 2007. He expressed the Commission’s appreciation to Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and Cultural Services Assistant Kris Gillespie. He also thanked the City for their support of the arts. Mayor Haakenson expressed the City’s appreciation to the EAC for their work. 6. CONTRACTING WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained due to potential conflicts of interest involved with awarding contracts to firms who employ former City employees, staff was asked to prepare an ordinance establishing guidelines for this type of activity. The Finance Committee reviewed this issue including ordinances from several other jurisdictions. The proposed ordinance is similar to Snohomish County and includes an exception clause contained in Spokane’s ordinance. Council President Pro Tem Dawson recognized staff for their quick response to the Council’s request, commenting the ordinance would serve the City well and provide guidelines if such a situation arose in the future. Councilmember Wambolt advised the Finance Committee reviewed several examples from different jurisdictions and found Snohomish County’s ordinance most closely matched the City’s goals with the addition of the exception clause that would allow an employee to be hired back as a consultant within one year with the approval of the City Council. He recalled the Council’s objection in the past was an employee who left the City and was then hired back as a consultant at a substantially higher rate. The proposed ordinance would not allow an employee to work for a company where there would be a conflict of interest. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the proposed ordinance applied to the City Council or if it only applied to City employees who may contract with the City in the future. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the definition was taken from the State Statute which included public elected officials, therefore, it would include Councilmembers. He noted the exemption also included Councilmembers with Council approval. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented the ordinance contained a provision common to most jurisdictions, once a Councilmember left that jurisdiction as an elected official, they could not lobby that organization for profit for one year. She explained the reason most jurisdictions adopted that provision was to prevent the perception that Councilmembers were inappropriately profiting from serving in that capacity. There was no exception for that provision. Mr. Snyder clarified if a Councilmember were Packet Page 14 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 12 elected to another public office, they were exempt. The Council could also exempt former officials returning in an unpaid capacity. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City could hire a person from another jurisdiction/agency. Mr. Snyder advised that situation was not addressed by the ordinance. Councilmember Orvis clarified a former Councilmember could lobby the Council without compensation. Mr. Clements agreed that would be allowed. Mr. Snyder assured the goal was not to restrict anyone’s First Amendment Rights. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM DAWSON TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3689. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A CONCESSION AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ORDER TO PLACE A TRAILER ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO VEND FOOD AND BEVERAGES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT JAMES STREET IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE FERRY HOLDING LANES AND IS ADJACENT TO THE SR104 PARK. (APPLICANT: ANGELO NARCISO/SHORTS 'N SLIPPAS) Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council had a great deal of discussion before approving a Concession Agreement for a business at this location a few years ago; therefore, the City Clerk and he felt it appropriate to present it to the Council for consideration of the new ownership. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained in late 2006 the Council adopted Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04 regarding the lease of public property or City right-of-way; decisions to lease City property or public right-of-way are legislative decisions to be granted at the sole discretion of the City Council. The applicant proposes to locate a trailer on the right-of-way on James Street to sell authentic Hawaiian shaved ice, drinks (bottled water, sodas) and prepackaged ice cream. She explained the Council has entered into only one other Concession Agreement with Milltown Pizza and that agreement expired December 31, 2007. The Council approved the Concession Agreement for an additional year but Milltown Pizza made the decision to close. The new applicant plans to purchase the Milltown Pizza trailer previously sited in this location. If the Council determines the Concession Agreement should be approved, a monthly fee would need to be established. The monthly lease amount for the Concession Agreement with Milltown Pizza was $100 per month. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there had been any complaints about the operation of Milltown Pizza. Ms. Chase recalled receiving one email from the President of the condominium association at 100 James Street expressing concern with the appearance of the trailer. Mayor Haakenson advised since Milltown Pizza was no longer operating at that location, there have been complaints about the trailer remaining there. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, a resident of the building directly east of the trailer, stated although she did not object to a concession, the Council approved a different, nicer trailer for the pizza vendor. The vendor then sold that trailer and placed a lesser quality trailer on the site. She concluded the appearance Packet Page 15 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 13 of the trailer and poor maintenance was their objection. She recommended the Council require the trailer or its equivalent that was approved in the Milltown Pizza Concession Agreement. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, inquired about the criteria for someone to apply for a Concession Agreement, whether there were any restrictions, how a person qualified for a Concession Agreement, and whether a Concession Agreement could be requested for any public right-of-way. Angelo Narciso, Seattle, applicant, advised his partners and he were seeking approval of the Concession Agreement on James Street east of the ferry lanes and their goal was to save the world from bad shaved ice. He advised Shorts ‘n Slippas was their LLC but they would be doing business as the Hula Hut. Council President Pro Tem Dawson asked for photographs or a description of the trailer. Mr. Narciso explained the goal was to make the trailer look nice and were open to suggestions. He advised the cracked windows on the trailer were being repaired. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the answers to Mr. Hertrich’s questions were contained in the ECC. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT. THE MONTHLY LEASE AMOUNT WILL BE $100.00 AND THE TERM WILL BE ONE YEAR. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented this was in line with the previous Concession Agreement granted by the Council and it was beneficial to the public to have concessions in that area. She noted there were provisions in the agreement for termination if obligations are not met and the Agreement would ensure the concession was well run. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented on the reputation of the planning/building/engineering department, particularly the Engineering Department and its impact on the economic vitality of the City. He expressed an attitude of humility and respect, explaining it was not his intent to browbeat or degrade the department but he had concerns with the financial drain the department imposed on applicants and the vitality of the City. He urged the Council to consider hiring a consultant to assist the Department in restructuring and addressing its shortfalls and suggested hiring DeMarche Consulting who has assisted Snohomish County, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Seattle and other municipalities. He summarized this department was dysfunctional and was not functioning in a professional or adequate manner to address the needs of applicants or citizens. He cited two examples, the Building Official’s insistence that applicants wet stamp drawings and the refusal to provide an answer why this is required other than the State requires it. However, in talking with the State Board of Licensing for Architects and Engineers, he was told wet stamping was not required. He noted this was indicative of the prevalent mentality in the department; wet stamping did not add value to the product and consumed the applicant’s time, energy and effort. He also cited discourteous staff, recalling one of their clients asked to see the file for their application and was told by the Permit Coordinator that the client could not observe the file. This client has subsequently refused to do work in Edmonds. Linda Paralez, Demarche Consulting, commented with regard to opportunities for building and land use improvements, she observed all cities had opportunities for improvement. She pointed out the statistics on the City’s website for the planning organization ended at 2004. Her work with Snohomish Packet Page 16 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 14 County, Mill Creek, Woodinville, Lynnwood, and Shoreline, included comparison studies but she was unable to obtain up-to-date data from Edmonds. That produced challenges for those cities in determining whether they were competitive with Edmonds as well as challenges for developers building in Edmonds. She commented some of the items that could be easily implemented would be to involve the City in eGov Alliance, standardized the City’s practices and provide online permitting and online permit status. Brian Goodnight, Edmonds, explained as a builder in Edmonds for the past 20 years, he observed a big change between the old Building Department where builders could ask simple questions and receive an answer. During design of his last building, he talked with the Planning Department and Engineering Department numerous times, had approximately $30,000 invested in architecture fees and later found that one of his setbacks was incorrect. He referred to Lynnwood’s free pre-design meeting that eliminates a great deal of frustration and problems. He learned recently Edmonds had a similar process that cost $250 with $125 refunded at the permit process; however, no staff member had ever informed him of the availability of that meeting. He expressed frustration that simple questions could not be answered by staff. He summarized the department has slowed to the point it operated inefficiently and suggested the currently slow economy would be a good time to reorganize. Bill Wilson, Edmonds, described their experience when they had a vacancy in one of their buildings in 2005 and signed a lease with Community Solutions. When Community Solutions sought a business license from the City, the Building Department and Fire Department required inspections and created a list of necessary improvements to obtain a business license in the space the Community Solutions took over from another company with the same use, warehouse and office. It took over a year and over $20,000 to achieve permit status so that Community Solutions could obtain a business license. Donna Breske, Snohomish, licensed professional engineer, echoed Mr. Shapiro’s recommendation to hire an outside consulting firm. As Ms. Breske had an appeal before the Hearing Examiner, Council President Pro Tem Dawson cautioned her not to use that matter as an example. Ms. Breske referred to times when the engineer/applicant/ architect disagreed with staff’s recommendation, noting there was no forum for discussion other than the Hearing Examiner. She relayed her and other architects’ willingness to pay an outside engineer to provide a third party, non-biased point of view when disagreements occur. She questioned whether there was anyone on staff familiar with the 1992 Department of Ecology manual, commenting in her experience staff overlooked Chapter 1 which established thresholds that trigger Chapter 3 and staff was not familiar with the different requirements for development versus redevelopment. She cited a specific example on 76th Avenue where the client increased a previously established impervious area slightly which should be considered redevelopment and would not trigger the requirement for any detention, yet staff wanted the cumulative impervious surface considered. Mark Lowen, Edmonds, advised he picked up a permit on June 16, 2008 that he had applied for it, beginning with the critical areas, on June 4, 2007. He cited miscommunication and misinformation, remarking he was forced to hire Ms. Breske to write a letter to inform the City he did not need her engineering. Due to the lengthy process to obtain a permit to remodel his home, he was now unable to obtain a loan due to the shortage of construction funds. He expressed frustration that a person could go into the building department on five occasions, ask the same question and receive completely different answers each time. He summarized the “sins of the second floor” affected the citizens of Edmonds and agreed with the suggestion to have a consultant assist the City with restructuring. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented architects and builders were afraid to complain because they feared retaliation during their next project. He pointed out the cost of continually extending projects due to inexperienced and ineffective staff and urged Mayor Haakenson to take appropriate action.. He noted there were architects and builders who would not do business in Edmonds. He commended Mr. Shapiro Packet Page 17 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 15 for speaking out, noting although only a few spoke to the Council, all builders and architects were having the same experience. Dave Page, Edmonds, recalled in 1991 a Federal District Judge affirmed Congress’ decision to place the Great Northern Spotted Owl on the Federal Endangered Species Act. During their research, his staff found very little information about the owl. He described how humans were affected by the protection of the Great Northern Spotted Owl; the logging industry in National Forests was eliminated and restricted to within 2000 feet of a nest on private lands. He concluded the consequence of that action was 155 saw mills closed between Port Angeles and Eureka, California; 55 schools closed; 900 businesses closed; 188,000 people were displaced from their jobs, and divorces and alcoholism were rampant. He expressed concern that the protection of some species was to the deficit of humans. Betty Larman, Edmonds, recalled when they remodeled their house, increasing it from 1,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet, they experienced no problems. She was distressed that little value was given to old homes, pointed out historic homes were what made Edmonds. She felt the architecture of many of the condominiums that replaced the old homes destroyed the flavor of Edmonds and urged preservation of old homes because history was precious. She encouraged the Council to assist Mr. Bell in his efforts to preserve the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, suggested condemning the former Skipper’s property and locating the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home on that site. She envisioned that location would provide a wonderful welcome to Edmonds and anticipated there were grants available to assist with that effort. She suggested parking the house on skids until the old Skipper’s property could be condemned. Steve Shelton, Edmonds, described his experience with the property at 204 4th North when they decided in 2006 to replace the chain link fence with a white picket fence. Halfway through demolition the project was red-tagged, they were fined and required to obtain a critical area analysis to replace the existing perimeter fence. Last year when they wanted to replace the garage doors, the contractor contacted the second floor who advised a permit was not required to replace the garage doors. When the contractor replaced 2x4s due to dry rot, the project was red-tagged and they were fined for not obtaining a permit. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 10, 2008. Finance Committee Councilmember Wambolt reported the Committee discussed the Edmonds Community College fiber agreement which was approved on the Consent Agenda as Item G. Next the Committee discussed a PUD Pole Attachment Agreement which was approved on the Consent Agenda as Item H. The next item considered by the Committee was contracting with former employees which the Council approved during Agenda Item 6. The Committee discussed the Edmonds fiber optic program and determined it was not financially feasible to provide fiber optics to residential consumers and recommended proceeding with fiber optic agreements with governmental organizations. This item will be presented to the full Council on a future agenda. The final item considered was the cable franchise fee ordinance which was approved as Consent Agenda Item I. Councilmember Wilson inquired about providing fiber optics to consumer/residential users. Councilmember Wambolt explained since this project began, Verizon has made a massive investment in fiber optic installations throughout the City which diminishes the opportunity to obtain that business from citizens. He noted to make it financially feasible, 42% of the homes must connect. Mayor Haakenson explained the focus was other governmental agencies and streamlining the City’s operations such as electronic meter reading, etc. Packet Page 18 of 189 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 17, 2008 Page 16 Public Services Committee Council President Pro Tem Dawson reported the Committee had a brief discussion regarding a request to change to the City’s current handicapped parking laws to limit the amount of time. State law allows establishing a limit but also allows drivers with a handicapped placard to park in non-restricted parking spaces indefinitely. Due to the enforcement issue this would create, possibly encouraging drivers to park in non-restricted parking spaces which creates safety issues and because it did not appear this was an ongoing problem, the Committee agreed to take no action at this time other than highlighting the need for drivers with a handicapped placard not to utilize the spaces as permanent parking places Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed a concern that the gates on underground parking garages in mixed use buildings downtown were closed during the day restricting access to parking established for the commercial use. The question was whether the current code was clear enough to require the buildings to open their gates during business hours and it was the consensus of the Committee that the code was strong enough and the building owners were required to keep the gates open to allow parking in marked commercial stalls during daytime hours. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson advised he would ask Mr. Bowman to watch the video of tonight’s meeting and report on the issues that were raised under audience comments. He advised efforts were underway to reorganize building, planning and engineering and he had met with a consultant to discuss the matter. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation to the Stevens Hospital representatives for their presentation, commenting they did a great service to the community by engaging them in this process, reiterating they had done a poor job of engaging the public in the past. He stated the public gets the government they deserve; if the public asset of the hospital did not function well or was not governed well, it was inherently the fault of the community for not paying attention. It was incumbent on the public to visit the hospital’s website and email the Board of Commissioners. Councilmember Orvis relayed information from the Health Board encouraging anyone injured by a bat in their home to retain/capture the bat so that it could be tested for disease. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Packet Page 19 of 189 AM-1636 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #104978 through #105130 for June 19, 2008 in the amount of $436,553.84. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #46669 through #46732 for the period of June 1 through June 15, 2008 in the amount of $1,023,326.57. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claims checks and payroll direct deposits and checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2008 Revenue: Expenditure:$1,459,880.41 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $ 436,553.84 Payroll $1,023,326.57 Attachments Link: Claim cks 6-19-08 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 06/19/2008 11:11 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 11:50 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 11:54 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:11 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Started On: 06/19/2008 11:06 Packet Page 20 of 189 Form Started By: Debbie Karber  Started On: 06/19/2008 11:06 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 21 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104978 6/19/2008 070941 AAF INTERNATIONAL 847770 FAC MAINT - FILTERS FAC MAINT - FILTERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 313.32 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.89 Total :341.21 104979 6/19/2008 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND JULY 2008 JULY 2008 KENNELING SERVICES/EDM PD JULY 2008 KENNELING SERVICES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,921.23 Total :1,921.23 104980 6/19/2008 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101089222 CALIBRATION GASES CALIBRATION GASES 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 25.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 2.25 M5Z34101098627 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 51.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 4.59 Total :82.84 104981 6/19/2008 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-000974190 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 88.44 1Page: Packet Page 22 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104981 6/19/2008 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY0197-000974282 Public Works Facility 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 21.31 Public Works Facility 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 80.96 Public Works Facility 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 80.96 Public Works Facility 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 80.96 Public Works Facility 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 80.96 Public Works Facility 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 80.94 garbage for F/S #160197-000974353 garbage for F/S #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 105.74 garbage for MCC0197-000975080 garbage for MCC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 52.61 Total :672.88 104982 6/19/2008 072296 ANDERSON, ABIGIAL ANDERSON08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST 3RD PLACE/FICTION 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 25.00 Total :25.00 104983 6/19/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3740035 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.03 Total :37.07 104984 6/19/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3740034 18386001 2Page: Packet Page 23 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104984 6/19/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 115.79 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 10.31 Total :126.10 104985 6/19/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3709047 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.69 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.02 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3709049 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.97 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.97 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.27 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.26 FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3718157 FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.05 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-371859 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 19.45 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 19.45 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 1.73 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 1.73 3Page: Packet Page 24 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104985 6/19/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3726371 FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 19.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.74 PW MATS655-3726372 PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.16 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.60 4Page: Packet Page 25 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104985 6/19/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3726373 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.70 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.70 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.24 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3728646 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60 5Page: Packet Page 26 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104985 6/19/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW MATS655-3736283 PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.16 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.59 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.60 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3740036 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60 Total :290.01 104986 6/19/2008 070521 ARTECH INC 0073675-IN SCULPTURE MAINTENANCE 6Page: Packet Page 27 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104986 6/19/2008 (Continued)070521 ARTECH INC PROVIDING SCULPTURE MAINTENANCE 117.200.640.575.500.490.00 517.50 Sales Tax 117.200.640.575.500.490.00 46.06 Total :563.56 104987 6/19/2008 072294 ARTHUR, LIZ ARTHUR08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST SECOND PLACE POETRY~ 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00 Total :100.00 104988 6/19/2008 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 834880454 C/A 834880454 425.418.8755 New Service 6/2-6/7/08 001.000.310.514.100.420.00 33.78 Total :33.78 104989 6/19/2008 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 871860970X06062008 CELL PHONE CHARGES PLANNING DEPT. FROM CELL PHONE CHARGES PLANNING DEPT. FROM 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 61.56 Total :61.56 104990 6/19/2008 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 75482 OPS PROF SERVICES Helmet lettering 001.000.510.522.200.410.00 32.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.410.00 2.85 Total :34.85 104991 6/19/2008 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2008-545 INV#2008-545 - EDMONDS PD PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING~ 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 175.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 7.00 Total :182.00 104992 6/19/2008 064934 BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PS 08-05-8 E7MA.Services thru 05/31/08 7Page: Packet Page 28 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104992 6/19/2008 (Continued)064934 BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PS E7MA.Services thru 05/31/08 132.000.640.594.760.650.00 2,396.00 Total :2,396.00 104993 6/19/2008 072302 BETCHLEY, CHRISTINE BETCHLEY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISCOVERY 001.000.640.574.350.430.00 133.31 Total :133.31 104994 6/19/2008 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 1687 E5GA.Services thru 05/16/08 E5GA.Services thru 05/16/08 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 1,478.29 Total :1,478.29 104995 6/19/2008 071687 BISBEE, JENNICA BISBEE08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST FIRST PLACE/POETRY 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 104996 6/19/2008 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 41 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE Web Site Maintenance Jun-08 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 300.00 Begin Conversation / Planning 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 206.92 Total :506.92 104997 6/19/2008 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 655393-02 INV#655393-02 - EDMONDS Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 4.64 UNIFORM PANTS/JOHNSON 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 51.50 INV#671060-01 - GREENE/EDMONDS671060-01 UNIF. SWEATER VEST/GREENE 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 20.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 1.80 8Page: Packet Page 29 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104997 6/19/2008 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC INV#671213-01 - GREENMUN/EDMONDS PD671213-01 CORPORAL CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 37.50 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.38 INV#672790 - LAWLESS/EDMONDS PD672790 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.06 MISC. HOLSTERS AND CUFF CASE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 33.95 INV#672808 - LAWLESS/EDMONDS PD672808 ACOP DRESS UNIFORM~ 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 294.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 26.46 INV#673463 - LEE/EDMONDS PD673463 UNIFORM SHIRTS/J.LEE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 131.32 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.82 INV#675619 - KEY HOLDERS/EDMONDS675619 SILENT KEYHOLDERS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 34.92 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 3.14 INV#676517 - KAMKA/EDMONDS PD676517 UNIFORM SHIRT/KAMKA 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 65.66 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.91 INV#677943 - DAVIDSON/EDMONDS PD677943 UNIFORM BOOTS/DAVIDSON 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 207.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.72 9Page: Packet Page 30 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 104997 6/19/2008 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC INV#680233 - EDMONDS PD680233 SL20/MAG BATTERY 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 305.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 27.45 Total :1,288.18 104998 6/19/2008 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40247810 LEASE LEASE FOR FENCED PARK AREA @ MARINA 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 1,475.19 Total :1,475.19 104999 6/19/2008 072292 BRINK, MADISON KATE BRINK08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST FIRST PLACE/FICTION 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 105000 6/19/2008 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL9696 KAYAK TOUR BOWMAN BAY KAYAK TOUR~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 62.44 Total :62.44 105001 6/19/2008 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC KNF2355 Viewsonic monitor - Councilmember Viewsonic monitor - Councilmember 001.000.110.511.100.350.00 348.49 Total :348.49 105002 6/19/2008 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS 9415358847 STREET - ASPHALT STREET - ASPHALT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 505.08 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 45.45 Total :550.53 105003 6/19/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY132538 ALS SUPPLIES 10Page: Packet Page 31 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105003 6/19/2008 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 22.43 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 16.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.42 ALS SUPPLIESLY132539 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 114.52 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 10.18 ALS SUPPLIESLY132540 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 22.43 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 16.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.42 Total :208.40 105004 6/19/2008 070600 CHUBB SECURITY NORTHWEST INC Overpmt of Bus Lic REFUND OVERPMT OF BUSINESS LIC Refund Overpmt of Bus Lic LI Refund Cst 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total :40.00 105005 6/19/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460171808 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.78 OPS UNIFORMS460171809 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 105.58 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.39 11Page: Packet Page 32 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105005 6/19/2008 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORMS460172916 Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 116.41 Stn 17 - OPS 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 116.42 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.36 OPS UNIFORMS460172938 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 134.69 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.98 Total :536.97 105006 6/19/2008 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 11609431 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW~ 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 538.36 Total :538.36 105007 6/19/2008 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 6170 INV#6170 - EDMONDS CUSTOMER #45 1/3 ANNUAL MAINT/AFIS TERMINAL 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 1,776.16 Total :1,776.16 105008 6/19/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1935034 SUPPLIES SOAP, BREAK UP CLEANER, LINERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 314.06 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.27 Total :342.33 105009 6/19/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1930833 FAC MAINT - WATERHOG CLASSICS 12Page: Packet Page 33 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105009 6/19/2008 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES FAC MAINT - WATERHOG CLASSICS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 451.03 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 40.86 FAC - NO TOUCH TOWELSW1935159 FAC - NO TOUCH TOWELS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 292.32 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.58 Total :816.79 105010 6/19/2008 070300 CODE 4 INC 5475 INV#5475 - DAVIDSON/EDMONDS PD REGISTRATION/L.DAVIDSON~ 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 94.00 Total :94.00 105011 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1025 CREDIT CARD CHARGES SNO CO REC FEES 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 224.00 Total :224.00 105012 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 8691 REGISTRATION FOR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 625.00 AIRLINE TICKET FOR CONFERENCE 001.000.230.512.500.430.00 459.00 Total :1,084.00 105013 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 3718 Retirement cake - Mayumi Wilson 13Page: Packet Page 34 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105013 6/19/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Retirement cake - Mayumi Wilson 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 50.91 FMLA books 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 140.40 Retirement poster for Mayumi Wilson5271 Retirement poster for Mayumi Wilson 001.000.210.513.100.410.00 144.83 Annual directory for cities 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 20.00 AWC Annual Conference in Yakima 6/17 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 360.00 Snohomish County Mayor's Lunch - 5/7 &5687 Snohomish County Mayor's Lunch - 5/7 & 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 51.88 Total :768.02 105014 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1033 Amazon.com Sharepoint 2007 Users Guide Amazon.com Sharepoint 2007 Users Guide 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 28.31 WFOA D Sharp Registration Leadership & 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 100.00 Total :128.31 105015 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 9054 ERW CLASS - CONFINED SPACE ENTRY 14Page: Packet Page 35 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105015 6/19/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS ERW CLASS - CONFINED SPACE ENTRY 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 105.00 ERW CLASS - CONFINED SPACE ENTRY 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 105.00 GRCC - 2 CLASSES - BACKFLOW REFRESHER, 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 525.00 GRCC - WATER DIST EXAM - S LEONARD 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 295.00 GRCC - 2 CLASSES - BACKFLOW REFRESHER, 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 525.00 GRCC - WATER DIST EXAM - B NILSON 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 305.00 GRCC - WATER WORKS BASICS -~ 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 295.00 SAFETY TRAINING ASSOC - CDL CLASS -~ 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 100.00 SAFETY TRAINING ASSOC - CDL CLASS -~ 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 100.00 GRCC - WATER DIST EXAM - S LEONARD 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 305.00 Total :2,660.00 105016 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4783 Supplies & refreshments for Council Supplies & refreshments for Council 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 204.22 Total :204.22 105017 6/19/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 0328 TOMBERG LT Assmt Ctr Supplies 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 135.97 SMITH, M1109 LT Assmt Ctr supplies 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 138.59 15Page: Packet Page 36 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105017 6/19/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS STARTZMAN9759 LT Assmt Ctr Supplies 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 41.58 CORREIRA9858 Training travel to Natn'l Academy 001.000.510.522.400.430.00 278.35 Ops Supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 15.98 Admin LT Assmt supplies 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 21.77 Total :632.24 105018 6/19/2008 004867 COOPER, JACK F 51 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 152.00 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement53 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 150.00 Total :302.00 105019 6/19/2008 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING MAY 2008 MAY 2008 INVOICES - EDMONDS POLICE MAY 2008 DRY CLEANING SERVICES 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 763.98 Total :763.98 105020 6/19/2008 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0508 2989771 5374044 INV#0508 2989771 5374044 - EDMONDS COOLER RENTAL & GAL OF WATER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 41.04 Total :41.04 105021 6/19/2008 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3204703 NOTICE TO SUBCONTRACTORS AND NOTICE TO SUBCONTRACTORS AND 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 66.30 Total :66.30 105022 6/19/2008 072189 DATA SITE BUSINESS ARCHIVES 009594 SHRED SERVICES 16Page: Packet Page 37 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105022 6/19/2008 (Continued)072189 DATA SITE BUSINESS ARCHIVES SHRED SERVICES 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 494.00 SHRED SERVICES 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 20.00 Total :514.00 105023 6/19/2008 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 08-2885 MINUTE TAKING ADB MINUTES 6/4 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 219.00 Total :219.00 105024 6/19/2008 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 08-2881 INV#08-2881 - EDMONDS POLICE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTIONS 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 231.00 Total :231.00 105025 6/19/2008 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 217373 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 64.70 Total :64.70 105026 6/19/2008 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2008033 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BLDG DEPT. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BLDG DEPT. 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 12,713.11 Total :12,713.11 105027 6/19/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 95368 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.30 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.45 SUPPLIES95575 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.49 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.76 17Page: Packet Page 38 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :27.001050276/19/2008 007675 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 105028 6/19/2008 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 14459 UPS/LNI VIDEO UPS/LNI VIDEO 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 17.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.53 Total :18.75 105029 6/19/2008 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP TAWIL0616 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:~ 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 150.00 Total :150.00 105030 6/19/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00650 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.08 LIFT STATION #81-00925 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.08 LIFT STATION #11-01950 LIFT STATION #1 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.08 LIFT STATION #21-02675 LIFT STATION #2 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 21.25 Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950 Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 335.37 Public Works Meter Shop1-05350 Public Works Meter Shop 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 49.38 LIFT STATION #61-05705 LIFT STATION #6 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 50.56 18Page: Packet Page 39 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105030 6/19/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION CITY HALL1-13975 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 487.34 CITY HALL1-14000 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 74.46 Total :1,087.60 105031 6/19/2008 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 034886 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 35.51 Total :35.51 105032 6/19/2008 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 035102 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 6.33 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 6.33 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 6.33 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 0.56 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 0.56 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 0.57 19Page: Packet Page 40 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105032 6/19/2008 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08)035103 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 45.05 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 45.05 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. (5/7 - 6/7/08) 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 45.05 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 4.01 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 4.01 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 4.01 Total :167.86 105033 6/19/2008 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU13245 STREET - SUPPLIES STREET - SUPPLIES 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1.55 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 0.14 SUPPLIESWAMOU13368 NITRILE GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 184.51 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.42 Total :202.62 105034 6/19/2008 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0160525 45309 PIPE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,052.89 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 93.71 Total :1,146.60 105035 6/19/2008 065023 FLUKE ELECTRONICS 10959964 1661493 20Page: Packet Page 41 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105035 6/19/2008 (Continued)065023 FLUKE ELECTRONICS PROCESS CALIBRATOR 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 240.00 166149310965832 PRESSURE MODULE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 372.00 Total :612.00 105036 6/19/2008 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 891118 Legal Fees 5/12-6/13/08 Fiber Optics Legal Fees 5/12-6/13/08 Fiber Optics 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 2,137.00 Total :2,137.00 105037 6/19/2008 012199 GRAINGER 9648878792 FS 16 - TIME DELAY RELAY FS 16 - TIME DELAY RELAY 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.08 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.17 FAC MAINT - SCREWDRIVERS9653798927 FAC MAINT - SCREWDRIVERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.06 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.16 FAC MAINT - VACUUM 8" CUPS9653798935 FAC MAINT - VACUUM 8" CUPS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 213.30 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.34 CITY HALL - EXTINGUISHER9657101334 CITY HALL - EXTINGUISHER 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.02 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.93 21Page: Packet Page 42 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105037 6/19/2008 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER CITY HALL - EXTINGUISHER9657101342 CITY HALL - EXTINGUISHER 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 168.30 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.15 FAC - MOTOR9658206173 FAC - MOTOR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 221.58 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.94 Total :747.03 105038 6/19/2008 066066 GRUNDFOS CBS INC 1900027401 YOST POOL PUMP EMERGENCY REPAIR OF YOST POOL PUMP 125.000.640.576.800.480.00 5,857.00 Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.480.00 527.13 Total :6,384.13 105039 6/19/2008 072293 HALVERSON, AMANADA HALVERSON08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST FIRST PLACE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 105040 6/19/2008 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2298963 H20 Inventory-Repl ck 104122 3/4" meter H20 Inventory-Repl ck 104122 3/4" meter 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 623.70 2" Ford Resetter key-Repl ck 104122 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,372.08 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 55.51 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 122.12 22Page: Packet Page 43 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105040 6/19/2008 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC H20 Inventory Repl ck 104122 W-ValvciI2308912 H20 Inventory Repl ck 104122 W-Valvci 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 2,270.70 W-SleeveMJ-06-010 Repl ck 104122 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 348.30 W-Reducrdi-06-050 Repl ck 104122 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 256.10 W-TeeMJ 06-030 Repl ck 104122 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 918.00 H20 Supplies Repl ck 104122 6" Compact 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 345.40 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 341.37 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 31.09 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 22.79 Total :6,707.16 105041 6/19/2008 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-98 Drug testing services Drug testing services 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 35.00 Total :35.00 105042 6/19/2008 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 5651-17 INV#5651-17 - EDMONDS PD 0-RESPIRATORY QUESTIONNAIRE~ 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 32.00 Total :32.00 105043 6/19/2008 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 2126-100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Periodic MB; DB; CS; KH 001.000.510.522.200.410.00 1,895.00 General AD 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 115.00 23Page: Packet Page 44 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,010.001050436/19/2008 069332 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 105044 6/19/2008 071368 HEFFERAN, BRIGITTE HEFFERAN9661 CALLIGRAPHY CLASSES CALLIGRAPHY: FOUNDATIONAL~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 577.50 Total :577.50 105045 6/19/2008 072305 HIE, EMILY HIE08 WRITING AWARD 3RD PLACE POETRY 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 25.00 Total :25.00 105046 6/19/2008 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 54 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 8.00 Total :8.00 105048 6/19/2008 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1015334 LIBRARY - 3" CASTER LIBRARY - 3" CASTER 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.97 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.07 FAC - SHELF SUPPLIES1034142 FAC - SHELF SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.44 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.19 LIBRARY - 3" CASTERS1044379 LIBRARY - 3" CASTERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 45.88 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.12 24Page: Packet Page 45 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105048 6/19/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES WADE JAMES - SUPPLIES1060010 WADE JAMES - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.48 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.49 WATER - TIE PLATES, SCREWDRIVER1099025 WATER - TIE PLATES, SCREWDRIVER 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.74 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.69 UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES2029091 UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.85 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.37 FS 20 - SIMPLE GREEN2030625 FS 20 - SIMPLE GREEN 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.97 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.34 FAC MAINT SHOP - SNIPS, SHEARS, BEAM2032266 FAC MAINT SHOP - SNIPS, SHEARS, BEAM 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.90 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.41 WATER - 2X4'S2044312 WATER - 2X4'S 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.96 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.97 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES2072980 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.26 25Page: Packet Page 46 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105048 6/19/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FAC MAINT - 18V BULB, PLASTIC BAGS2564192 FAC MAINT - 18V BULB, PLASTIC BAGS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.93 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.98 SIGN SHOP - SCRUB PADS FOR UNIT 642582010 SIGN SHOP - SCRUB PADS FOR UNIT 64 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.44 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.67 SEWER - SOD - REPAIR 529 WALNUT3202728 SEWER - SOD - REPAIR 529 WALNUT 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.96 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.07 FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES34232 FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.36 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.39 PLAZA RM - CLAMPS3585210 PLAZA RM - CLAMPS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.19 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.10 UNIT 5 & SHOP - PLIERS, WRENCH, SHELF,40016 UNIT 5 & SHOP - PLIERS, WRENCH, SHELF, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 69.05 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.21 STREET - FLAG HOLDER SUPPLIES40032 STREET - FLAG HOLDER SUPPLIES 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 10.57 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.95 26Page: Packet Page 47 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105048 6/19/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FS 17 - EYEBOLT SCREWS4031998 FS 17 - EYEBOLT SCREWS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.78 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.34 FAC - 15A PLUG, DOORSTOP4073488 FAC - 15A PLUG, DOORSTOP 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.33 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.19 FAC - WEDGE ANCHOR4272204 FAC - WEDGE ANCHOR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.89 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.52 SIGN SHOP - DOWELS FOR FLAGS42731 SIGN SHOP - DOWELS FOR FLAGS 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 15.54 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1.39 FS 17 - SUPPLIES5086017 FS 17 - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.98 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.62 FAC - CAM LOCK5576804 FAC - CAM LOCK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.17 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.37 UNIT 55 - HMR16TOOLBOX562214 UNIT 55 - HMR16TOOLBOX 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 5.99 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 0.53 27Page: Packet Page 48 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105048 6/19/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES PW - REPAIR SUPPLIES6035975 PW - REPAIR SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.36 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.38 STREET - WOOD BARRICADE SUPPLIES7035237 STREET - WOOD BARRICADE SUPPLIES 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 399.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 35.91 UNIT EQ35PO - PIPE, HOOKS7080450 UNIT EQ35PO - PIPE, HOOKS 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 34.40 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 3.09 SIGN SHOP - TAPE7082450 SIGN SHOP - TAPE 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 8.93 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.80 STREET - DREMEL TOOL AND SUPPLIES7084654 STREET - DREMEL TOOL AND SUPPLIES 111.000.653.542.710.350.00 79.94 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.710.350.00 7.19 FAC - DOOR REPAIR SUPPLIES7091923 FAC - DOOR REPAIR SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 91.94 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.27 YOST POOL - SEALANT SUPPLIES8031360 YOST POOL - SEALANT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 29.12 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.62 28Page: Packet Page 49 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105048 6/19/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES PW - CAPS, PIPE, SUPPLIES8044612 PW - CAPS, PIPE, SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 79.90 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.19 YOST POOL - SUPPLIES8074058 YOST POOL - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.53 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.20 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES8074109 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.76 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.32 CITY PARK POOL - CAM LOCK8085674 CITY PARK POOL - CAM LOCK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.17 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.37 SEWER - CLAMPS, TORCH, BURY HYDRANT,85424 SEWER - CLAMPS, TORCH, BURY HYDRANT, 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 78.52 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.06 SEWER - 300' TAPE9031109 SEWER - 300' TAPE 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 29.96 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.69 YOST POOL - SWITCH SUPPLIES9091550 YOST POOL - SWITCH SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.42 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.29 29Page: Packet Page 50 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105048 6/19/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES LIBRARY - NUTS, WASHERS, BASIN DRAIN,9592363 LIBRARY - NUTS, WASHERS, BASIN DRAIN, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.87 STREET - SVC FEEFCH-0027399399 STREET - SVC FEE 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 20.00 Total :1,517.81 105049 6/19/2008 061844 INTL CONF OF POLICE CHAPLAINS 24195 INV#24195 - GAYDOS/EDMONDS PD ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP/GAYDOS 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 125.00 Total :125.00 105050 6/19/2008 063419 INTOXIMETERS INC 249281 INV#249281 - EDMONDS PD MOUTHPIECE ONEWAY 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 69.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.50 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.90 Total :84.40 105051 6/19/2008 072298 JACQUES, MARIE JACQUES0609 REFUND REFUND DUE TO PROBLEM WITH CITY PARK 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 40.00 Total :40.00 105052 6/19/2008 072297 JAMES, JASLA JAMES08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST 3RD PLACE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 25.00 Total :25.00 105053 6/19/2008 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 109919 INV#109919 - EDMONDS PD 30Page: Packet Page 51 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105053 6/19/2008 (Continued)068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC PHQ REPORT - PRE-EMPLOYMENT 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 15.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1.17 Total :16.17 105054 6/19/2008 072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0053420 E7AD.Services thru 05/25/08 E7AD.Services thru 05/25/08 112.200.630.595.440.410.00 18,959.22 Total :18,959.22 105055 6/19/2008 015490 K & K CONCRETE PRODUCTS 31053 TRAINING SUPPLIES manhole base 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 100.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 80.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 16.02 Total :196.02 105056 6/19/2008 067552 KING CO FINANCE & BUSINESS 50599 1154 BALLINGER PUMP STATION COST 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 80,253.20 BALLINGER PUMP STATION COST 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 41,536.52 Total :121,789.72 105057 6/19/2008 072304 KOTIS DESIGN 17051 TEES PARK MAINTENANCE TEES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 585.54 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.37 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 54.44 Total :659.35 31Page: Packet Page 52 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105058 6/19/2008 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC 0968097-14718 FAC SEISMIC RETROFIT SVC - MAY 08 FAC SEISMIC RETROFIT SVC - MAY 08 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 1,160.00 Total :1,160.00 105059 6/19/2008 062814 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 358180 INV#358180 - EDMONDS PD DECAL FOUR-WAY REMOTE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 26.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.78 Total :27.78 105060 6/19/2008 072059 LEE, NICOLE 114 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00 Total :100.00 105061 6/19/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 098420 BUSINESS CARDS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT Jim Lawless250-00201 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.20 Police Department Generic250-00201 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 17.20 K.L. Roth250-00201 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.20 Ross Sutton250-00201 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.20 Aaron Greenmun250-00201 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.20 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.53 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 1.53 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.59 Total :93.65 32Page: Packet Page 53 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105062 6/19/2008 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 4958 E5MC.Design services thru 05/31/08 E5MC.Design services thru 05/31/08 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 18,449.55 Total :18,449.55 105063 6/19/2008 061900 MARC 0362360-IN 00-0902224 DE-LIMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 348.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 31.04 Total :379.79 105064 6/19/2008 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 115 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 150.00 INTERPRETER FEES132 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00 INTERPRETER FEES160 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00 INTERPRETER FEES161 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 75.00 INTERPRETER FEES163 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 50.00 INTERPRETER FEES164 INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00 Total :575.00 105065 6/19/2008 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 47246 POOL CHEMICALS 33Page: Packet Page 54 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105065 6/19/2008 (Continued)019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 438.96 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.07 YOST POOL SUPPLIES47364 YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 143.70 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.79 YOST POOL SUPPLIES47449 REAGENTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.90 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.28 YOST POOL SUPPLIES47601 YOST POOL CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 278.16 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.76 YOST POOL SUPPLIES47623 YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 133.03 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.84 Total :1,122.49 105066 6/19/2008 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 52 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,673.50 Total :3,673.50 105067 6/19/2008 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 88603591 123106800 34Page: Packet Page 55 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105067 6/19/2008 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO THREADED ROD 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 104.02 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.60 12310680088633952 PIPE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 42.18 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.17 12310680088734198 HOOK & LOOP ADHESIVE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 29.68 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.74 12310680088831659 CLEAR PVC 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.74 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.58 Total :234.71 105068 6/19/2008 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0699777 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0743847 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0743849 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 373.57 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0746657 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 411.37 Total :980.98 35Page: Packet Page 56 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105069 6/19/2008 068331 NORTHWEST TRAINING OPTIONS 7401 REPLACES LOST CK 97352 6/28/07 White boat training~ 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 169.00 Total :169.00 105070 6/19/2008 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 561 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 11, 2008. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 11, 2008. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 512.00 Total :512.00 105071 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 069836 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 26.85 Total :26.85 105072 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 034277 Copy paper Copy paper 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 5.08 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 5.08 Copy paper 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 5.08 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 0.45 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 0.45 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 0.45 Supplies - L. Carl181870 Supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 25.78 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.32 36Page: Packet Page 57 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105072 6/19/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Office Supplies -L. Carl193836 Office Supplies -L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 16.80 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.51 Office Supplies - L. Carl193837 Office Supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 11.38 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.03 Return of laser labels882779 Return of laser labels 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -27.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -2.41 Copy paper910296 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -14.84 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -1.33 Total :29.83 105073 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 038722 OFFICE SUPPLIES TALLY COUNTER, SCISSORS, CHALK, INKJET 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 69.56 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.26 OFFICE SUPPLIES070463 COLORED PAPER, FOLDERS, BADGE HOLDERS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 129.51 King County Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 11.66 37Page: Packet Page 58 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105073 6/19/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC OFFICE SUPPLIES083204 FILTER GLARE SCREEN 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 53.76 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.84 OFFICE SUPPLIES117371 PRINT CARTRIDGES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 224.62 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES126754 PENCIL CAP ERASERS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.40 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.40 OFFICE SUPPLIES144579 STORAGE BOXES, BINDER CLIPS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 90.01 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.10 OFFICE SUPPLIES181536 PERFORATED PADS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 14.40 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.30 OFFICE SUPPLIES232502 LABELS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 74.08 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.68 Total :719.80 105074 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 117248 Return Keyboard Trays 38Page: Packet Page 59 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105074 6/19/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Return Keyboard Trays 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -197.94 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -17.82 Keyboard Trays673404 Keyboard Trays 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 197.94 Keyboard Tray 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 46.72 Luggage Tags for Laptops 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 55.10 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 22.01 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 4.96 Keyboard Trays752305 Keyboard Trays 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 413.90 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 37.25 Total :562.12 105075 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 827651 INV#627651 - EDMONDS POLICE CLIPBOARDS FOR TRAFFIC UNIT 001.000.410.521.710.310.00 24.12 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.710.310.00 2.18 Total :26.30 105076 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 977671 BACK ORDER-INT. FOLDERS FOR DIANE. BACK ORDER-INT. FOLDERS FOR DIANE. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 43.99 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.96 39Page: Packet Page 60 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105076 6/19/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC BACK ORDER - SMEAD LABELS FOR THERESA,977672 BACK ORDER - SMEAD LABELS FOR THERESA, 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 13.12 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.18 Total :62.25 105077 6/19/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 202043 Office Supplies for Council Office Office Supplies for Council Office 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 80.14 Total :80.14 105078 6/19/2008 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER May COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,520.46 PSEA 1, 2 , 3 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 33,520.85 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 230.00 State Patrol Death Investigations 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 534.52 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 5,193.89 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.000.237.200.000.00 487.69 auto theft prev. 001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,532.29 traumatic brain injury 001.000.000.237.260.000.00 477.57 Total :44,497.27 105079 6/19/2008 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 667233 LEGAL FEES MAY-08 Legal Fees Itemized May-08 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 24,846.00 40Page: Packet Page 61 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105079 6/19/2008 (Continued)025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE RETAINER FEES MAY-08667240 May-08 retainer fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 18,746.00 Total :43,592.00 105080 6/19/2008 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 667240 Prof Serve Legislative Legal -Snyder Prof Serve Legislative Legal -Snyder 001.000.110.511.100.410.00 4,880.50 Total :4,880.50 105081 6/19/2008 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE OBT0617 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,750.00 Total :1,750.00 105082 6/19/2008 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 033880 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 598.98 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.31 Total :652.29 105083 6/19/2008 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 312263 BRUSH DUMP BRUSH DUMP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 196.00 BRUSH DUMP312272 BRUSH DUMP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 157.50 BRUSH DUMP312287 BRUSH DUMP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 180.00 Total :533.50 105084 6/19/2008 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP Startup 2008 Day Camp Startup Petty Cash Day Camp Startup Petty Cash 001.000.000.111.700.000.00 500.00 41Page: Packet Page 62 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :500.001050846/19/2008 066412 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP 105085 6/19/2008 027280 PATRICKS PRINTING 36946 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 433.40 Total :433.40 105086 6/19/2008 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 4/29-6/15/08 FAC MAINT - MILEAGE - R DIONNE FAC MAINT - MILEAGE - R DIONNE 001.000.651.519.910.430.00 37.37 WATER - WORK PANTS (2) -L MCMURPHY 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 54.23 WATER - BOTTLED WATER FOR MAIN SHUT OFF 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.90 WATER- FLAGGING CLASS SNACKS - T HARRIS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.68 WATER - EYE DROPPERS FOR WATER TESTING 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.38 SEWER - FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLE TO 411.000.655.535.800.320.00 20.00 FLEET - UNIT EQ35PO - LIC FEES 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 32.25 FLEET - UNIT 902 LIC FEES 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 25.75 Total :192.56 105087 6/19/2008 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER Pier Electricity for MAY 08 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.91 Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax~ 411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96 CREDIT FOR APRIL 08 PIER ELECTRIC03870 CREDIT FOR APRIL 08 PIER ELECTRIC 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 -252.12 42Page: Packet Page 63 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105087 6/19/2008 (Continued)029117 PORT OF EDMONDS UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371 Fire Boat - Fuel 511.000.657.548.680.320.00 639.97 Total :2,074.72 105088 6/19/2008 071184 PROCOM 2008-1251 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj for May-08 001.000.390.528.200.410.00 468.75 Total :468.75 105089 6/19/2008 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 08-323 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 1,806.25 Total :1,806.25 105090 6/19/2008 070789 QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES INC 16271 EDMWO1 REPAIR YSI D O METER 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 321.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 28.64 Total :350.39 105091 6/19/2008 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 88801 INSCRIPTION MARKER INSCRIPTION: WEBER 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 INSCRIPTION88802 MARKER INSCRIPTION: MENNING 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 77.00 INSCRIPTION88803 INSCRIPTION: AMENTA 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 INSCRIPTION88804 PILLOW INSCRIPTION: NOVAL 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 160.00 43Page: Packet Page 64 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105091 6/19/2008 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INSCRIPTION89512 INSCRIPTION: TALLMAN 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 INSCRIPTION89513 INSCRIPTION: SCHLAMEUS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 81.00 Total :543.00 105092 6/19/2008 031060 RADIX CORPORATION 002781 MONTHLY MAINT FOR JULY 08 MONTHLY MAINT FOR JULY 08 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 166.28 Total :166.28 105093 6/19/2008 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0805054 Bond Worksheet Unit Price Update Bond Worksheet Unit Price Update 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 3,895.00 Total :3,895.00 105094 6/19/2008 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0806008 FAC SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT FAC SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 9,925.78 Total :9,925.78 105095 6/19/2008 072288 RONALD WASTEWATER DISTRICT 1116 TRAINING/CPR/AMBURGEY TRAINING/CPR/AMBURGEY 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 35.00 Total :35.00 105096 6/19/2008 072299 ROUNDY, KEITH ROUNDY0501 REFUND CLASS REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 20.00 Total :20.00 105097 6/19/2008 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 70014 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD 5-SMNPC #749851~ 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 161.44 44Page: Packet Page 65 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :161.441050976/19/2008 071467 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 105098 6/19/2008 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC 20593 ENV REVIEW FOR OLD MILLTOWN Env review for Old Milltown plaza 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 322.00 Total :322.00 105099 6/19/2008 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 125334 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Helmet w/faceshield 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 110.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 9.12 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 10.72 Total :129.84 105100 6/19/2008 072300 SEWALD, JULIE SEWALD0530 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 15.00 Total :15.00 105101 6/19/2008 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 191448 INV#191448 - EDMONDS POLICE TOWING/JEEP/CHEROKEE~ 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 136.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 12.10 Total :148.10 105102 6/19/2008 060855 SILVER LAKE TROPHY &17004 2008 Service Awards - Humanitarian of 2008 Service Awards - Humanitarian of 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 587.00 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 52.24 Total :639.24 105103 6/19/2008 036955 SKY NURSERY 271770 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 45Page: Packet Page 66 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105103 6/19/2008 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY BAMBOO STAKES 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 31.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 2.86 Total :34.62 105104 6/19/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 336013550 463-001-671-7 8421 244th ST SW 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.68 206-001-485-5967018081 24400 HIGHWAY 99 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.68 Total :59.48 105105 6/19/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2470018124 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.51 LIFT STATION #92790012476 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 132.25 SIGNAL LIGHT2880012519 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 35.47 SIGNAL LIGHT3050047152 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 49.83 NEW TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT AT 215TH &3630573867 NEW TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT AT 215TH & 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 74.29 46Page: Packet Page 67 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105105 6/19/2008 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 BLINKING LIGHT3970013599 BLINKING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 LIFT STATION #134010023721 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 188.84 SIGNAL LIGHT4320010194 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.45 TRAFFIC SIGNAL4510017488 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23 TELEMETRY SYSTEM4640017416 TELEMETRY SYSTEM 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 28.12 SIGNAL LIGHT5380011832 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 TRAFFIC LIGHT5450016042 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 141.12 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS5470012336 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 TRAFFIC LIGHT5510015661 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 STREET LIGHTING6000013000 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 8,469.06 STREET LIGHTING6100013009 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 8,299.70 47Page: Packet Page 68 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105105 6/19/2008 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING6100013306 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 170.07 STREET LIGHTING6200013008 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,814.76 Total :19,621.66 105106 6/19/2008 072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE 132186 BANNER PARTIAL REFUND JUNE 08 BANNER PARTIAL REFUND JUNE 08 111.000.000.322.400.000.00 75.00 Total :75.00 105107 6/19/2008 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000199356 SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 656.36 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.64 Total :680.00 105108 6/19/2008 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2008071 INV#2008071 - MAY JAIL SERVICES/EDMONDS 69.25 BOOKINGS 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 6,282.36 791.83 HOUSING DAYS 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 47,327.68 Total :53,610.04 105109 6/19/2008 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER May 2008 crime victims crime victims 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 904.87 Total :904.87 105110 6/19/2008 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT C000106 SEWER - 3 TDAP SEWER - 3 TDAP 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 228.00 48Page: Packet Page 69 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :228.001051106/19/2008 037800 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 105111 6/19/2008 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING RECYCLING 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 28.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.72 Total :30.22 105112 6/19/2008 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3000055000 INV#3000055000 - EDMONDS POLICE CHEMICAL DISPOSAL 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 53.37 Total :53.37 105113 6/19/2008 072301 STEWART, VALERIE STEWART0501 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISCOVERY 001.000.640.574.350.430.00 55.55 Total :55.55 105114 6/19/2008 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1496166 YOST POOL - ELECT SUPPLIES YOST POOL - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 253.98 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.60 Total :276.58 105115 6/19/2008 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN 1031 CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PLANNING DEPT CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PLANNING DEPT 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,527.50 Total :1,527.50 105116 6/19/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1592048 NEWSPAPER ADS ORD 3685 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 25.16 NEWSPAPER ADS1592049 ORD 3686 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 26.64 49Page: Packet Page 70 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105116 6/19/2008 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY NEWSPAPER ADS1592371 HEARING CONCES AGREE 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 42.92 NEWSPAPER AD1593785 ORDINANCE 3687 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 37.44 NEWSPAPER AD1593830 amend official street map 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 39.96 Total :172.12 105117 6/19/2008 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 231990 DRINKING FOUNTAIN DRINKING FOUNTAIN AND MOUNTING FOR 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 2,491.00 Freight 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 91.44 Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 232.42 Total :2,814.86 105118 6/19/2008 072295 TIBBITS, LUCY TIBBITS08 YOUTH WRITING CONTEST 2ND PLACE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 50.00 Total :50.00 105119 6/19/2008 068322 TRANE 8581796 PS - QUARTERLY SVC AGREEMENT PS - QUARTERLY SVC AGREEMENT 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 287.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 25.55 Total :312.55 105120 6/19/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 45.72 50Page: Packet Page 71 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105120 6/19/2008 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 45.07 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 53.06 YOST POOL425-775-2645 YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 173.21 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 108.91 Total :425.97 105121 6/19/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0662707144 Mayor Haakenson cell phone service 6/7 Mayor Haakenson cell phone service 6/7 001.000.210.513.100.420.00 115.90 Gary Haakenson cell phone service 6/7- 001.000.210.513.100.420.00 15.15 Total :131.05 105122 6/19/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 06630009834 206-595-3117 PRETREATMENT CELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 26.98 Total :26.98 105123 6/19/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0659687303 INV#0659687303 - EDMONDS CELL PHONE SERVICE 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 143.19 Total :143.19 105124 6/19/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0662984417 OPS COMMUNICATIONS Air card 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 60.01 Total :60.01 51Page: Packet Page 72 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 105125 6/19/2008 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I08035686 INV#I08035686 - EDMONDS PD 16/BACKGROUND CHECKS 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 308.00 Total :308.00 105126 6/19/2008 045912 WASPC 30152 ELECTRONIC MONITORING ELECTRONIC MONITORING 001.000.230.523.200.510.00 994.75 Total :994.75 105127 6/19/2008 045912 WASPC INV020662 INV#INV020662 - REGISTRATION/COMPAAN-EPD WASPC CONFERENCE/COMPAAN~ 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00 Total :300.00 105128 6/19/2008 045912 WASPC dues001098000 INV#DUES00109800 - GANNON/EDMONDS DUESMAY ASSOCIATE DUES/GANNON 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 75.00 Total :75.00 105129 6/19/2008 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6119 OPS COMMS adapter plate for charger 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 20.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 6.81 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 2.39 Total :29.20 105130 6/19/2008 066337 WOOD~HARBINGER INC 017274 SR CENTER KITCHEN UPGRADES PROF SVC SR CENTER KITCHEN UPGRADES PROF SVC 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 3,406.40 Total :3,406.40 Bank total :436,553.84152 Vouchers for bank code :front 436,553.84Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report152 52Page: Packet Page 73 of 189 06/19/2008 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 10:57:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 53Page: Packet Page 74 of 189 AM-1629 2.D. Acceptance of Statutory Warranty Deed from Phyllis Lawson Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Conni Curtis Submitted For:Duane Bowman Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Acceptance of statutory warranty deed from Phyllis L. Lawson in conjunction with the 76th Avenue West/ 75th Place West walkway project. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council approve and accept the statutory warranty deed from Phyllis L. Lawson. Previous Council Action None Narrative City Staff has negotiated with a property owner along the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway project for a strip of land which is necessary for additional right-of-way needed for the construction of the project. Pursuant to City of Edmonds Right-of-Way Administrative Settlement Procedures, Staff is authorized to purchase property for right-of-way improvement without prior City Council approval when settlements are less than $1,000 over the original summary offer. The proposed right-of-way summary offer for the Phyllis L. Lawson property is $40,000. This offer was based on a consultant-prepared Preliminary Funding Estimate Worksheet. Both the owner and Staff concur that the fair market value of this property is $40,000. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Statutory Warranty Deed Link: Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:03 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 12:46 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:41 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis  Started On: 06/18/2008 02:54 PM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 75 of 189 Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 76 of 189 Packet Page 77 of 189 Packet Page 78 of 189 Packet Page 79 of 189 Packet Page 80 of 189 Packet Page 81 of 189 Packet Page 82 of 189 AM-1634 2.E. Report on Bids Opened and Award to Jones Chemical, Inc. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Report on bids opened on June 10, 2008 for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals and award to Jones Chemical, Inc for supplying sodium hypochlorite. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to award a contract to Jones Chemical for a one-year term for supplying sodium hypochlorite. Previous Council Action On May 20, 2008, City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals. Narrative Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals, and the bids were opened on June 10, 2008. Bids for supplying sodium hypochlorite were initially received from three firms, however one firm withdrew their bid at the last minute. There was an irregularity in the bid opening, in that the bid from Jones Chemical was received an hour and a half late. Since the bid had been sent the day before from out of state, the City Attorney advised that their late bid submission did not give them a material advantage, as their bid was already provided and mailed the day before the bid opening. Further, the bidding package specifically provides the City the right to waive bidding irregularities. Jones Chemical provided the low bid at $0.747 per gallon. Based on providing the lowest responsible bid and positive service experiences, staff recommends a contract be awarded to Jones Chemical for sodium hypochlorite for a one-year term. Estimated annual expenditures for this chemical is $60,000. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: hypochlorite bid tab Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Public Works Noel Miller 06/19/2008 12:54 PM APRV Packet Page 83 of 189 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:40 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 01:43 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 02:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho  Started On: 06/19/2008 09:48 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 84 of 189 Packet Page 85 of 189 AM-1637 2.F. Report on Bids Opened and Award to Northstar Chemicals, Inc. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Report on bids opened on June 10, 2008 for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals and award to Northstar Chemicals, Inc. for supplying sodium hydroxide and sodium bisulfite. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to award contract to Northstar Chemicals for supplying sodium hydroxide and sodium bisulfite for a one-year term. Previous Council Action On May 20, 2008, City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals. Narrative Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the purchase of Treatment Plant chemicals, and the bids were opened on June 10, 2008. Bids for supplying sodium hydroxide and sodium bisulfite were received from one firm, Northstar Chemicals, which has supplied these treatment chemicals for the past several years. Based on providing the lowest responsible bid and positive service experiences, staff recommends a contract be awarded to Northstar Chemicals for supplying sodium hydroxide and sodium bisulfite for a one-year term. The estimated annual expense for these two chemicals is $50,000. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: northstar bid tab Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Public Works Noel Miller 06/19/2008 12:54 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:40 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 01:43 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 02:04 PM APRV Form Started By: Steve Koho  Started On: 06/19/2008 11:09 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 86 of 189 Packet Page 87 of 189 Packet Page 88 of 189 AM-1640 2.G. Phase II Investigation at the Old Milltown Property Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Submitted For:City Attorney Scott Snyder Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of Landau Associates Phase II investigation/environmental assessment of the Old Milltown parcel ($11,100). This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize Landau Associates Phase II investigation/environmental assessment of the Old Milltown parcel ($11,100). Previous Council Action On June 3, 2008, the City Council authorized a contract with Landau Associates to conduct environmental work in the amount of $6,500 related to the plaza area in front of the old Milltown building on 5th Avenue South. Narrative Attached is Landau Associates proposal for the Phase II investigation related to the plaza area in front of the Old Milltown building on 5th Avenue South. The scope of services has increased and includes a focused geophysical survey, soil and groundwater sampling and analysis, and report preparation. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Landau Phase II Scope of Work Form Routing/Status Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 06/20/2008 09:42 AM Final Approval Date: 06/20/2008 Packet Page 89 of 189 ENVIRONMENTAL | GEOTECHNICAL | NATURAL RESOURCES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND EXHIBIT A–STATEMENT OF WORK Task 1 – Focused Geophysical Survey A focused survey using non-intrusive geophysical instrumentation will be conducted at the subject property to evaluate the shallow subsurface for anomalies indicative of the potential presence of buried features or structures [i.e. underground storage tanks (USTs), piping] remaining from past uses of the property that could be potential contaminant sources and result in potential liability for the City as a possible purchaser of the property. This task will include: Establishing and marking a survey grid over the property. Conducting surveys and collecting data using utility Electromagnetic (EM) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR; as needed) techniques to a target depth of about 10 to 15 feet (ft) below ground surface (BGS), depending on subsurface conditions. The EM survey will be conducted first, and the GPR will be used, as needed, to further evaluate anomalies identified by the EM survey. The survey would also include using utility locating/tracing techniques to “follow back” any piping that may still exist from the fill ports identified on the south side of the property. Analyzing the survey data and developing a map of subsurface anomalies. Providing an interpretation of the results and an assessment of the presence of “targets” in the shallow subsurface. The subcontractor’s findings will be summarized in the Landau Associates report being prepared under Task 3, and the subcontractor’s submittal (e-mail and figure) will be provided as an attachment. Task 2 – Focused Phase II Drilling and Sampling Focused investigation of the shallow subsurface, including sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater, will be conducted at selected locations across the subject property to evaluate and document subsurface conditions and assess the potential presence of contamination. This focused sampling will be based on: Historical operations at the subject property that were identified during the Phase I ESA. The findings of the geophysical survey conducted in Task 1. Physical site conditions. Packet Page 90 of 189 6/17/08 \\Edmdata\projects\074\147\WIP\M\Old Mill Town_Ph II_Scope of Services_0608.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 A site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared to address the activities planned for the Phase II investigation. Prior to commencing field investigations, Landau Associates will contact the “one call” utility locating service to have all public utilities marked and will visit the subject property with a private utility locator to mark the proposed sampling locations and private utilities on the subject property. The private locator will locate underground conductible utilities at the subject property using electromagnetic and radio frequency transmission locating equipment. Our proposed approach will consist of drilling borings (a planned total of four) to a depth of about 10 ft to 15 ft BGS using direct-push drilling and sampling techniques to evaluate shallow soil and groundwater at a depth that may have been impacted by any USTs that are or were located on the property. The final depth of the borings will be determined in the field based on the depth of groundwater, which is anticipated to be at about 5 to 6 feet BGS. We anticipate that the drilling of the four borings and soil and groundwater sampling at each location, as discussed below, will require about one half-day for a drilling subcontractor and a Landau Associates professional. The proposed soil sampling strategy will be to visually assess soil conditions continuously to a depth about 5 ft below the elevation of the groundwater table. The soil samples will be visually classified for soil type. Soil samples will be collected continuously from each boring, and will be field-screened using a photoionization detector (PID) to evaluate whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present in soil, and by sheen-testing to evaluate the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. Based on field screening results, a sample of soil from each boring with the greatest indication of contamination or from approximately 6 inches above the depth of the water table (if no contamination is indicated) will be selected for laboratory analysis. In addition to the samples selected for laboratory analyses, additional samples may be submitted to the laboratory for archive purposes in case future analyses are needed. Additional samples may also be collected and held from borings where potential contamination is suspected, and may be analyzed to assess the vertical extent of the impact. For the purpose of estimating project costs, we have assumed that one soil sample from each of the four boring locations will be selected and submitted for laboratory analysis for petroleum hydrocarbons, using the hydrocarbon identification (HCID) method. The analyses will be requested on a standard 1-week turnaround time from the laboratory. Soil volumes will also be collected and held for possible qualitative analysis of gasoline, diesel, and/or oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons, if the HCID results indicate the presence of contamination. Groundwater samples will also be collected from the four direct-push sampling locations and submitted for laboratory analysis. For the purpose of estimating costs, we have assumed that each groundwater sample will be analyzed for diesel-range and oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons, Packet Page 91 of 189 6/17/08 \\Edmdata\projects\074\147\WIP\M\Old Mill Town_Ph II_Scope of Services_0608.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3 gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) on a standard 1- or 2-week turnaround (depending on the analyte). Task 3 - Phase II Data Evaluation and Reporting A letter report will be prepared to document the results of the Phase II activities and to present our evaluation of the data collected. The Phase II letter report will include descriptions of the investigation and evaluation activities (including the geophysical survey), the field and laboratory data (including validation of the laboratory data for quality assurance/quality control purposes), and comparison of the analytical data to relevant regulatory levels. The letter report will also include our assessment of site environmental conditions, based on the results of the investigations, and of the need for additional investigative or remedial actions. A draft version of the letter report will be provided electronically to the City of Edmonds (City) and their outside counsel for review. A final report will be prepared incorporating comments, as appropriate, provided by the City. A total of up to three hard copies and one electronic copy of the final letter report will be provided for use by the City. Task 4 - Project Management and Administration This task will include management of the project including liaison with the City, their outside counsel, and subcontractors. This task will also include project communications and administrative activities. ASSUMPTIONS Our assumptions in preparing this statement of work include the following: The City will arrange for access and any necessary rights-of-entry to the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way. The City will arrange to minimize the number of cars parked along the 5th Avenue South and Maple Street during the geophysical survey (to minimize interference with the instrumentation) and during the Phase II drilling (to allow access for the drilling rig). The geophysical survey and drilling work will require about one half-day on site each for the subcontractor and Landau Associates personnel. Direct push drilling will be conducted using a limited access drilling rig, and concrete coring will be required before drilling at each of the four boring locations. The draft letter report will need only minor revisions, requiring not more than 2 hours to produce the final report. Packet Page 92 of 189 6/17/08 \\Edmdata\projects\074\147\WIP\M\Old Mill Town_Ph II_Scope of Services_0608.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE We are prepared to initiate the work described in this statement of work upon receipt of your authorization to proceed and will develop a schedule to meet your needs. Depending on contractor availability, the survey can be conducted within about 1 week of your authorization and will require about 1 field day. We would discuss the findings of the survey with the City once the field effort is completed. The drilling and sampling work would follow within about 1 week. Assuming a 2-week turnaround time for the laboratory results, we anticipate that the draft Phase II ESA letter report would be submitted for review within 3 weeks following the drilling investigation. We will discuss the initial findings of the drilling investigation (based on the field observations) once the field work is completed, and the analytical results once they are received from the laboratory and evaluated for QA/QC purposes. COMPENSATION Our services will be billed on a time and expense basis, in accordance with the Compensation Schedule provided in Attachment 2. The total amount billed will not exceed the limits specific in the Consultant Agreement for these services without written authorization from the City. The anticipated costs are detailed below by task. Task 1:Geophysical Survey $2,000 Landau Associates Labor - $800 Geophysical Contractor – $1,200 Task 2: Focused Phase II Drilling and Sampling $4,800 Landau Associates Labor - $1,500 Direct-Push Drilling Contractor – $2,100 Utility Locate - $200 Analytical Costs – $1,000 Task 3: Phase II Data Evaluation and Reporting $3,400 Task 4: Project Management and Administration $900 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST: $11,100 Packet Page 93 of 189 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE – 2008 11/28/07 Document1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES Personnel Labor Hourly Rate Principal 190 Senior Associate 172 Associate 155 Senior 140 GIS Specialist 130 Senior Project 127 Project 117 GIS Analyst 110 Senior Staff 104 Senior CAD 93 Staff / Senior Technician II 92 Assistant / Senior Technician I 82 Project Coordinator 80 CAD / GIS Technician 75 Technician 71 Support Staff 60 Expert professional testimony in court, deposition, declaration, arbitration, or public testimony is charged at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Rates apply to all labor, including overtime. Technical disciplines include: Biologist, Chemist, Engineer, Environmental Planner, Geochemist, Geologist, Hydrogeologist, Hydrologist, Risk Analyst, Scientist. Equipment Field, laboratory and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request. Subcontractor Services and Other Expenses Subcontractor billing and other project expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized routine services will normally be charged at a rate of cost plus a twelve percent (12%) handling charge. A higher handling charge for technical subconsultants and for high-risk field operations may be negotiated on an individual project basis; similarly, a lower handling charge may be negotiated on projects requiring disproportionally high subconsultant involvement. Invoices Invoices for Landau Associates’ services will be issued monthly. Interest of 1½ percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days. Term Unless otherwise agreed, Landau Associates reserves the right to make reasonable adjustments to our compensation rates over time (e.g., long-term continuing projects). Packet Page 94 of 189 AM-1635 3. Chamber of Commerce Membership Committee Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:5 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Presentation by the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce regarding the Membership Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Linda Aufrecht and Chris Keuss will be representing the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and will provide a presentation regarding the Membership Committee. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:25 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 12:46 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:41 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase  Started On: 06/19/2008 10:02 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 95 of 189 AM-1611 4. Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Event Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Pro Tem Dawson Time:10 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Discussion regarding making a donation to the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the 4th of July event. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action During Audience Comments of the June 7, 2005 Council Meeting, Ron Clyborne, of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce came before the City Council requesting that the Council consider granting $2,000 to the Chamber to assist with the 4th of July program. He also asked the television audience for donations for the 4th of July program. (EXHIBIT 2) During the June 21, 2005 City Council Meeting, the Council discussed funding for the 2005 4th of July Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce celebration. Any funding approved was to be used exclusively for the promotion and organization of the event. The Council voted unanimously to approve a $2,000 expenditure from the Council Contingency Fund to the Chamber of Commerce for the 2005 4th of July event . (EXHIBIT 1) During the June 3, 2008 Audience Comments portion of the Council Meeting, Jim Hills, President of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce invited the public and businesses to help support the cost of the 4th of July celebration put on by the Chamber by mailing checks to the Chamber. During Council comments, Councilmember Wilson suggested donating $1,000 toward sponsorship of the 4th of July celebration put on by the Chamber. Council President Pro Tem Dawson suggested scheduling it as an agenda item in accordance with the Council's past practice on donations. Narrative This agenda item has been placed on this agenda for discussion per Council President Pro Tem Deanna Dawson's suggestion. The current balance in the Council Contingency Fund is $25,000.00. (EXHIBIT 3) Packet Page 96 of 189 Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exh 1 Minutes 6-21-05 Council Meeting Link: Exh 2 Agenda Memo 6-21-05 Council Meeting Link: Exh 3 Exp Status Report Council Cont Fund Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:10 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 12:46 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:40 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman  Started On: 06/10/2008 02:48 PM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 97 of 189 Packet Page 98 of 189 Packet Page 99 of 189 Packet Page 100 of 189 Packet Page 101 of 189 Packet Page 102 of 189 Packet Page 103 of 189 Packet Page 104 of 189 Packet Page 105 of 189 AM-1631 6. 555 Main Street House Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:30 Minutes Department:Development Services Type: Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Discussion regarding moving the house at 555 Main Street to Civic Center Playfield and a proposed resolution expressing intent to preserve the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Based upon the requirements of the Public Use zoning on the Civic Center Playfield, the relocation of the house at 555 Main Street to the southwest corner of the playfield would not be permitted. Previous Council Action The City Council discussed this matter at the June 17, 2008 meeting and considered a draft resolution (Exhibit 4). The Council directed staff to provide some additional information regarding zoning, uses and other code requirements. Narrative At the request of the City Council, staff has analyzed the request to consider moving the house at 555 Main Street to the Civic Center Playfield in light of the zoning and building codes and has the following responses. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Public Use (P). This zone intended to site public facilities and minimize the impacts on nearby properties. Chapter 16.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) establishes the zoning requirements for the P zone (Exhibit 2). Staff assumes that some type of public use is intended for the building, otherwise the building would not be permitted. Key issues deal with height of the building (appears to be over 25 feet), parking and setbacks. A conditional use permit is required if the building is over 25 feet. Parking is required subject to the intended use. Setbacks are 20 foot landscaped setback from any street. This means a 20 foot setback from both the alley and 6th Avenue North. In addition a fully landscaped 25 foot setback is required from the athletic field (track). Exhibit 3 is an aerial showing the required setback requirements. The proposed building location does not appear to be able to comply with the setback requirements. Building Code: Packet Page 106 of 189 The building will require a foundation and utility hook-ups. If the building is designated as a historic building, it can receive some relief from full compliance with updating to meet all current building code requirements. Again, it is heavily dependent upon the intended use of the building. It appears that the City's zoning code regarding required setbacks eliminates the siting of the building in the southwest corner of the Civic Center Playfield. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Memo from Parks Director Link: Exhibit 2 -ECDC 16.80 P Zone Link: Exhibit 3 - Applicable Setbacks Map Link: Exhibit 4 - Draft Resolution Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:01 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 12:46 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:41 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman  Started On: 06/19/2008 08:15 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 107 of 189 MEMORANDUM Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services 700 Main St., Edmonds WA 98020 425-771-0256(w) 425-239-2562(c) FAX 425-771-0253 mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us Date: June 18, 2008 To: Edmonds City Council for June 24, 2008 Council Meeting Mayor Haakenson From: Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Subject: 6th & Main House Relocation Considerations As a follow-up to the June 17 City Council meeting and for Council consideration during your deliberations during the June 24 Council Meeting, I would like to reiterate my comments and concerns regarding the appropriateness of moving the 6th & Main house to the Civic Center Playfield. No one wants to see this wonderful house disappear from Edmonds and I am very sympathetic to that cause. I appreciate the effort of those individuals from the Historical Museum and the Historic Preservation Commission, and others, in taking the lead to find solutions to this difficult situation. From a parks perspective, I do not believe that the proposed move to the southwest corner of the Playfield is appropriate or a good fit, either for the park or for the house itself. This is a very active year round park and it is important to keep a sense of “openness” to the park and I believe this would begin to close it in. Placing the house in this location does not relate to the active nature of the park and the result is that it would be out of context with its surroundings. As an example one suggestion last night to have high end rentals at the site to generate maintenance and operation revenues. This could be a good idea but it comes with a significant repercussion. Do park activities cease during these events? Which entity would have precedence? The house may be great but the setting would leave much to be desired for these types of rentals and perhaps other potential uses. The proposed Resolution describes the site as suitable which by definition means “appropriate” or “fitting” and I contend that it is not suitable. As I stated last evening, perhaps at this time the Playfield can best be described as the “only” site. Although I City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Packet Page 108 of 189 believe a Resolution is not binding on Council or the City it is a commitment, perceived or otherwise, to partner and to see the project through. It is much more than just buying time. As a temporary location perhaps this would be satisfactory but only if there was some guarantee that it would be moved within a limited amount of time. The danger with this scenario though is that once the home is saved and the immediacy of threat eliminated, strenuous search efforts for an appropriate location may be abated and temporary could easily become permanent. Or an appropriate property never becomes available or, if it needs to be purchased, affordable. This would put the City in the role of the “threat” which would be very difficult and temporary could easily become permanent. I believe this discussion and exposure at the very least has reached many more people who may have an interest in this residence and the desire to relocate it to a suitable site. I’m optimistic that there are citizens who would consider locating this home on their property if they are considering their own demolition and rebuild. It could be a good scenario and good fit. Packet Page 109 of 189 Chapter 16.80 P – PUBLIC USE Sections: 16.80.000 Purposes. 16.80.010 Uses. 16.80.020 Conditional use permit criteria. 16.80.030 Site development standards. 16.80.000 Purposes. The P district has the following purposes: A. To provide for siting and development of regional public facilities to be located in or near residential areas and to establish standards which will minimize the impact of these facilities on nearby properties; B. To regulate the use of these lands to assure their continuing availability for public use. [Ord. 3353 § 8, 2001]. 16.80.010 Uses. A. Permitted Uses. 1. Regional public facilities; 2. All local public facilities subject to the additional requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070; 4. Primary and high schools subject to the additional requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R). B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Facilities comparable with and designed to serve permitted uses (e.g., restrooms, safety lighting, fencing, benches, tables, minor shelters, athletic structures, minor service support structures, associated storage and maintenance yards, and incidental parking for five or less cars); 2. Commercial uses incidental to and related to a sited regional public facility, such as restaurants, snack bars, gift shops, tourist shops, etc. C. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Service and support facilities for permitted uses (e.g., transportation storage and maintenance; service and repair shops; outdoor storage); 2. Municipal and franchised service facilities including storage and maintenance buildings and yards, sewage treatment facilities, water storage and pumping facilities, substations; 3. Stadiums, bleachers, playfield lighting, clubhouses, and swimming pools; 4. Structures over 25 feet in height; 5. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 8, 2001]. 16.80.020 Conditional use permit criteria. In considering a conditional use permit application under Chapter 20.05 ECDC for the public use (P) zone, the hearing examiner and/or city council shall consider the following: A. Impact of the proposal on the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood; B. Orientation of facilities to developed or undeveloped residential areas; C. Preservation of natural vegetation and/or other natural features; Packet Page 110 of 189 D. Hours of operation; performance standards; conformance of the proposal with the city's noise ordinance; E. Ability of the proposal to provide for adequate on-site parking; and traffic impacts of the proposal on the neighborhood. [Ord. 3353 § 8, 2001]. 16.80.030 Site development standards. Although each public use will undergo extensive review by the ADB in light of its relationship to its surrounding neighbors, there will be certain minimum development standards to be used in the design of these facilities. These standards may be subject to the grant of variance under the provisions of ECDC 20.85.000. A. Minimum Setbacks. A minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet shall be maintained from a public street or other property lines except that a setback of 25 feet maintained from adjacent residentially zoned properties, for all structures, structured play areas and structured athletic fields. This setback shall be fully landscaped. B. Height. The maximum height of a building in this zone shall be 25 feet, unless a conditional use permit has been obtained, except that the height of schools shall be governed by ECDC 17.100.050(I). A conditional use permit for additional height may permit structures up to a maximum height of 60 feet. C. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage by buildings and other structures shall not exceed 35 percent unless a conditional use permit has been obtained. D. Signs. All signs shall be subject to ADB approval. Signs shall be kept to a minimum size, which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and uses, while providing adequate visibility. E. Landscaping. Site landscaping requirements shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 20.13 ECDC. F. Parking. All regional public facilities shall comply with the minimum off-street parking requirements contained in ECDC 17.50.030. 1. All on-site parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight-obscuring fence not less than six feet in height. Such walls or fences may be built progressively as the parking facilities are installed. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with ECDC 20.13.025. 2. Regional public facilities shall submit a transportation management plan for approval by the city. The plan shall address the following: traffic control, parking management, mitigation measures for overflow parking into adjoining residential areas, and traffic movement to the nearest arterial street. G. Orientation to Transportation Facilities. All regional public facilities must be located adjacent to or within 500 feet of a principal or major arterial street. H. Transit. All regional public facilities shall be located within 1,500 feet of an existing transit center. At least one on-site transit stop or station shall be required. The transit stop or station shall include a turnout of suitable size and location to accommodate public buses. I. Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and directed so as to direct the light away from adjacent residential uses. J. Screening. Electrical substations, water/sewer pump stations, sewage treatment facilities, solid waste facilities, commuter parking lots, and maintenance and storage yards shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight-obscuring fence not less than six feet in height. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. [Ord. 3353 § 8, 2001]. Packet Page 111 of 189 20 ft 20 ft 100 Feet 25 ft Packet Page 112 of 189 No: A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Expressing Intent to Preserve the Bettinger/Kretzler Historic Home Whereas, the Bettinger/Kretzler Historic Home, currently located at 555 Main Street, has been designated by the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation as one of the 2008 Most Endangered Historic Properties in the State and is currently in the application process to be designated a historic property by the City of Edmonds; and Whereas, the Bettinger/Kretzler Historic Home, is currently located on property that is being considered for new construction and those plans require the removal or demolition of the home; and Whereas, the Bettinger/Kretzler Historic Home, is owned by an owner who has expressed a desire to work with new owners to relocate the home; and Whereas the Edmonds Museum, a private non-profit, is negotiating with the current owners to move and maintain, at the Museum’s expense, the historic home; and Whereas, a new site, the southwest corner of Civic Field is owned by the Edmonds School District and under long-term lease with the City of Edmonds has been reviewed by the Edmonds Museum and found suitable; and Whereas, The Edmonds Community Development Code CHAPTER 25 has been adopted to preserve historic buildings and through the creation of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission has entrusted work with one of its purposes to serve as the city’s primary resource in matters of history, historic planning, and preservation. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved : Section 1. The City recognizes the historic significance of the Bettinger/Kretzler Historic Home and will work with the parties (Edmonds Museum, Edmonds School District and the current owners) to preserve the home. Such work will involve no direct outlay of City funds to move, relocate, or maintain the home. In the event the home is not able to be moved by the Museum the City understands the current owner may at his discretion sell the home to another party or demolish the home if no other option is available. Section 2. This resolution is strictly to demonstrate the City’s intent to work in good faith with the above-mentioned parties and does not commit the City to Packet Page 113 of 189 Resolution No: ___________ 2 enter into any contract or to amend any existing contract without further resolution from the City Council. Once a draft of any contract or amendment is prepared it will be reviewed by City Staff and City legal counsel and then approved by City Council. Passed, approved, and adopted this 17th day of June, 2008. Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember David J. Orvis, Councilmember Attest: City Clerk Packet Page 114 of 189 AM-1632 7. Staff Response to Developer's Concerns Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:30 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Staff response to developers' concerns. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action At the June 17, 2008 City Council meeting, comments were made by developers, under audience comments, regarding the Development Services Department. Narrative Duane Bowman, Development Services Director, will make a presentation responding to the concerns raised at the June 17, 2008 City Council Meeting. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 09:24 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 11:54 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:11 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman  Started On: 06/19/2008 09:17 AM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 115 of 189 AM-1603 8. Establish a $5,000 Appropriation for Potential Paine Field Legal and Administrative Purposes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Submitted For:Michael Plunkett Time:10 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Establish a $5,000 appropriation for potential Paine Field legal and administrative purposes. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Establish a $5,000 appropriation for potential Paine Field legal and administrative purposes or other name(s) as may be determined from time to time. Previous Council Action The Edmonds City Council passed Resolution #810 on January 31, 1995, Resolution #1083 on February 22, 2005, Resolution #1095 on June 5, 2005, and Resolution #1165 on February 5, 2008 stating and restating its opposition to commercial air passenger service at Paine Field. Narrative As referenced in a May 21, 2007 City of Mukilteo City Council agenda cover memorandum, the Private Enterprise Coalition announced that they would raise, and spend, in an attempt to undermine the Snohomish County Mediated Role Determination (MRD) and push for commercial passenger air service at Paine Field. In response to this announcement, the Mukilteo City Council approved. At that meeting, the creation of a Paine Field Emergency Reserve Fund appropriating and transferring an amount of $250,000 from the general fund to the new emergency reserve fund. The reserve fund was established to “send a message that the City of Mukilteo is serious, and create a pool of resources for any legal or other costs that are necessary to oppose commercial expansion” of Paine Field. On July 16, 2008, Mukilteo Resolution 1170 (attached) created a new Chapter 3.109 of the Mukilteo Municipal Code as it relates to the administration of the fund. The fund is to provide financial administration and accounting control of monies deposited or transferred into the fund, and all monies and assets assigned to the fund shall be used for the payment of legal or other costs deemed necessary by Council as appropriate to oppose commercial expansion of Paine Field. Recently, representatives from Mukilteo met with Mayor Haakenson and Council President Plunkett to ask whether the City of Edmonds could also establish an appropriation or fund, thus increasing the pool of financial resources. At the request of Council President Plunkett, the attached resolution is being submitted for your consideration. A specific amount has not been Packet Page 116 of 189 identified. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 Link: Exhibit 2 Link: Exhibit 3 Link: Exhibit 4 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/16/2008 02:23 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/17/2008 08:57 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/17/2008 09:03 AM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton  Started On: 06/02/2008 01:17 PM Final Approval Date: 06/17/2008 Packet Page 117 of 189 Packet Page 118 of 189 Packet Page 119 of 189 Packet Page 120 of 189 Packet Page 121 of 189 Packet Page 122 of 189 L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0028_1603_Ord-1170-Paine Field Emer Res Fund.doc 1 CITY OF MUKILTEO MUKILTEO, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 1170 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MUKILTEO CREATING THE PAINE FIELD EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 3.109 OF THE MUKILTEO MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND. WHEREAS, the City desires to set monies aside to fund legal or other costs deemed necessary by Council as appropriate to oppose commercial expansion of Paine Field. WHEREAS, all investment income of the fund will be accrued and paid to the General Fund. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MUKILTEO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Paine Field Emergency Reserve Fund. A new Chapter 3.109 is hereby added to the Mukilteo Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 3.109 Sections: 3.109.010 Establishment of Paine Field Emergency Reserve Fund 3.109.020 Administration of the Fund 3.109.030 Term of the Fund 3.109.040 Investments 3.109.010. Establishment of Paine Field Emergency Reserve Fund. There is hereby created and established a separate fund to be known as the Paine Field Emergency Reserve Fund or other name as may be determined from time to time. The purpose of the fund is to provide financial administration and accounting control of monies deposited or transferred into the fund. All monies and assets assigned to the fund shall be used for the payment of legal or other costs deemed necessary by Council as appropriate to oppose commercial expansion of Paine Field. 3.109.020. Administration of the Fund. The City Administrator or his/her designated representative shall be responsible for the administration of the fund. A simple majority vote of Council is needed to approve the fund’s expenditures prior to monies being disbursed from the fund. Packet Page 123 of 189 L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0028_1603_Ord-1170-Paine Field Emer Res Fund.doc 2 3.109.030. Term of the Fund. The fund is declared to be perpetual, and monies remaining therein at the conclusion of each budget year shall carry over into the ensuing year unless determined differently by the City Council. Neither the employees of the city or their representatives shall have any interest whatsoever in the funds provided, or the administration thereof. 3.109.040. Investments. The Finance Director is directed to maintain the above referenced fund as provided herein, and to invest the same so as to generate such additional monies as is reasonably prudent which shall be accrued and paid to the General Fund. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 16th day of July 2007. APPROVED: __________________________________ MAYOR, JOE MARINE ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _______________________________________ CITY CLERK, CHRISTINA J. BOUGHMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By: _______________________________________ JAMES E. HANEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07-16-07 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07-16-07 PUBLISHED: 07-20-07 EFFECTIVE: 07-25-07 ORDINANCE NO. 1170 Packet Page 124 of 189 L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0028_1603_Ord-1170-Paine Field Emer Res Fund.doc 3 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1170 Of the City of Mukilteo, Washington On July 16, 2007, the City Council of the City of Mukilteo, Washington, adopted Ordinance No. 1170, the main point of which may be summarized by its title as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MUKILTEO CREATING THE PAINE FIELD EMERGENCY SERVICES FUND AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 3.109 OF THE MUKILTEO MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of July 16, 2007. CITY CLERK, CHRISTINA J. BOUGHMAN Packet Page 125 of 189 Packet Page 126 of 189 Packet Page 127 of 189 Packet Page 128 of 189 Packet Page 129 of 189 Packet Page 130 of 189 Packet Page 131 of 189 AM-1627 9. City of Edmonds Unfunded Priority Projects Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:15 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title City of Edmonds unfunded priority projects. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff No recommendation. Previous Council Action No previous City Council Action taken on the attached list of projects. Narrative On May 27, 2008, at the request of Edmonds City Council, City staff presented information on City of Edmonds and private party master planning options for the Downtown Master Plan area. This area is also known as the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square, Antique Mall and Skipper properties (includes all properties between Main Street and the north edge of Edmonds Marsh, and SR 104 and BNSF rail lines). Additional information included potential steps that would need to be taken by the City should the City Council decide to purchase all, or a portion of subject properties. These items were also highlighted in a memorandum to City Council from Scott Snyder, City Attorney. As part of the overall May 27, 2008 presentation, City staff requested the City Council consider how any purchase of property might relate to funding other future priority needs within the City. Included in the May 27 City Council packet was a table containing a list of unfunded priority projects. An updated version of the table is attached. Please note: • Ongoing Building Maintenance and Ongoing Transportation Improvements are listed at the top of the list as high priorities. • The remaining items in the table have not been prioritized by City administration. City staff is asking that City Council work with City administration to prioritize these items/projects in order to help structure an overall multi-year financing plan. • Several projects need additional review and input from the community and City consultants to determine more accurate cost estimates. The primary purpose of presenting this information is to give the City Council an overview of the unfunded needs rather than precise cost estimates for each project. • A couple of the projects do not have projects descriptions as they are tied to non-city entities Packet Page 132 of 189 with specific plans yet to be defined. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 Link: Exhibit 2 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:10 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 12:46 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 01:40 PM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton  Started On: 06/16/2008 03:12 PM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 133 of 189 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s U n f u n d e d P r i o r i t y P r o j e c t s Pr o j e c t De p a r t m e n t Es t i m a t e d Co st Po s s i b l e F u n d i n g S o u r c e s Cu r r e n t D o l l a r s Priority On g o i n g B u i l d i n g Ma i n t e n a n c e P r o j e c t s Pu b l i c W o r k s $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 / p e r y ea r Ut i l i t y T a x I n c r e a s e High On g o i n g T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t s Pu b l i c W o r k s $. 5 t o 1 . 0 M i l l i o n pe r y e a r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n B e n e f i t D i s t r i c t Pu b l i c V o t e ? High 4 th A v e n u e C u l t u r a l Co r r i d o r Pa r k s / P u b l i c Wo r k s $1 0 m i l l i o n Va r i o u s C i t y f u n d s a n d g r a n t s Aq u a t i c C e n t e r Pa r k s & Re c r e a t i o n $1 0 t o $ 3 0 m i l l i o n Pu b l i c V o t e Ar t C e n t e r / A r t M u s e u m Pa r k s & Re c r e a t i o n $5 m i l l i o n Co m m u n i t y p a r t n e r s h i p s Bo y s & G i r l s C l u b B u i l d i n g (S c h o o l D i s t r i c t p r o p e r t y ) N o t a C i t y B l d g $5 m i l l i o n Ca p i t a l c a m p a i g n Ci v i c P l a y f i e l d A c q u i s i t i o n (l e a s e e x p i r e s 2 0 2 1 ) Pa r k s & Re c r e a t i o n Un k n o w n Pu b l i c V o t e / RE E T 1 / G r a n t s Do w n t o w n S t r e e t L i g h t i n g Im p r o v e m e n t s Pu b l i c W o r k s $2 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ut i l i t y Ta x In c r e a s e Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 4 of 18 9 Ed m o n d s L i b r a r y Pu b l i c W o r k s an d P a r k s & Re c r e a t i o n Un k n o w n Pu b l i c Vo t e Fi r e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Tr a i n i n g C l a s s r o o m , N o n - Bu r n i n g T r a i n i n g F a c i l i t y Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t $1 . 1 m i l l i o n +/ - 1 0 % Es p e r a n c e S e r v i c e C o n t r a c t Wo o d w a y S e r v i c e C o n t r a c t 20 1 5 S t a t i o n 2 0 D e b t P a y o f f EM S T r a n s p o r t F e e s Va r i o u s C i t y F u n d s Fo r m e r W o o d w a y H . S . (S c h o o l D i s t . P r o p e r t y ) Pl a y f i e l d s Pa r k s & Re c r e a t i o n $1 2 m i l l i o n Re g i o n a l F a c i l i t y / C a p i t a l Ca m p a i g n P a r t n e r s h i p s / R E E T 2 Pa r k s / F a c i l i t i e s Ma i n t e n a n c e B u i l d i n g Pa r k s & P u b l i c Wo r k s $3 t o 3 . 5 M i l l i o n No t f u n d e d a f t e r 3 ye a r s No I d e n t i f i e d F u n d i n g S o u r c e Pu b l i c V o t e Se n i o r C e n t e r B u i l d i ng Pu b l i c W o r k s $4 t o 1 0 M i l l i o n Pu b l i c / P r i v a t e P a r t n e r s h i p ? G. O . B o n d L e v y Va n M e e r P r o p e r t y Fi r e D e p a r t m e n t Su b j e c t t o Ne g o t i a t i o n Es p e r a n c e S e r v i c e C o n t r a c t Wo o d w a y S e r v i c e C o n t r a c t 20 1 5 S t a t i o n 2 0 D e b t P a y o f f EM S T r a n s p o r t F e e s Va r i o u s C i t y F u n d s Pa c k e t Pa g e 13 5 of 18 9 City of Edmonds Unfunded Priority Projects On-going Building Maintenance Projects There are currently 19 buildings that the City owns and maintains. As anyone who owns a house or a building knows, there are periodically, maintenance projects which must be performed such as replacement of roofs, windows, flooring, siding, heating and ventilation units, elevators, and upgrading safety and security systems. The current six year capital improvement plan under Fund 116 shows a long term annual revenue deficit of approximately $200,000. All of these buildings serve an important role and are vital to the well being of the community. On-going Transportation Improvements Costs to design and build capital projects continue to increase while revenues are in decline. Grants to fund projects to preserve the existing roadway infrastructure have also decreased. An additional source of revenue to Transportation Capital Fund 112 could be created by the creation of a City wide a transportation benefit district (TBD). Under one funding scenario presented to the City Council earlier this year, estimated revenue of between $.5 to $1.0 million on an annual basis could be generated to help pay for projects that preserve or enhance the City’s regional roadway network. 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, approved as a concept in the City of Edmonds 2006 Streetscape Plan and 2008 Community Cultural Plan, is a key project located within the public right of way linking the historic Edmonds Center for the Arts to the retail core of downtown. The project will enhance pedestrian connections through creation of a linear park utilizing low impact development, highlight cultural assets including public art, historic buildings, and community history, and encourage mixed use development and adaptive reuse, thus enhancing and promoting economic development. Phase one is currently underway to create an implementation and funding plan. This complex planning process will study installing and incorporating above and below ground infrastructure improvements and replacements, e.g., street lighting. roadway and water lines. Packet Page 136 of 189 Aquatic Center Since the construction of Yost Pool in 1972, there have been many discussions and efforts to either cover Yost or locate a year round aquatic center at a different site. The current Yost Pool is now in its 37th season, has been well- maintained, and continues to function adequately. As is the case of other pools of this era, maintenance becomes more difficult as the pool ages. The options for an aquatic center are many and run the gamut from continuing to maintain our current facility, to developing a regional aquatic center. A feasibility study, scheduled to be completed this fall, will identify options, look at renovation and development costs, maintenance and operations, and cost recovery to better enable informed decisions on next steps. Art Center / Art Museum For over 25 years, the arts community in Edmonds has expressed interest in having a visual arts center or art museum. The idea has had support from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, which curates a gallery space leased from the City in the Frances Anderson Center and operates ArtWorks, and from the Edmonds Arts Commission. The 2008 Community Cultural Plan recommends that the City fund an analysis for a multi-purpose visual arts facility that might be created through public/private community partnerships, including the Edmonds Center for the Arts and possibly the underutilized facility on their property. Civic Playfield Acquisition This 8.1 acre park is owned by Edmonds School District #15 and is one of the most active in the City park system for ongoing athletics, fitness, skateboarding, and as the site for hosting major special regional events such as July 4th and the Taste of Edmonds. The City currently has a 40-year lease with the district that expires in 2021. The Edmonds Boys & Girls Club sub-leases the former Junior High Field House from the City. Downtown Street Lighting This project addresses a long standing business owner request to install decorative street lighting along Main St. from 5th Ave. to the intersection at 6th Ave. The City Council set aside $75,000 to help fund this project. Unfortunately, the sidewalks are also in a state of disrepair and would need to be replaced after the street lighting work is completed. Fire Administration Training Classroom, Non-Burning Training Facility Options abound for the Van Mere parcel to include: 1. Two-story, 3,600 square foot structure with seven covered parking places that meets ADA and post-2009 water retention requirements ($900,000) Packet Page 137 of 189 2. Two-story, 800 square foot, concrete, non-burning training facility with asphalt surround ($180,000) that utilizes the Option #1 water retention pond 3. Construct Option #1 above, sell four building lots at rear of property and locate non-burning training facility elsewhere 4. Construct Option #2 above, sell remaining buildable lots and locate Fire Administration elsewhere 5. Buy and hold. 6. Other. Regardless of option selected, investigate possibility of sharing / expanding existing Station 16 retention pond to save money. Due to placement on the lot, the removal of interior wiring, demolition of two exterior walls, and roof teardown, a remodel of the existing residence is not financially feasible. Former Woodway High School Fields In 2005, the Edmonds School District took the lead in bringing together interested parties and commissioning conceptual plans and cost estimates for this regional opportunity. A conceptual plan would create an exceptional year round lighted facility encompassing multiple synthetic turf fields and many other park amenities. Partnering with City staff, a Citizen’s Advisory Group, and local legislators, Local Community Project Capital Budget requests of $3 million were presented to the Legislature in both the 2006 and 2007 sessions but were not successful. The Advisory Group intends to meet early in the fall to consider funding options including submitting another capital budget request in 2009. Parks / Facilities Maintenance Building This building is located within City Park at the corner of SR 104 and Pine Street. The current building is 40 years old, too small, and in need of major renovation or replacement as infrastructure systems have reached or gone beyond their life expectancy. The building was constructed by City staff when that staff numbered ten and now houses double that and triple in the spring/summer months. Many functions exist in congested and awkward spaces while in other cases functions are performed in substandard areas. Environmental issues are a concern in terms safety, air quality and stormwater management of the maintenance compound. This building was the subject of a pre design report presented to Council Committee on May 13, 2008. Senior Center Building This building was purchased and renovated by the city during the late 1960’s and 1970’s. Unfortunately, the building foundations are not adequately supported and the floors are settling at an uneven rate. In addition, this building needs additional structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. A recent engineering study estimates the cost to correct these foundation and structural deficiencies at approximately $4 million. This work does not take into Packet Page 138 of 189 consideration the long term needs of the Senior Center. Planning needs to begin to determine the space and programming needs for the next generation of users before significant money is invested on the building. Van Meer Property Acquisition The 1999 purchase and sale agreement for the current Station 16 property included the right of first refusal on the adjacent eastern parcel for the express City Council purpose of future Fire Department use. Located on the third floor of City Hall since 1997, Fire Administration is the only city department administration not co-located with the primary group of employees we are responsible to lead and manage. For 11 years, the City Hall location has lacked sufficient space and created service delivery inefficiencies. The opportunity to acquire the Van Mere property is a once in a lifetime chance to locate Fire Administration adjacent to an existing Fire Station, construct an adequately sized training classroom, and build a non-burning training facility. If for whatever reason, the property is not used for the purposes described above, it is an investment in the future to acquire such a site for Fire Administration and a training facility co-located with a new Station 20 site better suited to reduce emergency response times into the busiest map grids in the City. Packet Page 139 of 189 AM-1628 10. City of Edmonds Letter to Sound Transit Regarding Phase 2 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:10 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title City of Edmonds letter to Sound Transit regarding Phase 2. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the Mayor and City Council President to sign the attached June 24, 2008 letter to the Sound Transit Executive Board. Previous Council Action On January 24, 2006 the Edmonds City Council approved Resolution 1117 expressing support for studying light rail between Ash Way and City of Everett along Interstate 5. Narrative As a follow-up to a Sound Transit Phase 2 public outreach effort, the Sound Transit (ST) Executive Board will be reviewing investment options for ST2 later this month. The Board’s tentative schedule for review and possible consideration is as follows: • June 26 Board Meeting – discuss feedback on public outreach effort coupled with discussion of ST2 plan and possible board member amendments • July 10 Board meeting – act on proposed amendments and provide direction to ST staff to prepare ST2 plan, ballot resolutions and supporting document • July 24 Board meeting – adopt plan and potential ballot resolutions In April of 2008, Edmonds Mayor Gary Haakenson sent a letter to Sound Transit Executive Board members Reardon, Roberts and Dawson expressing his concerns about Sound Transit’s proposed draft Phase 2 System-wide Service Development Plan. The purpose of the attached letter is to reiterate these concerns in addition to expressing the City’s positions on various issues prior to the Sound Transit Board taking action at any of the above listed meetings. Specific concerns highlighted, or positions expressed, within the letter include support for extending light rail into Snohomish County, locating a Sound Transit light rail station near Mountlake Terrace along Interstate 5, and including funding for Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, as part of Sound Transit Phase 2. The letter also contains statements expressing a lack of support for operating Bus Rapid Transit in lieu of the light rail along the Interstate 5 corridor. Packet Page 140 of 189 As referenced above, Sound Transit will be rendering a decision(s) soon on a Phase 2 package of investments and related options, in addition to setting a timeframe as to when a Phase 2 package should be placed on a ballot. As such, it is important for all effected communities to state their position(s) prior to the Sound Transit Executive Board finalizing a Phase 2 package. Note: Attached is a June 16, 2008 letter from the City of Mountlake Terrace which expresses similar positions to the City of Edmonds. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 Link: Exhibit 2 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 04:52 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 06:23 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/20/2008 08:29 AM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton  Started On: 06/17/2008 05:02 PM Final Approval Date: 06/20/2008 Packet Page 141 of 189 June 24, 2008 Mayor Greg Nickels, Chair Sound Transit Executive Board Sound Transit 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Sound Transit Phase 2 System Wide Service Development Plan North Corridor Service Development Plan Dear Mayor Nickels: In April of 2008, Edmonds Mayor Gary Haakenson sent a letter to Sound Transit Board members Reardon, Roberts and Dawson expressing his concerns about Sound Transit’s proposed draft Phase 2 System-wide Service Development Plan. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate these concerns in addition to expressing the City’s positions on various issues. Although the City of Edmonds appreciates hosting a Sounder North commuter rail station, only four peak hour round trip trains will be allowed to operate daily between Everett and Seattle under the existing agreement between Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Sound Transit. Alternatives to this limited service are urgently needed along the north Puget Sound corridor. While the draft East and South Corridor Development Plans include extending light rail to the Northgate and Overlake areas within King County, missing from the 12-year Phase 2 proposal is an extension of light rail via Interstate 5 into Snohomish County, one of the fastest growing areas in the Puget Sound region with the highest levels of traffic congestion. Instead, light rail would end at Northgate with no clear plan or commitment to extend it northward into Snohomish County. Given the high demand and already high levels of traffic congestion, light rail is the most optimal transportation choice for commuters in south Snohomish County. According to a draft North Corridor Service Development Plan, in lieu of extending light rail to Snohomish County, expanded bus services is proposed to operate along the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor, between Everett and Seattle. This means that bus service will travel within already congested I-5 HOV lanes, thus providing no real benefit to commuters. We believe expanding bus service along Interstate 5 in lieu of light rail is not in the best interest of Snohomish County as service will degrade as congestion within the HOV system worsens. Light rail in the near term is the option that will most efficiently serve these areas. As originally proposed by Sound Transit this past November, we strongly support including a Mountlake Terrace light rail transit station as a part of ST Phase 2 (ST2). Community Transit’s new five-level structured parking garage and its companion project the Mountlake Terrace “Flyer” Freeway Station located within close proximity of the State Route 104 / Interstate 5 intersection, redevelopment opportunities within Mountlake Terrace’s downtown, and lack of all day commuter rail service in the Edmonds/Mukilteo/Shoreline area, collectively provide justification for Mountlake Terrace hosting a light rail station. Our communities, following the guidelines of the Growth Management Act, are strategically directing growth to our downtowns, neighborhood centers and other commercial/high density residential areas along the I-5 corridor. Packet Page 142 of 189 Sound Transit 2 Proposal 2 June 24, 2008 As depicted on the North Corridor segment of the System-wide Service Development Plan, ST2 investments are also planned for the Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. The City of Edmonds supports additional ST2 investments for this project at a funding level of $30 million. This amount is consistent with the level of funding contained within the 2007 Roads and Transit package. We respectfully request the Sound Transit Board consider a plan that includes funding to extend light rail north into Snohomish County, ultimately terminating in Everett. Understanding the financial constraints resulting from the current lack of available funding options, we ask that at a minimum, Sound Transit structure a Phase 2 package that extends light rail north into Snohomish County, terminating at Lynnwood or Ash Way. A plan that does not provide funding to extend light rail into Snohomish County as a part of Phase 2 will likely not be supported by the City of Edmonds. We believe that the extension of light rail into Snohomish County will benefit this region for decades to come and will make a long-term difference in addressing traffic congestion. Sincerely, Edmonds City Council Gary Haakenson Michael Plunckett, President Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President pro tem cc: Sound Transit Board members Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer, Sound Transit Mountlake Terrace City Council City of Lynnwood City Council John Caulfield, MLT City Manager Stephen Clifton, Edmonds Community Services & Econ Dev’t Director Packet Page 143 of 189 Packet Page 144 of 189 AM-1626 11. Unopened Alley Right-of-way Between 8th Ave N & 9th Ave N Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:10 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Proposed Resolution to initiate the vacation of the unopened alley right-of-way located between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, north of Daley Street. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Set July 22, 2008 as the date for a public hearing on the proposed alley right-of-way vacation. Previous Council Action Narrative There is a 7.5 foot unopened alley right-of-way located north of Daley Street, between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, which was originally dedicated as part of the original Plat of the City of Edmonds. (See Exhibit 2) Normally alleyways are 16 feet in width. It was most likely anticipated that the properties north of the alley right-of-way would dedicate the additional 7.5 feet but that never happened. The City has no improvements within the alley right-of-way. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.050, the City Council may initiate a vacation of right-of-way with the passage of a resolution. A public hearing must be held on the proposed right-of-way vacation between 20 to 60 days after passage of the resolution. It is recommended that July 22, 2008 be set as the date to conduct the public hearing on the right-of-way vacation. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Alley Vacation Resolution Link: Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/17/2008 09:03 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/17/2008 10:07 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 12:11 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman  Started On: 06/16/2008 02:56 PM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 145 of 189 Packet Page 146 of 189 Packet Page 147 of 189 Packet Page 148 of 189 Packet Page 149 of 189 Packet Page 150 of 189 AM-1638 12. Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element and Form-Based Zoning Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:06/24/2008 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:30 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Presentation and discussion on 2008 Planning initiatives addressing (1) Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element and (2) Form-Based Zoning. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff No action is required. Previous Council Action The subject of "form-based codes" was discussed at the Community Services/Development Services Committee on May 13, 2008. Narrative The purpose of this item is to provide Council with information on two planning initiatives being worked on this year. 1. Form-Based Zoning. 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 zoning, continuing to employ more traditional features where they reinforce Edmonds' character. Essentially this is what is referred to as a "hybrid" approach, something the City has been pursuing ever since it started including design parameters in its zoning regulations (we just didn't have a name for it). The benefits should be a more streamlined code that is easier to understand and use. Perhaps a quote from an article on hybrid zoning says it best: "In many built out communities, the "place making" philosophy of form-based zoning is unnecessary - a place is already "made," so to speak. In those instances, the form-based controls are used to maintain the existing established character and guarantee that new development fits in, adding a layer of character preservation to the code." [Exhibit 3, page 2] 2. Community Sustainability Element. "Sustainability" is a term that has gotten a fair amount of press in recent years. One of the more succinct definitions of the concept is (to paraphrase): Packet Page 151 of 189 “Meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Staff has been working with the Mayor's Climate Committee on developing an overall approach to issues associated with climate change, consistent with the resolutions passed by the City Council. A key component of the overall approach is developing a new "Community Sustainability Element" for inclusion in the city's Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual diagram showing how the new element would "fit" into the comprehensive plan is attached, along with what is termed an "outline draft" of the new element. The intent is to collect and summarize some existing goals and policies (primarily those already relating to the environment) while expanding on these to address the expansive issues that arise from the climate change and sustainability subject. In some ways, the new sustainability element can be seen as the "glue" that ties together and gives an overall purpose to the various elements of the comprehensive plan, and provides a framework for dealing with and relating complex economic, environmental and social issues important to the Edmonds community. Exhibits 1-4 include information on form-based and hybrid zoning, while Exhibits 5 and 6 relate to the Community Sustainability Element. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Form-Based Codes Summary Link: Exhibit 2: Urban Land Article Link: Exhibit 3: Form-Based Codes Article Link: Exhibit 4: Hybrid Codes Article Link: Exhibit 5: Sustainability Element Concept Diagram Link: Exhibit 6: Sustainability Element Outline Draft Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 03:39 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/19/2008 03:48 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/19/2008 04:05 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave  Started On: 06/19/2008 12:20 PM Final Approval Date: 06/19/2008 Packet Page 152 of 189 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 153 of 189 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 154 of 189 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 155 of 189 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 156 of 189 174 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 157 of 189 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 158 of 189 176 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 159 of 189 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 160 of 189 178 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 161 of 189 ZONINGPRACTICE May 2004 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ISSUE NUMBER FIVE PRACTICE FORM-BASED ZONING 5 ZPMay04cover 6/24/04 10:27 AM Page 2 Packet Page 162 of 189 Form-Based Development Codes By David Rouse, AICP, and Nancy Zobl, AICP New development codes are emerging that focus on regulating physical form as an alternative to conventional Euclidean zoning. new, practical experience in administering them is limited. As interest in alternatives to conventional zoning continues to grow, more communities will implement form- based regulatory approaches. This article describes the initial experiences of some of these communities, with the proviso that the advantages and disadvantages of dif- ferent approaches will become clearer as they are further tested in practice. FORM-BASED CODING Form-based coding emerged out of the New Urbanist movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s. New Urbanism is based on the concept of walkable neighborhoods and small towns, with the compact, mixed-use develop- ment patterns of the pre-World War II era as models. Form-based coding is a regulatory approach designed to shape the physical form of development while setting only broad parameters for use. According to Peter Katz, former director of the Congress for the New Urbanism and a proponent of this approach, form-based codes focus on what is desirable rather than what is forbidden, the underlying principles having their foundation in a vision or plan developed through community work- shops and charrettes. Regulatory standards prescribe physical elements, such as building height, setbacks, lot size, parking location, etc., to achieve quality design in context with surrounding areas. They also seek to integrate private development with the public realm, typically addressing the character of civic buildings, public streets, and civic spaces. In theory, form-based coding is a com- prehensive, communitywide approach designed to achieve better physical devel- In reaction to these trends, new, form- based approaches to development regulation are being proposed as alternatives to conven- tional zoning. These approaches can be charac- terized as prescriptive or contextual in nature. Prescriptive approaches seek to codify the phys- ical parameters of development based upon a normative position on ideal urban form (typi- cally derived from the pre-World War II model of traditional development). Contextual approaches, on the other hand, look to the characteristics of the surrounding environment for guidance in regulating the physical form of new development. Collectively, these approaches are referred to as form-based devel- opment codes. A basic premise of form-based development codes is that the regulation of physical form (not use) is the key to producing a better built environment. The following text describes the basic features of three different types of form-based development codes: Form-Based Coding, Form District Zoning, and the SmartCode. For each type, a series of questions is posed regarding its application in regulations adopted by local jurisdictions, based upon a selected case study. These questions are: ■How comprehensive is its application? Does it address the entire community or discrete areas within the community? Does it replace or supplement conventional zon- ing systems? ■How does it deal with the regulation of use, the focus of conventional zoning? ■How is it working in practice? Form-based development codes are an emerging concept implemented by a small but increasing number of jurisdictions to date. Because those codes are relatively The conventional zoning model in use through- out the United States is based on the separa- tion of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, density controls, and proscriptive stan- dards for key development attributes (e.g., building setbacks and heights). The historical antecedents of this model include the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the case of Village of Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co., which legitimized the separation of uses to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and the 1916 New York City zoning code, which established dimensional requirements to permit light and air and prevent overcrowding. Published in the 1920s, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act was ultimately adopted by all 50 states. It is still the basic model used by jurisdictions to regu- late development, although many features have been added to local codes over the years to address emerging issues (e.g., overlay districts and environmental performance standards). In recent decades, dissatisfaction with the perceived effects of conventional zoning on urban and suburban landscapes has grown among citizens and practitioners. While a variety of factors have worked together to promote development trends, such as the loss of traditional urban form and proliferation of commercial strip devel- opment and “cookie cutter” subdivisions, zoning has been identified as a primary cul- prit. On the one hand, the separation of uses and limits on density have contributed to excessive consumption of land (suburban sprawl). On the other, zoning’s lack of a positive prescription for physical form has facilitated the intrusion of incompatible development types into traditional urban neighborhoods and districts. ZONING PRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION |page 2 ZPMay04.txt 6/24/04 2:14 PM Page 2 Packet Page 163 of 189 opment patterns throughout a city or region. In practice, current applications are limited to specified geographic areas due to the newness of the concept, the inten- sive effort needed to develop a form-based code, and political environments that are slow to accept change. California communi- ties have been among the first to adopt the concept, primarily as an implementation mechanism for the specific plan, a provi- sion in the state code authorizing legisla- tively adopted development plans for geo- graphic subareas of a community. Two notable examples include the Pleasant Hill BART Station Form Based Code in Contra Costa County, California, and the Regulating Plan for the Central Hercules Plan in Hercules, California. Elsewhere in the country, a number of communities are developing or adopting form-based codes (e.g., Iowa City, Iowa, Woodford County, Kentucky, and Chicago). One recent example is Arlington County, Virginia, which has implemented a form- based code to revitalize Columbia Pike, an older commercial corridor. eters for building form, including height, set- backs, and fenestration. They also set broad parameters for mixed uses allowed on the first and upper floors, except that the neighbor- hood frontage sites are primarily restricted to residential uses with some allowances for home offices. The form-based code is applied as an overlay option to the existing zoning districts. Developers are provided a variety of incen- tives to select this option, including an expe- dited permitting process for developments of 40,000 square feet or less (larger develop- ments are subject to special exception review), financial incentives such as modified tax increment financing and rehabilitation tax credits, and relaxed parking requirements. According to Richard Tucker, county plan- ner for the Columbia Pike Initiative, the develop- ment community has expressed considerable interest in the form-based code since its adop- tion. Developers, architects, and members of the Home Builders Association have praised the clarity of the code and the streamlined review process. Several pending mixed-use develop- ment proposals are the direct result of the form- based code. Citizens also support the new code, having been directly involved in shaping it through several design charrettes. Despite the appar- ent initial successes, Tu cker notes some chal- lenges related to the newness of the code. Issues tend to arise as proposals are submit- ted by developers who have problems with the standards of the code, ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! During June 21-July 2, go online to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. David Rouse, AICP, and Nancy Zobl, AICP, will be available to answer questions about this article. Go the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, justsubmit your questions about the article using an e-mail link. The authors will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages. About the Authors David Rouse, AICP, is a Senior Associate with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT). Nancy Zobl, AICP, is a planner with WRT. ZONING PRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION |page 3 RESIDENTIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS RESIDENTIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS PARKING ACCESSORY UNIT The Columbia Pike Revitalization Initiative: Illustrates the vision for change along the 3.5-mile corridor under the Columbia Pike Revitalization District Form-Based Code. Ar l i n g t o n C o u n t y , G e o f f r e y F e r r e l l A s s o c i a t e s Special conditions: within 100 feet of Main Street required building line; Wakefield to Four-Mile Run, maximum four stories Maximum six stories Minimum three stories Within 40 feet of local street lot or existing single-family use; maximum 32 feet eaves or parapet height Street walls required on alley and common lot lines; seven feet maximum height MINIMUM NINE FEET, FOUR INCH CLEAR 15 FEET CLEAR 18 INCH MAXIMUM The Columbia Pike Initiative is a long- range economic development vision to create a vibrant commercial corridor and urban center along a 3.5-mile section of Columbia Pike. The Pike had experienced little development activ- ity in the past 40 years, despite its location in the high-growth Capital Area. The Columbia Pike Master Plan was adopted in 2002 after numerous public charrettes. The subsequent Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District Form-Based Code was prepared by Geoffrey Ferrell Associates (as subconsultants to Dover, Kohl & Partners) and adopted in February 2003. This code was designed to implement the vision of the Columbia Pike Initiative, including creation of a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district with a variety of retail, resi- dential, and office uses. The new code contains three main com- ponents: the regulating plan, building enve- lope standards, and architectural and streetscape standards. Analogous to a zoning map but much more detailed in its prescrip- tion of physical form, the regulating plan iden- tifies the building envelope standards to be applied to specific properties, which are coded by their street frontage (Main Street, Avenue, Local, and Neighborhood). The build- ing envelope standards establish basic param- ZPMay04.txt 6/24/04 2:14 PM Page 3 Packet Page 164 of 189 including build-to lines, parking standards, and standard prototypesthatvary from the prescribed physical form. The county intends to reevaluate the code to address some of these issues before applying the form-based approach to other areas. FORM DISTRICT ZONING Form districts emerged as a concept in the Cornerstone 2020 Comprehensive Plan for Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky (devel- oped in the mid-1990s and adopted in 2000). The Cornerstone 2020 planning process revealed a general dissatisfaction with conven- tional regulations and practices that result in the separation of uses, sprawling development patterns, and the imposition of suburban forms in traditional neighborhoods. A Community Form Committee was charged with seeking new ways of addressing future development pat- terns, recognizing the need for increased diver- sity, certainty, and flexibility in the regulatory process. The resulting form district concept established 11 districts that prescribe desired development patterns in context with the sur- rounding environment, from the downtown urban core to traditional neighborhood and sub- urban marketplace (commercial) districts. To implement this concept in a politically acceptable manner, a new Land Development Code was developed as a “two-tiered” approach. This approach combines the use regulations of the preexisting 39 zoning dis- tricts with form districts that regulate density and intensity and prescribe contextual design standards, such as build-to lines based upon the established development pattern. All dimensional regulations and standards were moved from the zoning districts to the form districts. Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC and Clarion Associates were consultants to Louisville and Jefferson County in the develop- ment of the form districts. Adopted by Louisville Metro and the cities of Hurstbourne and Lyndon, the new Land Development Code took effect in March 2003. Several other jurisdictions in Jefferson County are in the process of adopting the new code. The application of the form districts on a regional basis is a departure from the nor- malapplication of form-based coding to spe- cific geographic areas within a community. opers have embraced the form district concept as a progressive option that allows flexibility for innovative design. Overall, the development community and residents seem to prefer the form district concept because it establishes a sense of predictability in design that is not overly restrictive, but promotes compatibility with adjacent development. While asserting that form district zoning is a change in a positive direction, the Louisville Metro staff acknowledges the learn- ing curve required for its implementation. As a new process for all involved, the impacts are not yet fully measurable and a number of issues have been raised regarding the appli- cation of the form district design standards to site-specific conditions. To address these issues, revisions to the regulations will be made over the next year. At this time, Louisville Metro is about two years away from considering a transition from the two-tiered approach to a more complete integration of conventional zoning with the form districts. Nevertheless, according to the planning and ZONING PRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION |page 4 The Columbia Pike Corridor is an illustrative vision for revitalizing a segment of Columbia Pike, an urban corridor that has seen little development over the past 30 years. Louisville Metro’s form-based code experience: new office develop- ment in the Traditional Marketplace Corridor Form District. However, existing use and density regula- tions were maintained to minimize the politi- calissues inherent in rezoning the entire region. According to Louisville Metro plan- ning and design staff, the initial reaction of developers to the adopted form district regulations has varied. One developer of a small shopping center in the neighborhood form district, who was initially skeptical of the new code, has since incorporated the recom- mendations of the urban design staff, including buildings arrayed around a pedestrian-scale central parking area that func- tions as a “town square.” Other devel- Ar l i n g t o n C o u n t y , G e o f f r e y F e r r e l l A s s o c i a t e s B e r r y – P r i n d l e A r c h i t e c t s i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h A b n e y – H u n i n g h a k e D e s i g n G r o u p s ZPMay04.txt 6/24/04 2:14 PM Page 4 Packet Page 165 of 189 design director, Charles Cash, Louisville Metro is looking towards larger future development goals that conventional zoning may not sup- port. THE SMARTCODE The SmartCode has its foundation in the con- cept of transect planning, an approach to the implementation of New Urbanist and Smart Growth principles advocated by Andres Duany and Emily Talen. Drawing on ecological analo- gies, transect planning establishes a series of environments – called “ecozones” – on a con- tinuum from rural to urban. These ecozones are distinguished by varying density and char- acter of the built environment. The transect incorporates the New Urbanist principles of mixed land uses, the importance of public space, and pedestrian accessibility through- out the continuum. These principles are expressed at different scales and in different forms depending upon location on the tran- sect (e.g., hamlet, village, and downtown). As opposed to the normal process of writ- ing a comprehensive plan and then modifying zoning and development regulations to fit it, transect planning views the plan and the code as inseparable. The transect zone system has been coded by Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company and copyrighted as the “SmartCode.” Any use is allowed in the T-6 zone and each new use proposed in the T-4 and T-5 zones requires a special use permit with a flexible review process. According to city planner Geoffrey Bornemann, several new mixed-use develop- ments have been proposed in the city since adoption of the code. Whether this develop- ment interest can be attributed to the code is not certain since there is already a strong real estate market in Saratoga Springs. However, the flexibility of the new code is attracting developers who are responsive to more inno- vative design practices. More traditional developers, who were at first skeptical, are also starting to embrace the new code. Saratoga Springs is already seeing posi- tive results from the SmartCode but is still about two to three years away from replacing all existing zoning districts with the transect zones. The city is planning to extend the con- cept to residential neighborhoods next to incorporate more mixed use. CONCLUSION The general intent of form-based develop- ment codes is to replace the conventional Euclidean zoning model with regulations that shape the form of development across the different landscapes within a community or region. At this time, communities that have adopted form-based coding and the SmartCode have taken an incremental regula- tory approach by addressing specific geo- graphic areas, typically beginning with the urban core. Further experience is required to determine the potential for expansion to other parts of the community, although the SmartCode provides a more complete system that addresses suburban and rural as well as urban contexts. Louisville Metro appears to be the first jurisdiction to adopt the concept on a regional scale through the form districts. Based on the experience to date, the issues inherent in applying generalized design stan- dards to site-specific conditions and expecta- tions is one key challenge for the regional application of form-based development codes. The status of conventional zoning as the accepted paradigm for regulating development presents another challenge for form-based development codes. Saratoga Springs is the ZONING PRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION |page 5 The SmartCode is made available to com- munities to purchase as a license, establishing a regulatory template to build upon and tailor to their individual circumstances. The tem- plate includes general parameters for transect zones, ranging from T-1 (the “Natural Zone”) to T-6 (the “Urban Core Zone”). Sample design standards, including building height, frontage, intensity of uses, and street design, are pro- vided for each transect zone. The theory behind the SmartCode is to encompass the spectrum of landscapes within an entire community or region. In practice, however, similar to the form-based codes that have been adopted, the initial application of the SmartCode has been to distinct areas within a community. Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, has incorporated the tran- sect planning concept on a regional basis into its comprehensive plan and is beginning to translate the concept to the zoning regulations on a neighborhood or subarea basis. The city of Saratoga Springs, New York, was one of the first communities to adopt the SmartCode to implement comprehensive plan principles, including enhanced urban infill in the downtown core as an alternative to the sprawl- ing development patterns facilitated by conven- tional zoning. The transect model was applied as a new approach to concentrate development in the Downtown District, which was one of the seven special develop- ment areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The Downtown District was divided into three urban transect categories that replaced the existing zon- ing districts: the Urban Neighborhood (T-4), Neighborhood Center (T-5), and Urban Core (T-6). Design standards were established for set- backs, height, parking location, street design, façade treatments, and creation of a public realm. The transect zones regulate use in a limited capacity to encourage mixed-use development. The Sarasota Springs Transect: The Neighborhood Center Transect Zone permits a wide mix of uses, building types, and quality civic spaces to enhance the pedestrian environment. C it y o f S a r a s o t a S p r i n g s Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e ZPMay04.txt 6/24/04 2:14 PM Page 5 Packet Page 166 of 189 Geoffrey Ferrell, Geoffrey Ferrell Associates LLC; Ann Hammond, Assistant Executive Director, Nashville/Davidson County Planning Commission; and Richard Tucker, Planner, Arlington County Planning Commission. ■ only one of the three communities discussed above that has effectively replaced existing zon- ing (at least within a specified area) through the SmartCode. Arlington County applies the form- based code as an overlay option to the existing code while Louisville Metro has retained the existing zoning districts to regulate use and density, shifting design standards to the form districts. In general, form-based codes regulate use but are less proscriptive than conventional zoning, typically encouraging mixed uses and housing types. Again, the experience to date suggests that replacement of conventional zon- ing with form-based systems will be an incre- mental process as the concepts are further tested in practice and political acceptance grows. “Hybrid” codes that integrate aspects of form-based and conventional approaches are likely to be common responses. Overall, representatives of each of the case study communities describe positive outcomes from their limited experience with the form-based development codes, including increased urban infill development and some higher-quality site and building design pro- posals. However, as with any new concept, they also acknowledge some issues, primarily the need for adjustments to address unfore- seen, site-specific circumstances. The application of form-based develop- ment codes is new, and the few communities that have adopted various forms of these codes have done so in the last year or two. Therefore, it is not yet possible to provide a definitive account of the comparative benefits and detri- ments of different approaches, or overall suc- cess of these approaches as an alternative to conventional zoning. A follow-up evaluation of the experience of these and other communities in several years is needed to provide a more conclusive assessment of the success of form- based development codes in practice. The authors would like to thank the following indi- viduals for sharing their experiences with form- based development codes: R. Wayne Bennett, Context Town Planning (formerly Director of the Louisville/Jefferson County Division of Planning and Development Services); Geoffrey Bornemann, City Planner, City of Saratoga Springs; Deborah Bilitski, Esquire, Jefferson County Attorney’s Office; Charles Ca sh, Director, Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services; David Hulefeld, Assistant Director, Louisville Metro Planning and Design Services; funding for pubic works, infrastructure, parking, and streetscape improvements to the area. All these improvements have been substantially funded by sales tax revenue generated by retail uses. Pedestrian activity and the quality of the downtown business mix are also concerns. Highland Park analyzed land use in the business district and found that uses not gener- ating sales taxes account for 30 percent of the total first-floor uses in the business district, and financial institutions represent 12 percent of those uses. However, when looking at the actual square footage of the first-floor space occupied by those uses, nonretail uses occu- pied 34 percent of the district’s square footage, and financial institutions used 67 percent of that portion. The analysis also found that the median linear building frontage for uses gener- ating sales tax in the district is 40 feet, whereas it is 37 feet for those not generating sales tax, and 200 feet for financial institutions, which often locate in prime corner storefronts. Highland Park is now considering the creation of an overlay district on the major pedestrian-oriented streets in the business district. According to planning technician Ben Carlisle, the purpose of the overlay zone is “to limit the impact of non-sales-tax-generating uses on our core pedestrian streets.” Carlisle says that the main issues that concerned the city were the impact of nonretail uses on sales taxes, pedestrian traffic, and the city’s goals for maintaining its retail core. Long Grove adopted a 90-day morato- rium in February 2004 for new nonretail uses in its business districts, following the comple- NEWS BRIEFS ILLINOIS COMMUNITIES LIMIT BANK BRANCHES AND NONRETAIL USES IN RETAIL DISTRICTS By Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP Responding to concerns over the potential loss of sales taxes and pedestrian activity in com- mercial districts, several suburban Chicago com- munities recently issued temporary moratoriums on development of nonretail uses and financial institutions in central business districts. The cities of Highland Park, Long Grove, Batavia, Libertyville, Lake Forest, Hinsdale, and Buffalo Grove, Illinois, have each passed or are considering passing moratoriums that restrict development of nonretail uses in their down- town districts, in order to gain time to figure out how to deal with their negative impacts. Highland Park passed a 130-day morato- rium on new permits for street-level business and personal services, office, professional, communications, recreational, educational, and financial uses in its central business district, in order to consider limiting nonretail uses in the district. The moratorium was passed because of concerns that development of nonretail uses in the central business district would jeopardize ■Duany, Andres, and Emily Ta len, “Transect Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 68, No. 3, Summer 2002. ■Freund, Adrian P., “FORM, Character and Context in Jefferson County, Kentucky,” APA San Diego Conference Proceedings, 1997. ■Katz, Peter, “New Approaches to Development Regulation: Draft Introduction,” The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the American Planning Association, January 2003. ■Parfrey, Eric, “Duany, New Urbanists, and ‘Form-Based’ Zoning Dominate State APA Conference,” Planners Tabloid, Sacramento Valley Section, California Chapter, American Planning Association, January 2004. ■Peirce, Neil, “Zoning: Ready to Be Reformed?” The Washington Post Writers Group, February 2, 2003. ■Ta len, Emily, “Help for Urban Planning: The Transect Strategy,” Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 7, No. 3, October 2002. REFERENCES ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION |page 6 ZPMay04.txt 6/24/04 2:14 PM Page 6 Packet Page 167 of 189 VOL. 21, NO. 5 Zoning Practice (formerly Zoning News) is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for$65 (U.S.) and $90 (for- eign). W. Paul Farmer, AICP, Executive Director; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced atAPA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and Michael Davidson, Editors; Barry Bain, AICP, Fay Dolnick, Josh Edwards, Megan Lewis, AICP, Marya Morris, AICP, Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP, Lynn M. Ross, Reporters; Kathleen Quirsfeld, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright ©2004 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC20036; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronicor mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permis- sion in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. Cover photo provided by Urban Advantage.com and Dover, Kohl and Partners. ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION |page 7 tion of a business district plan. The village is drafting a new list of permitted and special uses for the business district. According to vil- lage planner Edmond Cage, the village is “not looking to overly restrict these particular uses; they just want the ability to review them.” Because the village does not have any sales taxes, and has a limited amount of avail- able commercial property, the proliferation of new bank branches in the business district hasraised concerns for township officials. Cage says, “Banks predominantly have raised the concern, but whether it is a bank or an office building does not matter. The result is a loss of sales taxes.” According to Cage, the purpose of the moratorium and the proposed ordinance is to assure that “whatever com- mercial development comes into Long Grove is the best that Long Grove can get.” Batavia established a moratorium on the issuance of new permits for banks in its retail- oriented business district. This ordinance was enacted in response to the proliferation of new bank branches in the city’s prime retail corridor. It was passed based on the idea that, because banks do not rely on drive-by traffic, they are inherently destination uses, which unnecessar- ily compete with strictly retail uses, which do rely on drive-by traffic and parking facilities. According to the ordinance, if the bank prolifera- tion trend continues, the city will see a detri- mental impact on the economic health and vitality of the business district. Batavia planner and zoning officer Rick Smeaton says the city is using the moratorium to “look at the effects of banks on traffic, pedes- trian, and parking patterns to see if they are compatible with the surrounding retail uses.” Libertyville adopted a more general ordi- nance in March 2004 that allows village com- missions to establish temporary moratoriums on any land use in the village. Although a mora- torium on nonretail uses has not yet been established, the ordinance was passed in response to the proliferation of banks and non- sales tax generators in the downtown district. The Libertyville zoning ordinance already limits to 10 percent the total first-floor street frontage that may be occupied by office uses in the downtown commercial district. After that limit has been exceeded, new office uses in the district require a special permit. However, according to John Spoden, director of community development, “The district already exceeds that percentage, and the requirement has been difficult to enforce.” Spoden says the current requirement is based on the linear street frontage, and there have been questions about which buildings are covered under the ordinance. In response to these concerns, the Libertyville planning commission created a subcommittee consisting of representatives from the economic development commission, the Main Street program, and city staff, which recommended revising the ordinance. “What we are looking at,” Spoden says, “is putting aside this percentage requirement and saying that, in the front 35 feet of all buildings, offices and financial institutions are not allowed on the first floor.” However, the rest of the footprint on the first floor may still be used for office and financial uses. Spoden notes that the 36-foot dimension is based on studies of the footprints and dimensions of buildings in the downtown area. The village hasscheduled public hearings to discuss the proposal. Spoden says, “We are trying to increase the retail opportunity in the down- town while recognizing that we do have a pedestrian-oriented downtown.” Buffalo Grove passed a moratorium in March 2004 on the development of new banks and financial institutions in the village’s busi- ness districts, citing a recent drastic increase in the number of development proposals for these uses. According to Assistant Village Manager Ghida Neukirch, the village’s concerns included the increased security attention and service from the local police department that banks require, the long-term needs of financial institu- tions, and sales taxes. The village is considering possible changes to its zoning ordinance to address the issue. Two other suburban Chicago communi- ties have also passed moratoriums. Lake Forest passed a moratorium on development of nonretail uses in nonresidential districts in order to review use regulations in business districts in the city. The issue is being ana- lyzed in order to preserve the vitality and commercial character of the central business district. Hinsdale passed a moratorium in March 2004 for new first-floor uses that do not generate retail sales taxes in business dis- tricts. The ordinance includes a list of 76 non- retail sales tax-generating uses that are cov- ered by the moratorium, including banks, beauty shops, real estate offices, tax prepara- tion services, and travel agencies. Although each of these communities has approached this issue differently, one com- mon factor is that the proliferation of bank branches in retail districts was the impetus for reviewing the impacts of nonretail uses in retail districts. The moratoriums were enacted because of concerns about the impact of non- retail uses on pedestrian traffic, parking, eco- nomic development, sales taxes, and the quality of the business mix, and to give city officials time to devise possible solutions. As Cage says, “The concern was that there was going to be a bank on every corner.” Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP, is a researcher with the American Planning Association and a Ph.D. student in urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. A complimentary packet of information on con- trolling the proliferation of bank branches and other nonretail uses is available to Zoning Practice subscribers by contacting Michael Davidson, Co-Editor, Zoning Practice, American Planning Association, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603, or send an e-mail to mdavidson@planning.org. ZPMay04.txt 6/24/04 2:14 PM Page 7 Packet Page 168 of 189 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 9 of 18 9 Packet Page 170 of 189 Packet Page 171 of 189 Packet Page 172 of 189 Packet Page 173 of 189 Packet Page 174 of 189 Packet Page 175 of 189 Packet Page 176 of 189 C OM P R E H E N S I V E P LA N La n d U s e Co m m u n i t y C u l t u r e & U r b a n D e s i g n Ut i l i t i e s Ca p i t a l F a c i l i t i e s Ho u s i n g Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i i o n & O p e n S p a c e En v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s Ec o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t P l a n Sh o r e l i n e M a s t e r Pr o g r a m Bi k e w a y P l a n Wa l k w a y P l a n 2008.06.19 Ne w : S US T A I N A B I L I T Y el e m e n t NE W : Su s t a i n a b i l i t y En v i r o n m e n t a l Qu a l i t y NE W : Co m m u n i t y H e a l t h P LA N E LE M E N T S NE W : C LI M A T E C HANGE Mo v e t o su b - s e c t i o n of n e w el e m e n t Ref : Critical Areas & Shoreline (SMP)Ref: Walkway & Bikeway plansRef: Economic Development plan S UB -S EC T I O N S Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 7 of 18 9 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 1 2008.06.19 Comprehensive Plan Community Sustainability Element Background: Climate Change, Community Health, and Environmental Quality Introduction. A relatively recent term, “sustainability” has many definitions. A commonly cited definition is one put forward by the Brundtland Commission1 in a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (December 11, 1987). The Commission defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Not focused solely on environmental sustainability, the Commission’s report emphasized the inter-related nature of environmental, economic, and social factors in sustainability. One of the keys to success in sustainability is recognizing that decision-making must be based on an integration of economic with environmental and social factors. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a number of different elements, some mandated by the Growth Management Act, and others included because they are important to the Edmonds community. This Community Sustainability Element is intended to provide a framework tying the other plan elements together, illustrating how the overall plan direction supports sustainability within the Edmonds community. Goal 1. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing. Goal 2. Develop transportation policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Take actions to reduce the use of fuel and energy in transportation, and encourage alternate forms of transportation – supported by transportation facilities and accessibility throughout the community. Goal 3. Promote seamless transportation linkages between the Edmonds community and the rest of the Puget Sound region. Goal 4. Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed to support and promote sustainability. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand the use of alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities. Goal 5. Develop economic development policies and programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage the co-location of jobs with housing in the community, seeking to expand residents’ ability to work in close proximity to their homes. Encourage and support infrastructure initiatives and land use policies that encourage and support Packet Page 178 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 2 2008.06.19 home-based work and business activities that supplement traditional business and employment concentrations. Goal 6. Develop cultural and recreational programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Networks of parks, walkways, public art and cultural facilities and events should be woven into the community’s fabric to encourage sense of place and the overall health and well being of the community. Goal 7. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in life style. Seek to form public and private partnerships to retain and promote affordable housing options. 1 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, U.N. General Assembly Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987. Packet Page 179 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 3 2008.06.19 Climate Change Introduction. The quality of the environment we live in is a critical part of what people often describe as the “character” of Edmonds. Even if it is not something we overtly think about, it is an intrinsic part of our everyday experience, whether at work, at rest or at play. Until relatively recently, environmental quality has often been thought of in terms of obvious, easily observable characteristics – such as the visible landscape, the quality of the air, the presence and variety of wildlife, or the availability and character of water in its various forms. However, recent evidence on climate change2 points to the potential fragility of our assumptions about the environment and the need to integrate and heighten the awareness of environmental issues as they are inter-related with all community policies and activities. Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate change, in September 2006, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocol3 and adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement4 by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)5 by Resolution No. 1130. Scientific evidence and consensus continues to strengthen the idea that climate disruption is an urgent threat to the environmental and economic health of our communities. Many cities, in this country and abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution, but more action is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to meet the challenge. On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate disruption, became law for the 141 countries that have ratified it to date. On that day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities. The State of Washington has also been taking steps to address the issues surrounding climate change. In March, 2008, the state legislature passed ESSHB 2815, which included monitoring and reporting mandates for state agencies along with the following emission reduction targets: Sec. 3. (1)(a) The state shall limit emissions of greenhouse gases to achieve the following emission reductions for Washington state: (i) By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990 levels; (ii) By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; (iii) By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The City of Edmonds has formally approved the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which was endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005. Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take three sets of actions, which are included as the first three goals in this section. Packet Page 180 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 4 2008.06.19 Goal 1. Urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels (alternative fuels?). Goal 2. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that 1) includes clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries Goal 3. Strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and community, such as: i. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan. ii. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities; iii. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit; iv. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology; v. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money; vi. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use; vii. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or a similar system; viii. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti- idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel; ix. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production; Packet Page 181 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 5 2008.06.19 x. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; xi. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and xii. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. Goal 4. Inventory and monitor community greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint baselines, establishing baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and program needs. These should be established for both city government, as an exemplary actor, and for the community as a whole. Goal 5. Establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability for both city government and the Edmonds community. Regularly assess progress and program needs, identifying opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets and sustainability. Goal 6. Assess the risks and potential impacts on city government operations due to climate change. Goal 7. Assess the risks and potential impacts on the Edmonds community due to climate change. Goal 8. Work with public and private partners to develop strategies and programs to prepare for and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change, both on city government operations and on the general Edmonds community. Goal 9. Develop mitigation strategies that can be used by both the public and private sectors to help mitigate the potential impacts of new and ongoing development and operations. Goal 10. Develop a strategic plan that will help guide and focus City resources and program initiatives to (1) reduce greenhouse gas production and the carbon footprint of City government and the Edmonds community, and, (2) reduce and minimize the potential risks of climate change. The strategic plan should be coordinated with and leverage state and regional goals and initiatives, but the Edmonds should look for and take the lead where we see opportunities unique to the Edmonds community. Packet Page 182 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 6 2008.06.19 2 For example, see the Fourth Assessment Report; Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007. 3 The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan, on 11, December 1997, and established potentially binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries. The Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified by the U.S. government. 4 The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement is as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Chicago in 2005. 5 ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives following the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, held at the United Nations in New York. Packet Page 183 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 7 2008.06.19 Community Health Introduction. Community health as it is used here means the overall aspects of public facilities and actions that can have an effect on the health and welfare of its citizens. The focus here is on the public realm, understanding that public actions and policies can have an impact on the well-being of its citizens. The idea is that whenever possible, government should provide opportunities for people so that they can be as self-sustaining as possible, thereby reducing the potential need for intervention from community-based or privately- derived services – services which are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to provide. Community health can, to some extent, be encouraged by promoting environmental quality. Clean water and clean air are a basic necessity when seeking to keep people healthy. However, there are certain land use and other actions that Edmonds can take to help promote– or at least provide the opportunity for its citizens to take part in – healthy lifestyles. In addition, government has a role in encouraging the provision of basic services, such as police and fire protection, while encouraging access to affordable housing and opportunities to live, work, and shop close to home. Goal 1. Develop a reporting and monitoring system of indicators designed to assess Edmonds’ progress toward sustainable community health. Goal 2. Promote a healthy community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment through a balanced program of education, regulation, and incentives. Environmental programs in Edmonds should be tailored to and reflect the unique opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea-side community with a history of environmental protection and awareness. Goal 3. Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting diversity in culture and the arts. Goal 4. Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting a diverse and creative education system, providing educational opportunities for people of all ages and all stages of personal development. Goal 5. Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting access to recreation. Goal 6. Promote a healthy community by planning for and implementing a connected system of walkways and bikeways which will provide alternative forms of transportation while also encouraging recreation, exercise and exposure to the natural environment. Goal 7. Promote a healthy community through supporting and encouraging the development of economic opportunities for all Edmonds’ citizens. Sustainable economic health should be based on encouraging a broad range of economic activity, with an Packet Page 184 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 8 2008.06.19 emphasis on locally-based businesses and economic initiatives which provide family- supporting wages and incomes. Goal 8. Encourage locally-based food production, distribution, and choice through the support of community gardens, farmers or public markets, and other small-scale, collaborative initiatives. Goal 9. Maximize the efficiency and reduction of energy consumption derived from waste streams by promoting programs and education initiatives aimed at a goal to “reduce, re-use, and recycle” at an individual and community-wide level. Goal 10. Encourage the production and preservation of affordable housing. Goal 11. Encourage the provision of a variety of types and styles of housing that will support and accommodate different citizens’ needs and life styles. The diversity of people living in Edmonds should be supported by a diversity of housing so that all citizens can find suitable housing now and as they progress through changes in their households and life stages. Goal 12. Plan for and prepare disaster preparedness plans which can be implemented as necessary to respond effectively to the impacts of natural or man-induced disasters on Edmonds residents. Goal 13. Prepare and implement hazard mitigation plans to reduce and minimize, to the extent feasible, the exposure of Edmonds citizens to future disasters or hazards. Goal 14. Support a healthy community by providing a full range of public services and infrastructure. Future planning and budgeting should be based on full life-cycle cost analysis and facility maintenance needs, as well as standards of service that best fit clearly articulated and supported community needs. Packet Page 185 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 9 2008.06.19 Environmental Quality Introduction. The environmental quality of the City of Edmonds is defined in many respects by the community’s location on the shores of Puget Sound. The city’s watersheds provide a rich and diverse water resource, evidenced by the numerous year-round streams and Lake Ballinger, which besides being a well-known landmark, is an important environmental resource because of its ecological benefits and open space quality. As Edmonds has urbanized, what was once abundant natural vegetation has become increasingly scarce. The city’s woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation provide an important resource which should be preserved. Woodlands help stabilize soils on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and sound. Natural vegetation provides habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the soil with nutrients and help stabilize slopes and reduce surface runoff. They generate oxygen and clean pollutants from the air. The beauty of landscaped areas, whether natural or human-induced, provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one development from another. These natural vistas break up and soften the urban landscape, helping to distinguish one neighborhood from another and introduce relief and differentiation into highly developed land. Wildlife is a valuable natural resource that greatly enhances the aesthetic quality of human life. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide good sites for nature trails and for other recreational and educational opportunities. City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms. Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and resident bird life. Underdeveloped wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for many birds and mammals. Many birds and mammals are dependent upon both the upland and beach areas. Goal 1. Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community-based environmental regulations that reinforce and are integrated with relevant regional, state and national environmental standards. Goal 2. Promote the improvement of environmental quality within the Edmonds community by designing and implementing programs based on a system of incentives and public education. Goal 3. Develop, monitor, and enforce critical areas regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science. Goal 4. Develop, implement, and monitor a shoreline master program, consistent with state law, to enhance and protect the quality of the shoreline environment consistent with the best available science. Packet Page 186 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 10 2008.06.19 Goal 5. Adopt a system of codes, standards and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds’ community character and charm in a sustainable way. Holistic solutions should be developed that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), “Complete Streets,” form-based zoning, and other techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances Edmonds’ character and charm for future generations to enjoy. Packet Page 187 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 11 2008.06.19 [NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ARE EXISTING GOALS/POLICIES FOUND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN] B. Goal: Water Resources. C. Goal: Natural Vegetation. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172. C.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. C.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. C.4. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. D. Goal: Wildlife. The city should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its wildlife heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving the natural habitats (woodlands, marshes, streams and beaches) of the city’s wildlife in accordance with the following policies: D.1. Establish and maintain a variety of educational and recreational programs and activities for all age levels. D.2. Erect and maintain an educational display that identifies some of the more common plants and animals and the ecology of major habitats, (i.e., sand, rock, piling and deepwater). D.3. Establish and publicize regulations prohibiting removal of non-food organisms from beach areas without collecting permit; permit for educational and research use only. D.4. Encourage landscaping and site improvement on city-owned property which recognizes the dependency of some species upon certain types of vegetation for food and cover. D.5. City park property which serves as a habitat for wildlife should be left natural with minimum development for nature trail type of use. E. Goal: Air Pollution. Air pollution can cause severe health effects and property damage under certain conditions. Although air quality is primarily a regional problem related to urbanization and meteorological conditions in the Puget Sound Basin, it is the Packet Page 188 of 189 O U T L I N E D R A F T Community Sustainability Element 12 2008.06.19 result of activities in which most citizens participate – and therefore the solutions must be shared by all citizens. Clean air is a right to all citizens of the City of Edmonds and should be protected and maintained in accordance with the following policies: E.1. Discourage expansion of arterials which will substantially increase line sources of pollution. E.2. Encourage arrangement of activities which will generate the fewest necessary automobile trip miles while avoiding undue concentration of like uses. E.3. Support, through political action, strong enforcement policies and implementation by the regional pollution control agencies. E.4. Support, by political action and financial participation, the establishment of public transportation in the community as an alternative to dependence on individual vehicles. E.5. Encourage and support commute trip reduction programs for employers. Packet Page 189 of 189